Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[henryp]

It's easy to see what interest russia has in Syria, I just wonder what our interest is supposed to be?

Opposing Russia?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not according to anyone who thinks we should buddy up with assad and putin.

[henryp]

Not according to anyone who thinks we should buddy up with assad and putin.

Oh, I thought team buddy up was only interested in killing ISIS, and not Syria.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Trump agreed with her on the no fly zone, it as one of the few times in either debate he fully agreed with her...so you think he too wants to start ww3? Or are we just overlooking facts as usual?

I'm not overlooking the facts. I'm merely noting what was said in the video. Based on the exchange presented in that video it would appear Donald Trump is more sensible. There rebels in Syria are pretty much all crazy Islamists and should not be supported.

P.S. Donald Trump is supposed to be friends with Putin so there is that. So I don't think he would have Russian planes shot down on purpose. At the every least Donald gave the appearance of being more sensible.

Edit: And can I just add that if Hilary is given a free pass for being a flip-flippor then it's only fair Donald gets a free pass too. I don't think anybody should get a free pass for not to being consistent personally (and Donald has said some terrible things). I'm merely noting Donald evolution on the issue, which is in a good direction, rather like Hilary's evolution on equal marriage.

There's no way to impose any NFZ without either gaining Russia's cooperation (which isn't going to happen) ... or shooting at them, which is an act of war.

The NFZ talk is simply politicians trying to look like they have answers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's easy to see what interest russia has in Syria, I just wonder what our interest is supposed to be?

Opposing Russia?

If that's desirable, don't you think it's better pursued by letting them expend their blood, arms, and money pursuing an aim which we consider desirable to an extent anyway?

[The Grand Nudger]

What aim are they pursuing, that we desire?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What aim are they pursuing, that we desire?

Preserving their basing agreements by propping up a client state would be my guess. But in so doing, they're killing a lot of extremists, and yes, non-combatants. We desire the former (that's where our interests overlap, imo), and wish to avoid doing the latter ourselves.

This delivers both our desiderata.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd make them a deal, stop targeting non combatants explicitly, and it's workable.  Thing is, they don't seem to be interested in that. It;s already been requested, they stopped for a minute to think about it, then resumed bombing. They're intent on making themselves a pariah state...and that, imo, serves our interests.

[Pat Mustard]

That certainly isn't intended to be a Trump endorsement. But he's less likely to go full chest pounding gorilla on Russia. But that's about the only thing speaking in his favor as far as foreign policy is concerned.

Well, considering Trumps policy vis a vis Russia is to roll over and beg for a belly rubbing, I honestly think he's just going down the same misguided route the EU has followed regarding the country over the last eight years.

You've got to remember that Russia, despite all of Putin's homoerotic tough guy looks and prioritisation of the military, is very much a paper tiger. Unlike the USSR the country really doesn't have a military that can sustain a campaign any more against properly committed opposition.

[The Grand Nudger]

The USSR was a paper tiger as well. More a useful fiction, for us, than anything else.