"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[kentonio]

I am saying that IF NATO established the safe zones and once they were made somewhat secure, that it would follow form that NATO would go to the UN to get a resolution to turn over control of these zones to the UN. I am saying that under those circumstances that the Russians would most likely go along with that resolution.

How do you think the US would react if Russia decided to deal with the violence in Mexico by imposing a no fly zone over it? Why do you think Russia will react any differently if the US tries to do that over Syria without it's approval?

That being said, I suspect I already know what Obama would do if he had hard intel with a high level of confidence. He would probably do just what he is doing now...nothing.

Oh gosh, you don't like Obama? You've kept that hidden pretty well. Obviously he wouldn't do anything, which is why he didn't kill Bin Laden when he got the chance and didn't intervene in Libya.

[PLATO]

How do you think the US would react if Russia decided to deal with the violence in Mexico by imposing a no fly zone over it? Why do you think Russia will react any differently if the US tries to do that over Syria without it's approval?

That's a fair point actually. I don't believe that the Russians would go up against the U.S. in Syria. I do believe that the U.S. would go up against Russia in Mexico though. If your point is that the U.S. is arrogant about these things, then I would have to agree with you there. However, the reality is that the U.S. can project its power a lot better than the Russians can. In fact, I would even go so far to say that we can put more force in/over (whatever) Syria than Russia can. The bottom line on that one is that the Russians are very good at only picking fights they can win. Still...you do make a valid point I think.

Oh gosh, you don't like Obama? You've kept that hidden pretty well. Obviously he wouldn't do anything, which is why he didn't kill Bin Laden when he got the chance and didn't intervene in Libya.

I have kept that hidden pretty well, haven't I?

Seriously, there is a big difference. The Bin Laden operation and Libya were both low risk (Bin Laden was probably high risk politically, but militarily low risk). Syria is a high risk situation. My personal opinion is that Obama is afraid of high risk decisions like the one it would take to become involved in the Syrian revolution.

[kentonio]

That's a fair point actually. I don't believe that the Russians would go up against the U.S. in Syria. I do believe that the U.S. would go up against Russia in Mexico though. If your point is that the U.S. is arrogant about these things, then I would have to agree with you there. However, the reality is that the U.S. can project its power a lot better than the Russians can. In fact, I would even go so far to say that we can put more force in/over (whatever) Syria than Russia can. The bottom line on that one is that the Russians are very good at only picking fights they can win. Still...you do make a valid point I think.

My point isn't really that the US government is arrogant about the balance of US/Russia power, but rather that the US public have become arrogant and extremely unrealistic about where that balance lies. It feels like people have completely bought into the idea that winning the cold war involved an actual defeat of Russia. Russia may have had (yet another) revolution of sorts, but the new Russia is rebuilding its military and they have a lot of very modern equipment.

As for projecting power, you may need to check a map again. The US have to reach halfway around the world, Russia have to reach just outside their borders.

[kentonio]

Seriously, there is a big difference. The Bin Laden operation and Libya were both low risk (Bin Laden was probably high risk politically, but militarily low risk). Syria is a high risk situation. My personal opinion is that Obama is afraid of high risk decisions like the one it would take to become involved in the Syrian revolution.

Good, he should be. The problem with high risk military actions is precisely that they are high risk. If there isn't an extremely critical reason to take huge risks, then you really shouldn't be taking them with the lives of American servicemen and women.

[PLATO]

My point isn't really that the US government is arrogant about the balance of US/Russia power, but rather that the US public have become arrogant and extremely unrealistic about where that balance lies. It feels like people have completely bought into the idea that winning the cold war involved an actual defeat of Russia. Russia may have had (yet another) revolution of sorts, but the new Russia is rebuilding its military and they have a lot of very modern equipment.

I completely agree with this.

As for projecting power, you may need to check a map again. The US have to reach halfway around the world, Russia have to reach just outside their borders.

I stand by my thoughts on that. Russia does have projection ability, but it is tiny compared to the U.S. The prepositioned equipment that the U.S. has in the region along with what the Maritime sea lift could quickly get there from places like Diego Garcia are much more than the Russians would be able to airlift in. Russia needs a land connection to move any significant men and material. They don't have one to Syria...unless of couse you think either Turkey or Irag and Iran would agree to Russian armies crossing their territory.

[PLATO]

Good, he should be. The problem with high risk military actions is precisely that they are high risk. If there isn't an extremely critical reason to take huge risks, then you really shouldn't be taking them with the lives of American servicemen and women.

Yes, I agree. I am just saying that faced with "an extremely critical reason" that he would still fail to act. Now, that might be differences in what we think "an extremely critical reason" is, or it could be just that we see the man differently...or maybe both?

[kentonio]

They don't have one to Syria...unless of couse you think either Turkey or Irag and Iran would agree to Russian armies crossing their territory.

Iran would probably have no problem at all allowing the Russians through their territory to **** with the US. I think you're underestimating Russia's air capabilities though.

[kentonio]

Yes, I agree. I am just saying that faced with "an extremely critical reason" that he would still fail to act. Now, that might be differences in what we think "an extremely critical reason" is, or it could be just that we see the man differently...or maybe both?

What I want to know is why you have that view? The risk might have been more political than military, but he took the risk with Bin Laden and acted to help the US allies in Libya. I simply have no idea why you imagine he wouldn't act on Syria if needed other than your political bias against the guy.

[DaShi]

I think you are probably talking about Benghazi. Yes, I ripped him there good. There is a difference between letting terrorist hang out by the pool while we just watch and committing major military assets to secure chemical weapons in a hostile situation.

That being said, I suspect I already know what Obama would do if he had hard intel with a high level of confidence. He would probably do just what he is doing now...nothing.

You imagined that you ripped him good. I'm referring to you previous thread about this topic, when the evidence was even more flimsy. But it doesn't matter. You have no credibility in my eyes anymore.

[PLATO]

You imagined that you ripped him good. I'm referring to you previous thread about this topic, when the evidence was even more flimsy. But it doesn't matter. You have no credibility in my eyes anymore.

Oh man. I am heartbroken. Does this mean you are putting me on ignore?

Here is the old thread for those who wish to see for themselves.

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/202428-Has-the-Red-Line-been-crossed

[Dinner]

6.) Russia and China would be all over getting U.S. forces deescalated and replacing them with UN forces...particularly if we allowed Russian and Chinese allies to take the lead.
7.) I have confidence enough in our air power to make it painful enough to Assad to not do to much shelling of "safe zones"

Who says China or Russia want to take on an expensive peace keeping mission especially since they'd obviously just back Assad's forces or at the very least the rebels wouldn't see them as honest brokers and so wouldn't respect them and would probably plan terrorist attacks to get them to leave. Air power can do a lot but they can't keep ground forces out of an area; you need ground forces for that and no one in the US thinks Syria is worth the life of a single G.I.. I sure don't.

Next, even if we unilaterally set up safe havens the rebels will surely use those as bases to group their forces so in short order Assad's forces would have to respond by attacking them. There is no possible way to set up a safe zone without ground forces, none at all. Lastly, once again, we still don't know which side did what or if it was even an intentional attack or if it was just one bunker with stored munitions which blew up like thousands of other buildings. It would be stupid to join in a war when we can't even prove who did what. There is no point and surely not one big enough to risk allied money or lives.

P.S. I doubt any other NATO countries would materially support such an adventure either especially since it would be a tough sell during a time of austerity. Voters don't like it when their health care and pensions get slashed yet the government can magically come up with billions to wage unnecissary foreign wars. The whole thing is a nonstarter so at best drop a few bombs as a show of force then call it a day but even that risks a wider war with Iran (according to Iran's public pronouncements) so why even bother with that? Just keep doing what we already are doing and then have a war crimes trial later if there is evidence to support one.

[SlowwHand]

I believe both Russia and China had rather deal with the U.N. and that's one reason I'm against it.

[kentonio]

I believe both Russia and China had rather deal with the U.N. and that's one reason I'm against it.

You think they'd rather deal with a body made up of all the world countries rather than just NATO, an organization set up intentionally to oppose them? Gosh, I wonder why..

[SlowwHand]

I think they'd rather deal with the wimp U.N., yes I do. The U.N. has shown time and again that it's a worthless organization.

[DaShi]

Oh man. I am heartbroken. Does this mean you are putting me on ignore?

Here is the old thread for those who wish to see for themselves.

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/2...e-been-crossed

Why would I put you on ignore? You're not annoying. You're unhealthily obsessed. You seem like a decent person, but when it comes to the president, you discard all reason.