BREAKING: French murder 120 Syrian Civilians days after US murders 20

How many died from Syrian and Russian forces?

Oh, you mean the people who are operating legally in Syria?

You seem to have a "war is hell" attitude whenever this situation comes up, but don't we have to operate from a legal standpoint when it comes to these things?

The administration is using war authorization based on the "war on terror" to not only wantonly destroy regimes of our choosing but to provide sloppy air support for the very types of people the war authorization was originally intended to destroy.

The US has no legal right to be in Syria. It's my belief they only made attempts to jointly work with Russia to get legitimization by proxy, since Russia is there legally.

Why are we there? That is the question. The real answer to that question is for reasons that are not good, in my opinion, and therefore we shouldn't be there. "Other people are bad too" and "they started it" responses don't really make for constructive discussion.
 
Oh, you mean the people who are operating legally in Syria?

You seem to have a "war is hell" attitude whenever this situation comes up, but don't we have to operate from a legal standpoint when it comes to these things?

The administration is using war authorization based on the "war on terror" to not only wantonly destroy regimes of our choosing but to provide sloppy air support for the very types of people the war authorization was originally intended to destroy.

The US has no legal right to be in Syria. It's my belief they only made attempts to jointly work with Russia to get legitimization by proxy, since Russia is there legally.

Why are we there? That is the question. The real answer to that question is for reasons that are not good, in my opinion, and therefore we shouldn't be there. "Other people are bad too" and "they started it" responses don't really make for constructive discussion.

Only reason Russia cares is that they have an important warm water port at Tartus. They want a stable friendly country so they can continue to use it. They don't really care who is in charge and they don't care about ISIS or Assad himself. Their Black Sea port at Sevastapol is their main interest in Ukraine (noting they only took over that part of the country along with the strip of land which gives them access to it).
 
Only reason Russia cares is that they have an important warm water port at Tartus. They want a stable friendly country so they can continue to use it. They don't really care who is in charge and they don't care about ISIS or Assad himself.

And you know this how? Exactly?
 
Only reason Russia cares is that they have an important warm water port at Tartus. They want a stable friendly country so they can continue to use it. They don't really care who is in charge and they don't care about ISIS or Assad himself. Their Black Sea port at Sevastapol is their main interest in Ukraine (noting they only took over that part of the country along with the strip of land which gives them access to it).

That government is corrupt is a truism. You seem to want to point out that "they're all the same". But while the problem is indeed government corruption, a more pressing problem that prevents that even being addressed is that Americans don't want to recognize the nature of their own government. That is why I posted the story, because I believe it will be ignored in short order, and shouldn't be.

Pointing out that everyone acts out of self-interest does not excuse immoral action just because all are guilty of it. This forum is supposed to be one where rule of law is promoted not the collectivism of nationalism that self-interested politics gravitates towards.

We can't just chuck out the rule of law and moral codes in general. The site wouldn't really have a purpose. We would transition beyond the Nazi's into the realm of the storm-fronter neo-reactionary nihilists that are waiting in the wings for this whole thing to burn down.

Nihilists! ..Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos. - Walter Sobchak
 
And you know this how? Exactly?

One source: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/navy-base-syria-crimea-putin/408694/

In the past year and a half, Russia has intervened militarily in two countries, Ukraine and Syria, where revolution and extreme political polarization threatened the governments of pro-Russian leaders. And that’s pretty much where the similarities between the campaigns end, except for one other commonality: Both Syria and Ukraine are home to Russian naval bases—in Tartus and Sevastopol, respectively.

Ports, and especially warm-water ports, have long played an important role in Russian foreign policy. Russia isn’t landlocked, of course, but Europe-facing ports such as Arkhangelsk and St. Petersburg were historically ice-locked for part of the year before the advent of the icebreaker in the 20th century (Russia’s port at Murmansk is ice-free, but it was built in 1915, and the Russian port at Vladivostok is on the Pacific). Moreover, none of these ports, even when open for business, allow for easy access to the bustling Mediterranean Sea. This has left Russia with an economic and military incentive to expand toward warmer waters. Beginning just before the reign of Peter the Great in the late 17th century, Russia fought a series of wars with the Ottoman Empire in a quest to establish a warm-water port off the Black Sea. By 1812, Russia had managed to secure control of the entire northern coast of the Black Sea.

Even with year-round ports on the Black Sea, access to the Mediterranean was still governed by the whims of whoever controlled the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits. During World War I, Russia made a never-consummated secret agreement with Britain and France that would have granted it control of Constantinople and the Turkish straits if the Allies proved victorious. Although Russia enjoyed access to naval bases throughout the Mediterranean during the Soviet era, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. brought an end to that access, with the exception of Russia’s base in Tartus, Syria.

Tartus lies on Syria’s western coast and has had a Russian naval presence since 1971. At the time, the Soviet Union was Syria’s primary arms supplier and used the deep-water port as a destination for shipments of Soviet weapons. Russia managed to maintain access to Tartus after the fall of the U.S.S.R. due in part to a deal that wrote off Syrian debts to the Soviet Union. The Russian naval base itself is reportedly less than impressive—it lacks large-scale repair facilities and a command-and-control capability, which would allow Russia to oversee operations from Tartus—but it is able to accommodate all Russian naval vessels except for the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, and offers a means of offloading arms and personnel.

The city and naval base of Sevastopol, on the Crimean peninsula, were founded in 1783 by the Russian Empire, and the city remained part of Russia until its transfer to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1978. Six years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia renounced territorial claims to the city in exchange for a 20-year lease of the warm-water naval base. It’s a military asset with substantial strategic and symbolic value. The base houses Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and Mediterranean Task Force, the latter of which was only reestablished in 2013, and helps Russia project power in the Black Sea region and into the Mediterranean. The port was also the site of two major wartime sieges. As of last year, 15,000 Russian naval personnel were stationed at the base; in 2008, it served as a staging ground for blockades and amphibious landings during Russia’s war with Georgia.

More at link.
 
Only reason Russia cares is that they have an important warm water port at Tartus. They want a stable friendly country so they can continue to use it. They don't really care who is in charge and they don't care about ISIS or Assad himself. Their Black Sea port at Sevastapol is their main interest in Ukraine (noting they only took over that part of the country along with the strip of land which gives them access to it).

I do not blame them. They are not very welcome in the most of Europe so to have some kind of friendly port out there is foreign policy 101. Furthermore, I don't blame them because I like Russians just as much as any foreigner. As individuals.

They do care who is in charge, Assad brings stability, someone else is anybodies guess.


I am pissed off by this news though. Revenge is never good, even though it may be unintentional or not linked at all. If we are at war with ISIS - and I have not seen the declarations yet - then we need to strike them, not civilians.
 
From a few days ago:

Erdogan was getting friendly with Putin.

Because of the possibility of a Trump Presidency, the U.S. State Dept. has decided to act against Assad before the election.

A coup was sponsored against Erdogan to prevent Turkey's relationship with Russia from being a hindrance in the effort against Syria.

Kerry goes to Moscow to inform Putin that it's going to happen and to warn him against getting involved.

The take away from it all, as mentioned, war with Syria is very imminent.
 
Russia rightfully does not want Assad tossed out without somebody else to replace him- otherwise Syria will descend into even worse chaos. They would like to ease him out and have elections to replace him. Note that the US too has backed off calls for the immediate removal of Assad. They have blamed Assad for the mess Syria is in now. They had to go in and bail him out by helping him expand his "security zone" though they stopped before securing the entire country.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-road-to-syria-bill-whitaker/

Vladimir Komoyedov: If you cut off the head, you get chaos. There's chaos in Libya, chaos essentially in Iraq. Half the country is under ISIL. And the head was chopped off there, you see. So, if you want to so stubbornly remove the leaders of Syria, it's an enormous mistake.

Bill Whitaker: I'm just wondering if you believe that Assad has a role in the future of Syria?

Vladimir Komoyedov: The problem is that he has lost some of his authority. The people themselves must figure out, in elections, whom to follow and how to build their lives, which have been essentially ruined in Syria.

Ruined, in large part, by President Assad's own military. We got the sense Admiral Komoyedov is not crazy about the Syrian president, who has dropped bombs on his own people. The admiral used a derogatory term to describe Assad, then asked that we not repeat it on TV.

Vladimir Komoyedov: We know why the opposition was formed. It was formed due to the mistakes of the president of Syria himself.

Komoyedov is in charge of Russian military in Syria.
 
Ok, I do remember that, but how do you see this escalating the war?

From the linked report, this wasn't an attack on ISIS. This was a strike against an area near the Turkish border which maintains loyalty to Assad.

In plain terms, this was an attack against Syria.
 
The Syrian government is announcing the deaths of civillians, and I don't doubt that Civillians were indeed killed. But I don't believe that the primary mission was to kill civillians.

This was a strategic assault against Pro Assad forces.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the attack. Just the opposite. I don't want war in Syria. But this is U.S. coalition fighters going directly against Assad's forces instead of continuing to allow ISIS surrogates to do it for them.

This is what the U.S. government has wanted to do for several years.
 
Back
Top