Russia Preps To Shoot Down US Planes In Syria

[rangerrebew]

 
Russia Preps To Shoot Down US Planes In Syria
Photo of Saagar Enjeti
Saagar Enjeti
9:30 AM 10/04/2016
Share
0
 
Russian servicemen stand atop military vehicles during the Victory Day parade, marking the 71st anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two, at Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2016. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin   Russian servicemen stand atop military vehicles during the Victory Day parade, marking the 71st anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two, at Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2016. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin

Russia is deploying its most advanced missile defense system to Syria, likely to deter any U.S. plans to increase strikes on non-Islamic State targets.

“Nusra doesn’t have an air force do they?” one U.S. official sarcastically told Fox News when asked who the system was meant to deter. Nusra is a reference to al-Qaida’s Syrian affiliate, who Russia often says they target. The official’s comment implies the U.S. believes Russia’s deployment is meant to constrain U.S. options in Syria.

The U.S. Department of State cut off all bilateral relations with Russia over Syria Monday, after Russia refused to stop indiscrimately bombing the city of Aleppo on behalf of the Assad regime. U.S. defense officials confirmed Russia will be able to thwart any potential U.S. cruise missile strikes in Syria with the new system.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/04/russia-preps-to-shoot-down-us-planes-in-syria/#ixzz4M7ktwA9u

[skeeter]

I don't understand the desperate need of some in government to get rid of Assad. Is getting rid of him worth risking getting into a shooting war with Russia?

Whats at stake for us in Syria?

[jpsb]

I don't understand the desperate need of some in government to get rid of Assad. Is getting rid of him worth risking getting into a shooting war with Russia?

Whats at stake for us in Syria?

Assad is not a devote Sunni Muslim, so our Muslim Brotherhood government in DC want to get rid of Assad. Just like they got rid of Mubraic in Egypt and Kadafiy in Libya.  Right now our foriegn policy is to anything and everything it can to advance the cause of (radical) Islam (Sunni version).

Hillary will of course continue our pro Muslim policies.

@skeeter

[r9etb]

I don't understand the desperate need of some in government to get rid of Assad. Is getting rid of him worth risking getting into a shooting war with Russia?

Whats at stake for us in Syria?

That's an excellent question, Skeeter. 

I think part of what's at stake for "us" is Obama's ego.  He decided that Assad, admittedly a bad guy, had to go -- just like Qadaffi, and to hell with the consequences of leaving a vacuum to be filled by ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Another part is that Putin has goaded Obama and Kerry into a pissing contest, which the result that Putin and Russia have become the de facto Great Power in the Middle East, and he's made the US look pitiful.  And although they realize something is very wrong, neither Obama nor Kerry seem even to have figured it out, much less how to get out of it.

Yet another part is that Obama/Kerry/Clinton represent the very worst of leftist foreign policy, which has long been committed to overthrowing bad guys (and we can admit that Assad is a bad guy), with no thought to what comes next.

The truth is that there actually is something at stake in Syria: the likelihood that an Assad defeat will usher in an aggressive Islamic state that is bound to Iran, and will attack Israel given the chance.... with uncertain results: would Israel employ nukes as a last resort? 

Anyway, to avoid that would basically require us to join Russia in propping up Assad, until such time as he can be replaced by some other unsavory but basically rational dictator.  And we can't have that, can we?

[skeeter]

That's an excellent question, Skeeter. 

I think part of what's at stake for "us" is Obama's ego.  He decided that Assad, admittedly a bad guy, had to go -- just like Qadaffi, and to hell with the consequences of leaving a vacuum to be filled by ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Another part is that Putin has goaded Obama and Kerry into a pissing contest, which the result that Putin and Russia have become the de facto Great Power in the Middle East, and he's made the US look pitiful.  And although they realize something is very wrong, neither Obama nor Kerry seem even to have figured it out, much less how to get out of it.

Yet another part is that Obama/Kerry/Clinton represent the very worst of leftist foreign policy, which has long been committed to overthrowing bad guys (and we can admit that Assad is a bad guy), with no thought to what comes next.

The truth is that there actually is something at stake in Syria: the likelihood that an Assad defeat will usher in an aggressive Islamic state that is bound to Iran, and will attack Israel given the chance.... with uncertain results: would Israel employ nukes as a last resort? 

Anyway, to avoid that would basically require us to join Russia in propping up Assad, until such time as he can be replaced by some other unsavory but basically rational dictator.  And we can't have that, can we?

@r9etb
@jpsb

Too bad. I was hoping there was some vital geostrategic US interest involved I was unaware of, like a naval base or a proposed oil pipeline route.

If this thing does blow up I wonder how our leaders propose to sell the war and its costs to the American people.

[r9etb]

Too bad. I was hoping there was some vital geostrategic US interest involved I was unaware of, like a naval base or a proposed oil pipeline route.

I think there is a geostrategic US interest there: the need to keep the Middle East from falling wholesale into the hands of the Islamofascist crazies.  The consequences of that are rather awful to contemplate. 

The effects on the oil economy aside, consider if the Suez Canal were controlled by jihadists.  Consider if Israel were not there.  Basically, it would all collapse back into an expansionist version of the Ottoman Empire, and would most likely usher in a major war - even a world war, with China and Russia's interests making them unpredictable.

So, yeah, we have significant geostrategic interests in the region.  Unfortunately, to serve those interests means keeping Assad in power, as there are no alternatives at this point.

[driftdiver]

I think there is a geostrategic US interest there: the need to keep the Middle East from falling wholesale into the hands of the Islamofascist crazies.  The consequences of that are rather awful to contemplate. 

The effects on the oil economy aside, consider if the Suez Canal were controlled by jihadists.  Consider if Israel were not there.  Basically, it would all collapse back into an expansionist version of the Ottoman Empire, and would most likely usher in a major war - even a world war, with China and Russia's interests making them unpredictable.

So, yeah, we have significant geostrategic interests in the region.  Unfortunately, to serve those interests means keeping Assad in power, as there are no alternatives at this point.

The policy for the last 8 years has been to encourage and empower the Islamofascist crazies.   It continues to this day.

[skeeter]

I think there is a geostrategic US interest there: the need to keep the Middle East from falling wholesale into the hands of the Islamofascist crazies.  The consequences of that are rather awful to contemplate. 

The effects on the oil economy aside, consider if the Suez Canal were controlled by jihadists.  Consider if Israel were not there.  Basically, it would all collapse back into an expansionist version of the Ottoman Empire, and would most likely usher in a major war - even a world war, with China and Russia's interests making them unpredictable.

So, yeah, we have significant geostrategic interests in the region.  Unfortunately, to serve those interests means keeping Assad in power, as there are no alternatives at this point.

I was unclear - I meant I was hoping there was a compelling geostrategic interest that factored into this administration's and certain congresspersons' dogged determination to get Assad even if it means alliance with Jihadis.

[r9etb]

I was unclear - I meant I was hoping there was a compelling geostrategic interest that factored into this administration's and certain congresspersons' dogged determination to get Assad even if it means alliance with Jihadis.

Ah.  Well, stupidity, arrogance, and rigid ideas of ideological purity pretty much rule out such outmoded concepts as "national interest."

[dfwgator]

We declared war on Syria?  I must have missed that vote in Congress.

[jpsb]

I think there is a geostrategic US interest there: the need to keep the Middle East from falling wholesale into the hands of the Islamofascist crazies.  The consequences of that are rather awful to contemplate. 

We (the USA) are arming and training the Islamofascist crazies.

[Wingnut]

The question is WWDTD?