Posted on 11/24/2015 11:28:08 AM PST by blam
NATO is toothless. Any idea that Article 5 would be invoked, or that if invoked would be honored by the likes of bathouse barry is laughable.
The Russians have very little combat experience. All that neat stuff they made got destroyed quickly when it met American stuff.
There were two Russian bombers but Turkey targeted only one.
I’d be quite entertained to see him weasel out of our NATO responsibilities...
Very entertained indeed.
Yeah. I need to read up on that more. Still, I think Obama and Turkey conspired to take out a Russian plane if it so much as hinted at crossing into Turkey airspace because what they really want is to take out Assad. Russia is helping Assad. This is a dishonest and snaky way to fight, unfortunately it is Obama’s m.o. Just speculation.
Obama hates Assad more than ISIS. Why? I do not know. There must be more to that story. But Obama always hates lesser things and loves the purest evils.
From the start of this situation, Assad has been one of the local strongmen who used what was necessary to keep tribal and other factional interests in their place in most any Middle Eastern Country since the British Partition.
{That partition ignored tribal boundaries, quite possibly for the purpose of keeping any one group from becoming prominent in the region, and lumped them into nations willy-nilly. The Kurds, for instance got split up four ways.)
When the US Department of State engaged with insurgents (something most likely, considering Benghazi) for the purpose of destabilizing governments to change the focus of power in the region (N. Africa and the Middle East) Syria was the other end of the group of countries the MB was targeting. The full group would have left all but Israel in MB and or IS hands from Tunisia to the Bosporus--half the Mediterranean shoreline--a strategic coup, and significant advance toward the Caliphate.
Egypt opted out by having a military coup to oust Morsi.
We had no business in what amounted to an uprising in Syria, and only had an excuse to become involved when Obama's policy in Iraq permitted the rise of IS there.
Now, when the ploy to have the US intervene against Assad failed, IS provided another excuse to be present in Syrian airspace, now in conflict with Russians who have come in to secure oil shipment routes and stabilize Assad's regime.
Add in Turkey (NATO member, US ally) and the cross border airspace violations which inevitably will occur in warfare, assertions of sovereignty, armed conflict, and it starts to get complicated.
Will the US be drawn in (and the rest of NATO) against Russia?
I don't think either side wants that, but who would benefit?
The Islamists who have provoked the entire mess, from the MB to IS to the one calling the shots on this side of the pond.
Duh-1 isn't playing checkers, he's playing chess, just not for our team.
If the Russians and NATO can be manipulated into a conflict, the eventual power vacuum left will be filled by invading Islamists, first in Europe, and then making power plays here and in the underbelly of Russia.
A more Western oriented POTUS would recognize this, and would likely coordinate with the Russians and sort it out so everyone would be content with the arrangement, because that would be in our mutual best interest.
The man who said he would 'side with Islam' may not see that the same way.
additionally, there is a significant profit to be made off of oil stolen from Iraq and shipped through Turkey by IS, and this may well be clouding judgement in the region as well.
If that oil (I have read estimates as high as 1 million BOPD, but considering the trucks available to move it more likely 100,000 barrels of oil per day) came off the market, Russia and other oil producers would benefit by the increased revenue, both in gross sales and in increased price.
IS would lose a serious revenue stream, as would all the middlemen dealing in the sale of that oil. Otherwise, conflict in the region heralds geopolitical instability which causes speculation price hikes in the oil markets as well. That benefits all producers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US.
All out warfare between Russia and the US/NATO would only benefit the Islamists, including IS and backers lurking within countries in the region.
Hopefully, this ploy to involve the mostly Christian powers in mutual destruction will fail.
BTW.....You made the statement that NATO is toothless...
I really don’t see how you can say that as NATO is really us..in every respect.
Or it was, which is why I said I would be entertained.
Because 'us' has obama as president and there's no way in everlasting hell that he will go to war with Russia over anything. Barry's the peace president...remember?
Yes....initially they would see it that way, but if they move too early they will draw back a severed limb.
These islamist insurgents do not generally go into a well defended battle zone. They would side on the sidelines waiting for it to end and then look for weakness.
Ok. Thought there was on plane and one helicopter.
Moscow plans to suspend military cooperation with Ankara after the downing of a Russian bomber by Turkish air forces, Russian General Staff representatives said on Tuesday. Further measures to beef up Russian air base security in Syria will also be taken.
Three steps as announced by top brass:
Each and every strike groups’ operation is to be carried out under the guise of fighter jets
Air defense to be boosted with the deployment of Moskva guided missile cruiser off Latakia coast with an aim to destroy any target that may pose danger
Military contacts with Turkey to be suspended
Y.....eah....I do recall that assumption.
But.....I will give you a but...
In my experience and some 65 years on earth plus history, weak democrats, no matter what their agenda is, have a nasty habit of starting wars.
Obama even alluded to it recently when he claimed he was not motivated to show his strength or flex muscles. He was essentially debating himself which is why it appeared to be disjointed and weird.
In any case, the last thing I would consider is that Obama is incapable of starting a war with Russia.
I also, as a result of my age and experience, probably would not regret it. It might be the best time to do it..
But that’s a entirely different topic and deserves it’s own thread.
“Any thoughts on possible responses should Russia detonate a tactical nuke in Syria?”
Make the Russians buy Al Gore Carbon Absolution Credits?
However, if the conflict went nuclear, all bets are off.
That could be instigated by a false flag event.
When one keeps in mind that the objective may Apocalyptic in nature (to cause the return of the 12th Imam, the equivalent of the Second Coming in Islam), and the fervor with which the belief is held, all else may be expendable.
Post 66, fantastic analysis
You left off “Will to use them: United States - 0, Russia - Infinite”.
Yes, but don't forget that Obama has an endless supply of leaflets to drop on them, and rumor has it that he is feverishly working on developing an air-to-air leaflet delivery system.
Smokin Joe’s right on. I also suspect collusion between Obama and the Turkish leader, and Obama’s incredibly tone deaf, insulting, condescending remarks about Russia’s efforts against ISIS and Putin’s failings today make that possibility even more frightening. I believe Obama is looking for a fight, but he will lose this one, and we’ll all suffer for it.
Drudge says Obama’s supporting ISIS...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.