Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Anything that isn't part of the game or its community goes here. KEEP IT CIVIL!

Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby J4C0B65 » Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:23 pm

I have been watching with awe the news of lately and how the Russians have allied with Syria, and I was wondering, should Russia have intervened in Syria?

I personally disagree, because of the reports that Russia is bombing rebels (those against Assad who support democracy etc). Similarly, although the US and Russia have made a deal, there is an increasing chance that the two will come into contact. I also disagree with Russia's actions towards Turkey, in provoking/ testing their Airforce. Of course, according to the Russians themselves, this was an accident.

This is also Russia's way of trying to extend it's influence just outside its borders, just like it did with Ukraine. There is also confirmed evidence to show that the Missile used to shoot down MH17 was in fact supplied by the Russian Military. What's to say this won't happen again?
Classic Particracy

Parti Conservateur Democratique (Lourenne) - Inactive
Parti Conservateur Democratique (Rildanor) - Inactive
Partido Nacional (Gaduridos) - Inactive
National Conservative Party (Beiteynu) - Inactive
J4C0B65
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:58 pm
Location: UK / Rildanor

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby Captain-Socialist » Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:44 pm

ISIS has been able to gain ground because Russia is focusing on the other opposition forces. Go figure.

After all, if they took out ISIS first, how could they justify their presence? They'll leave ISIS till last so they can achieve their real objective first without losing their casus belli. They know they can get away with it because the average non-Syrian person thinks everyone with a beard who shouts "God is Great" is ISIS.
User avatar
Captain-Socialist
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: In ur nation, changing ur kulture

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby J4C0B65 » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:13 pm

Captain-Socialist wrote:ISIS has been able to gain ground because Russia is focusing on the other opposition forces. Go figure.


That is a valid point. Is there any evidence that Russia has actually bombed ISIS at all?
Classic Particracy

Parti Conservateur Democratique (Lourenne) - Inactive
Parti Conservateur Democratique (Rildanor) - Inactive
Partido Nacional (Gaduridos) - Inactive
National Conservative Party (Beiteynu) - Inactive
J4C0B65
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:58 pm
Location: UK / Rildanor

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby soysauce » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:24 am

It's shit

But what's "our" plan? The moderate rebels we claim to support only seem to exist when Russia is bombing them, otherwise they're just more terrorists.

We support Assad, we put a piece of shit back on the throne - that's rather par for the course in the middle east,

We support the "moderate rebels" - there probably aren't even enough of them to have any chance of success - apart from the Kurds but they're not interested in leaving Kurdistan,

Or our current wonderful strategy, bomb ISIS a bit and hope to achieve something - but fighting an insurgency with fast jets is silly,


Go figure,
In memoriam ad perpetuum
To our Polish Comrade...
User avatar
soysauce
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 6:02 pm
Location: tir na n-og

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby J4C0B65 » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:12 pm

soysauce wrote:It's shit

But what's "our" plan? The moderate rebels we claim to support only seem to exist when Russia is bombing them, otherwise they're just more terrorists.

We support Assad, we put a piece of shit back on the throne - that's rather par for the course in the middle east,

We support the "moderate rebels" - there probably aren't even enough of them to have any chance of success - apart from the Kurds but they're not interested in leaving Kurdistan,

Or our current wonderful strategy, bomb ISIS a bit and hope to achieve something - but fighting an insurgency with fast jets is silly,


Go figure,


IMO, NATO seriously needs to consider sending ground troops into the Middle East to sort out this problem and restore peace.
Classic Particracy

Parti Conservateur Democratique (Lourenne) - Inactive
Parti Conservateur Democratique (Rildanor) - Inactive
Partido Nacional (Gaduridos) - Inactive
National Conservative Party (Beiteynu) - Inactive
J4C0B65
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:58 pm
Location: UK / Rildanor

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby soysauce » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:08 pm

J4C0B65 wrote:
soysauce wrote:It's shit

But what's "our" plan? The moderate rebels we claim to support only seem to exist when Russia is bombing them, otherwise they're just more terrorists.

We support Assad, we put a piece of shit back on the throne - that's rather par for the course in the middle east,

We support the "moderate rebels" - there probably aren't even enough of them to have any chance of success - apart from the Kurds but they're not interested in leaving Kurdistan,

Or our current wonderful strategy, bomb ISIS a bit and hope to achieve something - but fighting an insurgency with fast jets is silly,


Go figure,


IMO, NATO seriously needs to consider sending ground troops into the Middle East to sort out this problem and restore peace.


Nah, we could wipe out ISIS as a conventional force in a week or two, but then who'd take over afterwards? NATO troops might be the best but they're pretty useless at occupation, it's not like they'll be happy to see America turn up and save the day.

Maybe some neutral force could be drafted in, for UN missions you'd probably turn to Bangladesh or Africa at this point since they're professional enough for the job and not hated by everyone but I doubt they'd be willing to take the casualties. Might just work if we spearheaded the operation with a few Nato armoured divisions though, then left the peace work for them.
In memoriam ad perpetuum
To our Polish Comrade...
User avatar
soysauce
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 6:02 pm
Location: tir na n-og

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby Captain-Socialist » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:15 pm

An article I read quite a while back mentioned some secular nationalist, possibly a military defector, rebel leader as "least worse" choice for who to back. Don't remember his name.
User avatar
Captain-Socialist
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:35 pm
Location: In ur nation, changing ur kulture

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby soysauce » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:48 pm

Captain-Socialist wrote:An article I read quite a while back mentioned some secular nationalist, possibly a military defector, rebel leader as "least worse" choice for who to back. Don't remember his name.
Maybe, but we backed rebels with better credentials in Libya and that never really worked out, and frankly it's difficult stopping the opposition alliance members from turning on each other already..
In memoriam ad perpetuum
To our Polish Comrade...
User avatar
soysauce
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 6:02 pm
Location: tir na n-og

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby J4C0B65 » Sat Oct 24, 2015 2:28 pm

soysauce wrote:
Captain-Socialist wrote:An article I read quite a while back mentioned some secular nationalist, possibly a military defector, rebel leader as "least worse" choice for who to back. Don't remember his name.
Maybe, but we backed rebels with better credentials in Libya and that never really worked out, and frankly it's difficult stopping the opposition alliance members from turning on each other already..


That's why NATO need to get it organised.
Classic Particracy

Parti Conservateur Democratique (Lourenne) - Inactive
Parti Conservateur Democratique (Rildanor) - Inactive
Partido Nacional (Gaduridos) - Inactive
National Conservative Party (Beiteynu) - Inactive
J4C0B65
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:58 pm
Location: UK / Rildanor

Re: Should Russia have intervened in Syria?

Postby PaleRider » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:15 am

soysauce wrote:
Captain-Socialist wrote:An article I read quite a while back mentioned some secular nationalist, possibly a military defector, rebel leader as "least worse" choice for who to back. Don't remember his name.
Maybe, but we backed rebels with better credentials in Libya and that never really worked out, and frankly it's difficult stopping the opposition alliance members from turning on each other already..

That didn't work out because we half assed it in Libya. Al Qaeda and other more opportunist warlords and Islamist groups became well armed and these militias went about and undermined the work of creating a national authority. After Gaddaffi fell there should've been a UN force deployed to disarm the militia and secure the oil fields and cities while training a domestic professional security service.
Political Affiliation~ GOP (US)
Pro: Liberal Conservatism, Paleo-liberalism, Chicago Capitalism, social conservatism, neoconservative
Anti: leftist, multiculturalism, Islamic radicalism
Currently the Zardic People's Party
Starring as Wiendonia in NS
PaleRider
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 am

Next

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest