Posted on 10/06/2015 8:16:46 AM PDT by Fennie
US foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski says the United States should retaliate if Russia does not stop bombing its assets in Syria.
Brzezinski, the national security advisor for former President Jimmy Carter, advised President Barack Obama to attempt to disarm the Russians if they keep attacking the CIA-trained militants in Syria.
"The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland," Brzezinski wrote in an article published by the Financial Times on Sunday. "They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US."
(Excerpt) Read more at presstv.ir ...
Going in to support their guy is provoking us?
Soros must be losing a ton of money on this.
Lol. Ziggy should have tried with the Iranians when he had a chance
Disqualified !!
“US foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski says the United States should retaliate if Russia does not stop bombing its assets in Syria.”
And who, pray tell, might that be? The 4 or 5 guys we trained for 1/2 billion dollars?
For that kind of money these guys better be the X Men.
Yeah Ziggy, great idea you have there.
The Current Occupant has done a remarkable job of managing to unite most of the world to one goal - take down the already tottering Goliath that has sat astride the world since the middle of the 20th Century, and after 1981, went unchallenged for a couple decades.
The care, feeding. and grooming of a nation with superpower status is a difficult and time-consuming job. A much more difficult job for the next person to take up residence in what shall be once again the White House.
Doesn’t seem to be acquainted with geography relative to where Libya is relative to the U.S. Could also apply “ U.S. forces are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland”. Logistics-logistics-logistics!
Just like his boss Jimmy Carter, this old infection just won’t go away.
This simple: Ignore whatever is said by anyone connected with the Carter mess!
I understand Obama wants to take out Assad so his radical Muslim friends can take over, but is it really worth a war with Russia to achieve that?
Once again... therein lies the problem.
It’s funny reading the responses on this thread because if Trump had said the exact same thing, the comments from the very same people would all likely be some variation of “yeah, Trump is right, we should’t let the Russians push us around in Syria or anywhere else”.
Eventually Trump will adjust his foreign policy when he realizes Putin is not someone he can be buddies with, and once Trump starts calling for a more confrontational approach to Putin the Trumpsters will suddenly be for getting tough with him too.
Another idiot speaks....
Lead the charge, Zbig! We’ll watch.
Hands Up Don’t Shoot or “Gun Free” zone.
Yep, because the Carter administration was so great at the international level
massive sarc if I have to write that.
obams could have gone in and bombed isis... he could have done a lot.. but he didn’t. So, NOW he thinks he’ll do something really stupid? He wants to save face by bombing a hospital and then starting a war with Russia. Real smart.
Nah, you have it wrong — but only in degree... the words will be “YEAH!!! Brilliant words by Trump! Go Trump go!”
(And remember... if you disagree, you’re automatically a Jeb-supporting GOP-e tool.)
Having “national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter” on your resume means you need to STFU, go to bed and let the adults talk.
War Party Targets Putin and Assad
Townhall.com ^ | October 6, 2015 | Pat Buchanan
Having established a base on the Syrian coast, Vladimir Putin last week began air strikes on ISIS and other rebel forces seeking to overthrow Bashar Assad.
A longtime ally of Syria, Russia wants to preserve its toehold on the Mediterranean, help Assad repel the threat, and keep the Islamic terrorists out of Damascus.
Russia is also fearful that the fall of Assad would free up the Chechen terrorists in Syria to return to Russia.
In intervening to save Assad, Putin is doing exactly what we are doing to save our imperiled allies in Baghdad and Kabul.
Yet Putin’s intervention has ignited an almost berserk reaction.
John McCain has called for sending the Free Syrian Army surface-to-air missiles to bring down Russian planes. Not only could this lead to a U.S.-Russia clash, but U.S.-backed Syrian rebels have a record of transferring weapons to the al-Qaida affiliate.
The end result of McCain’s initiative, sending Stingers to Syria, could be airliners blown out of the sky across the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton wants the U.S. to create a no-fly zone. And Friday’s Wall Street Journal endorsed the idea:
“Mr. Obama could make Mr. Putin pay a price. ... In Syria the U.S. could set up a no-fly zone to create a safe haven for refugees against ... Mr. Assad’s barrel bombs. He could say U.S. planes will fly wherever they want, and if one is attacked the U.S. will respond in kind.”
U.S.-Russian dogfights over Syria are just fine with the Journal.
Saturday’s Washington Post seconded the motion, admonishing Obama: “Carve out safe zones. Destroy the helicopter fleet Mr. Assad uses for his war crimes.”
Has the War Party thought this through?
Establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, which means shooting down Syrian fighter-bombers and helicopters, is an act of war. But when did Congress authorize the president to go to war with Syria?
When last Obama requested such authority — in 2013, when chemical weapons were used — the American people arose as one to say no to U.S. intervention. Congress backed away without even voting.
Unprovoked air strikes on Syrian government forces would represent an unauthorized and unconstitutional American war. Does the Party of the Constitution no longer care about the Constitution?
Is a Republican Congress really willing to give Barack Obama a blank check to take us to war with Syria, should he choose to do so?
Is this what America voted for in 2014?
A no-fly zone means U.S. warplanes downing Syrian planes and helicopters and bombing antiaircraft defenses at Syrian airfields.
To Damascus this would mean the Americans have committed to the defeat of their armed forces and downfall of their regime.
The Syrians would fight — and not only the Syrian army. For Russia, Hezbollah and Iran are all allied to the Damascus regime, as all believe they have a vital interest in its survival.
How would Russia, Iran and Hezbollah respond to U.S. air strikes on their ally? Would they pack it in and leave? Is that our experience with these folks?
Today, the U.S. is conducting strikes on ISIS, and the al-Qaida affiliate. But if we begin to attack the Syrian army or air force, we will be in a new war where the entire Shiite Crescent of Iran, Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah, backed by Russia, will be on the other side.
We will have taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shiite sectarian long war.
How long such a war would last, and how it would end, no one knows.
Whatever one thinks of Putin’s policy in Syria, at least it makes sense. He is supporting an ally, the Assad regime, against its enemies, who seek to overthrow that regime.
It is U.S. policy in Syria that makes no sense.
We train rebels at immense cost to fight Assad, who cannot or will not fight. We attack ISIS, which also seeks to bring down the Assad regime. And we, too, want to bring down Assad.
Who do we think will rise if Assad falls?
Do we have a “government in a box” that we think we can fly to Damascus and put into power if the Syrian army collapses, the regime falls and ISIS approaches the capital?
Have we forgotten the lesson of “Animal Farm”? When the animals revolt and take over the farm, the pigs wind up in charge.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3345309/posts
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.