Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, bad things are happening elsewhere in the world.  Let's not talk about aleppo, because the saudis are horrible.  Tell me more about selective perception.

Here, try this.

The saudis are horrible -and- the shit in aleppo is unacceptable.

How does that work for you? Matter of fact, I';ll prface my criticism of anything or anyone...going forward, with the phrase "the saudis are horrible".

[abaris]

Yep, bad things are happening elsewhere in the world.  Let's not talk about aleppo, because the saudis are horrible.  Tell me more about selective perception.

Thanks for twisting my words yet again. Or "misunderstanding". I refuse ot believe that you don't get what I'm saying. That we should start to care for the actual people instead of pointing fingers and entering a contest who's able to commit the bigger war crimes. While at the same time giving bad names to people fleeing the region and giving them the boot instead of actually helping them. I mean, our countries are that poor that we can't support refugees fleeing war zones.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then start caring for actual people, rather than propogating a myth, since discredited, regarding the situation on the ground -and in the air- in aleppo, and backing it up with some shit about the saudis.

[abaris]

Then start caring for actual people, rather than propogating a myth, since discredited, regarding the situation on the ground -and in the air- in alepppo, and backing it up with some shit about the saudis.

Why should I focus on Aleppo if refugees came in masses last year and were kicked about all over Europe, America nad Australia before Aleppo was even on the horizon? Aleppo is just one tiny, tiny instance in a sea of shit. A sea of shit we failed to fight already. By not offering shelter and food to the ones in need. By letting them drown in the Mediterranean by the thousands and only have a short moment of crocodile tears if children were washed up on the shores. By simply refusing to let them in. By building walls and fences to keep them out. By calling them names to add insult to injury to change some political dime.

[The Grand Nudger]

To whit, the us is-

concerned it could be implicated in potential war crimes in Yemen because of its support for a Saudi-led coalition air campaign. 

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/11/u...omb_yemeni


Notice that nowhere in that story does obama get quoted as saying "well, we don't know, maybe the mourners were bad dudes too. Besides, have you seen what's going on in aleppo!".

[abaris]

So? I don't expect them to.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then start caring for actual people, rather than propogating a myth, since discredited, regarding the situation on the ground -and in the air- in alepppo, and backing it up with some shit about the saudis.

Why should I focus on Aleppo if refugees came in masses last year and were kicked about all over Europe, America nad Australia before Aleppo was even on the horizon? Aleppo is just one tiny, tiny instance in a sea of shit. A sea of shit we failed to fight already. By not offering shelter and food to the ones in need. By letting them drown in the Mediterranean by the thousands and only have a short moment of crocodile tears if children were washed up on the shores. By simply refusing to let them in. By building walls and fences to keep them out. By calling them names to add insult to injury to change some political dime.

..............you do realize that aleppo is the point of origin for a large number of those refugees?  I mean hell, maybe care for all of those reasons you just mentioned, idk? First, assad attacked them, they poured out. Then, isis attacked them...they poured out. Now, russia attacks them...but they can no longer escape. If they could escape, there's nowhere to go.

So? I don't expect them to.

-and I didn't expect -you- to, but you did.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course it's a pretext. Driving moderates into radical arms would be sound strategy, if you're a Russian commander.

One additional motive not mentioned in the article: Russia may be wishing to terrorize the non-combatants in Aleppo so that other cities don't welcome any rebel presence for fear of similar treatment.

Making an example of them, if you'll pardon the callousness of the phrase in this context.

ETA: At the very end the article makes a nod to this idea. Disregard this comment.

So let me get this straight...radicalizing moderates serves our interests?

No. Killing radicals is in our interest. I was, in the post you quoted, speaking from the point-of-view of a Russian commander (I'd thought I made that clear). There is, of course, a balance, which must be judged, and that is what we're doing here. Are they making more radicals than they're killing? Will those radicals hate America more, or Russia more? Bloody hands draw the flies. Is it not best to let someone else do our dirty work?

Our interest in defeating radicals?  Doesn't that seem counterproductive to -american- interests?
(I;m not concerned with whatever shortsighted and shitty idea a russian commander may have)

You might not be concerned about those views, but the Syrians are. And that's exactly why the Russians are behaving as they are -- to change local views about the value of resistance vs the value of obeisance. Go along to get along, right? The Russians are pushing that at gunpoint, and while it might be wrong morally, from the standpoint of strategy it makes perfect sense. And let the Russians absorb the casualties, the expense, the opprobrium of the world, for this action. Meanwhile, we get some of what we want, at no cost except for enmity from extremists who are already aligned against us.

We cannot enforce our interests in that country, without a massive deployment. POTUS knows he doesn't have support for that. POTUS thinks (I suspect, and he's probably right) that such a deployment would drag us much closer to a war with Russia, which is clearly not a desirable outcome.

Stay above the fray, I say, and let events sort themselves out. Will people suffer and die? Most assuredly. But any intervention on our part seems unlikely to change that -- and I think it'll likely add to the cost. I'm struggling to think of an intervention we Americans have made in a civil war that decisively quelled it ... and I'm drawing a blank.

You got anything?

[The Grand Nudger]

No. Killing radicals is in our interest. I was, in the post you quoted, speaking from the point-of-view of a Russian commander (I'd thought I made that clear). There is, of course, a balance, which must be judged, and that is what we're doing here. Are they making more radicals than they're killing? Will those radicals hate America more, or Russia more? Bloody hands draw the flies. Is it not best to let someone else do our dirty work?

Well, since they're stalled in a quagmire against -actual- isis forces,, and seem to be cheifly engaged in creating more radicals out of moderates, for whatever misguided reason..why would I expect a different result out of their involvement in syria than the one we just achieved out of iraq?  Trouble is, that all the radicals they make will be our problem (and the worlds problem)...you see we created isis, remember?  It's a useful dumpster for russian forces.  They get to make the same problem bigger and wash their hands.  What balance, what dirty work of ours are they doing?

You might not be concerned about those views, but the Syrians are.

Assad is, saying that syrians are concerned is a stretch.  Those people -are- syrians.  Again, the people in aleppo, not isis.

And that's exactly why the Russians are behaving as they are -- to change local views about the value of resistance vs the value of obeisance. Go along to get along, right? The Russians are pushing that at gunpoint, and while it might be wrong morally, from the standpoint of strategy it makes perfect sense. And let the Russians absorb the casualties, the expense, the opprobrium of the world, for this action. Meanwhile, we get some of what we want, at no cost except for enmity from Muslims who are already aligned against us.

....but we're -not- getting what we want, not even a little bit..out of russian involvement in syria, and ultimately the russians won't absorb any opprobrium other than that which they've already deemed acceptable unless we (as in the world) pile it on over aleppo.  I feel like it doesn't matter how many links I drop...we're discussing some fantasy scenario that isn't happening as though it should inform policy about what -is- happening......?

We cannot enforce our interests in that country, without a massive deployment. POTUS knows he doesn't have support for that. POTUS thinks (I suspect, and he's probably right) that such a deployment would drag us much closer to a war with Russia, which is clearly not a desirable outcome.

Stay above the fray, I say, and let events sort themselves out. Will people suffer and die? Most assuredly. But any intervention on our part seems unlikely to change that -- and I think it'll likely add to the cost. I'm struggling to think of an intervention we Americans have made in a civil war that decisively quelled it ... and I'm drawing a blank.

You got anything?

I already shared my opinion on that.  I don't think we could fix their problems either, but I do think we could prevent others from -continuing- to make them -worse- as they chase their own interests..which have nothing to do with ours, and do not advance ours. Do you think that anyone should be required to offer a plan to "fix syria", just to oppose the intentional bombing of civilians? If all a dirtbag has to do is threaten to get even shittier when we oppose warcrimes then whats the fucking point? That's an endorsement of appeasing belligerents. It hasn't, historically, been all that successful at either stopping warcrimes or preventing war.

At least, in this case, putin (and every single person under him) would have to be a madman to do anything that lead to war with the us, even if he could blame us for it all day long. That the spectre of a war with russia even arises is ridiculous. Russia wants this grab so long as it doesn't cost them the castle. They're not going to risk -everything- just to fuck around in syria..they'll keep this shit up as long as there's no real opposition and that's all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, since they're stalled in a quagmire against -actual- isis forces,, and seem to be cheifly engaged in creating more radicals out of moderates, for whatever misguided reason..why would I expect a different result out of their involvement in syria than the one we just achieved out of iraq?  Trouble is, that all the radicals they make will be our problem (and the worlds problem)...you see we created isis, remember?

See, I don't think that all the radicals will hate America for allowing Russia in (if they don't already!). I think that if it's Russian attack bombers doing the dirty work, that's where the mud's gonna stick, mostly. Yes, these radicals may be the world's problem, but so long as they're in Syria shooting at Russians, are they ours? Should we hunt them up and invite them to a duel? No. As Sun-Tzu wrote, never interrupt an enemy in the act of making a mistake. The Russians are digging into a war that's been running for five years and shows little sign of ending.

 

It's a useful dumpster for russian forces.  They get to make the same problem bigger and wash their hands.  What balance, what dirty work of ours are they doing?  

Writing down extremist forces, and preoccupying them.

Assad is, saying that syrians are concerned is a stretch.  Those people -are- syrians.  Again, the people in aleppo, not isis.

No doubt it's a humanitarian crisis. But Syrians are concerned enough to flee, at mortal consequence in too many occasions, for their own concerns. I don't think it's a "stretch" at all to say they're concerned. Indeed, that sort of drain from their own country spells worse for its future, and buttresses your own point. But -- what decisive action can we take that you'd recommend? What can we do, in our opinion?

I think that nothing we can do will change anything, unless we are willing to engage in another ten-year deployment and throw another 5,000 lives and a couple of trillion dollars down the drain.

How'd that work out in Iraq?

....but we're -not- getting what we want, not even a little bit..out of russian involvement in syria, and ultimately the russians won't absorb any opprobrium other than that which they've already deemed acceptable unless we (as in the world) pile it on over aleppo.  I feel like it doesn't matter how many links I drop...we're discussing some fantasy scenario that isn't happening as though it should inform policy about what -is- happening......?

Oh, I'm not fantasizing. What I'm doing is arguing to stay out of a fight that is not ours to begin with. We are getting something out of Russian involvement there (see above for tie-down etc); not much, admittedly, but we are letting two adversaries have at each other. It's a shame that civilians are dying in the crossfire, but you're a retired infantryman, right? You know better than most that that is part and parcel in the bargain.

If the Russians deem that opprobrium acceptable, more power to 'em. Military power is not the only lever, and while other levers might work slower, cut pretty sharp all the same.

I already shared my opinion on that.  I don't think we could fix their problems either, but I do think we could prevent others from -continuing- to make them -worse- as they chase their own interests..which have nothing to do with ours, and do not advance ours.  Do you think that anyone should be required to offer a plan to "fix syria", just to oppose the intentional bombing of civilians?

Yes, actually if you want to stop the bombing of civilians, you're going to have to fix Syria ... because that's pretty much what the problem is, if you haven't noticed already. They are bombing civilians because the country is broken. Air Force propaganda aside, you cannot bomb someone to the negotiating table -- if people want to fight, it's going to happen.

Now, how would you propose dissuading Russia in their course of action? Be realistic. As awful as what they are doing is, the ony real alternative is to send in our own ground troops, and either put them on a tight leash to serve as targets, or open up the possibility of open war with a nation possessing nuclear arms. Is it worth that? I will refer again to the Trolley Problem. I'm not saying you must "offer a plan" ... but I am saying that there may not be any plan at all that can fix this.

How would you prevent "others" -- in this case, Russia -- from making things worse, without provoking a wider war with a nuclear power?

 

If all a dirtbag has to do is threaten to get even shittier when we oppose warcrimes then whats the fucking point?  That's an endorsement of  appeasing belligerents.  It hasn't, historically, been all that successful at either stopping warcrimes or preventing war.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm speaking from a strategic and not emotional viewpoint. I share your distress at the suffering Syrians are enduring; I know a couple here with family back there and wish I could give more than kind words. But I'm talking in terms of American strategy. In this case, we cannot stop the dirtbag from being a dirtbag. But what we can do is make sure the blood sticks to his hands.

You want justice? Get thee to a courtroom. I'll happily testify to the shittiness of your accused in this case. But I doubt it will do much. And bombs won't either, because all you'll do is widen the conflict.

Trolley Problem.

At least, in this case, putin (and every single person under him) would have to be a madman to do anything that lead to war with the us, even if he could blame us for it all day long.

I think you're imposing your own thinking onto the issue. Putin's gauging is very close to the mark. He knows we suffer imperial overstretch; he knows we can't even afford to replace a 30-year-old tank. Could we beat them in a short Syrian war? No doubt, no doubt at all -- my high-flyin' Air Force will make sure of that.

The real question is -- is such a war in our national interest?

I don't think it is.

 That the spectre of a war with russia even arises is ridiculous.  Russia wants this grab so long as it doesn't cost them the castle.  They're not going to risk -everything- just to fuck around in syria..they'll keep this shit up as long as there's no real opposition and that's all.

The problem with this reasoning is that the only thing that can stop Russia is ... wait for it ... an act of war. That's kinda why the spectre of war arises in this conversation. You ain't gonna stop them with chocolates and gift bags.

Perhaps if you floated your preferred solution, this conversation could be clarified? What do you think we should do to fix the situation in Aleppo?