No-fly zone would ‘require war with Syria and Russia’ – top US general.

Watch
Dodgypirate
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1



Not sure why this hasn't been posted in News and current affairs, but this is extremely concerning.

A top US general has warned that establishing a no-fly-zone over Aleppo would 'require war with Syria and Russia'.

This makes sense because Russia and Assad's forces are currently bombing the **** out of Aleppo, and if there was to be a no-fly-zone, any Russian or Syrian plane flying over would be gunned down.

And guess who is championing the idea? Hillary Rodham Clinton. During the final presidential debate, she again emphasised how important a no-fly-zone would be, and how many lives it would 'save'.

Beats me why people would support such a warmongering *****.

It's only a matter of time folks.



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...r-russia-syria
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Except it wouldn't "require" war at all.

War could be a result of it, sure. But that's not the same thing.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
If in the event they wanted to impose a no fly zone they would be very careful about it and weigh up all the options. They would follow the path that best suited US interests. Like the fact the video is from Russia Today.
0
reply
Dodgypirate
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by 999tigger)
What Drewski said. You are such a simpleton dodgypirate.
Unnecessary.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
I imagine she's betting the Russians would back down. But it's all very risky nonetheless. It'd one aspect of her I don't like, she's far too hawkish and to he'll with the consequences.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Dodgypirate)
Unnecessary.
Then present something more credible. Your arguments are always one eyed, distorted or overly simplistic.

How many wars has the US had with Russia?
Do you think it cares enough about Aleppo to go to war?
Do you think Russia cares enough about Aleppo to go to war?


They will constantly review their options as to what is good for their respective countries. A war would be catastrophic for both of them. The most that would happen is a lto of words. neither side are interested in war. Your thread is distorted alarmist and simplistic.
0
reply
BibleMan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
World War 3 is coming
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by 999tigger)
How many wars has the US had with Russia?
Korea.

Do you think it cares enough about Aleppo to go to war?
As much as it cared about Iraq or Libya - if the lobbyists and their 'Assad must go' mantra want to save face, Washington is certainly headed in the same direction.

When one considers Clinton's anti-Russian rhetoric regarding the DNC 'hacks', in which she went so far as to say that future cyber attacks will be met with a political, economic and/or military response, coupled with the fact that the military industrial complex needs at least one enemy to survive, but preferably as many as possible, the Russian-Shia alliance is perfect as it not only resurrects the Cold War, but now pits two superpowers against one another, for the second time, in the Shia-Sunni conflict.

I don't believe Washington and its donors want a war with Russia, but the Israelis and Gulf states do not want the Shiite crescent to take shape, and seem to be prepared to test Moscow. The question is: do you really want to risk a roll of the dice over Aleppo? Especially if the hogwash about human rights is thrown out the window when the Saudis are turning Yemeni civilians into flying pieces of mincemeat with American support.

Do you think Russia cares enough about Aleppo to go to war?
Short answer: yes.

Putin entered Syria for several reasons:

(1) To restore the idea of Russia as a superpower;
(2) To prove to and convince other authoritarian governments, and perhaps democratic governments aligned with the West, that they can count on him if they're in trouble - especially after Iraq and Libya (although Russia was in no shape to help Saddam in the 90s or in 2003);
(3)To exploit the conflict and undermine US policy in the region by supporting one of two forces on the ground capable of defeating ISIS and bringing peace and order back to Syria;
(4) To cement an alliance in the region capable of rivaling that of the US;
(5) To test and showcase new Russian equipment for potential buyers;
(6) To maintain his approval rating and popularity in Russia by keeping the population jingoistic and united instead instead of having them focus on the deterioration of Russian society and the demographic/economic woes the country is facing and will continue to face in the future.

By intervening in Syria, not only did his strategy shift the balance of power in favour of Assad at a time when the SAA looked set for defeat at the hands of the jihadists, but he completed each of his objectives - for the time being. However, if he crumbles to American pressure, he will not only have failed each objective aside from testing and showcasing the Russian military's latest equipment, but will have committed political suicide - both domestically and internationally.

Ergo, if Clinton decides to go ahead with her idea of a no-fly zone, he will have no choice but to challenge the US due to the hole he has dug himself.
2
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
it will end in tears

:emo:
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Stalin)
Korea.



As much as it cared about Iraq or Libya - if the lobbyists and their 'Assad must go' mantra want to save face, we're certainly headed in the same direction.

When one considers Clinton's anti-Russian rhetoric regarding the DNC 'hacks', in which she went so far as to say that future cyber attacks will be met with a political, economic and/or military response, coupled with the fact that the military industrial complex needs at least one enemy to survive, but preferably as many as possible, the Russian-Shia alliance is perfect as it not only resurrects the Cold War, but now pits two superpowers against one another, for the second time, in the Shia-Sunni conflict.

I don't believe Washington and its donors want a war with Russia, but the Israelis and Gulf states do not want the Shiite crescent to take shape, and seem to be prepared to test Moscow. The question is: do you really want to risk a roll of the dice over Aleppo? Especially if the hogwash about human rights is thrown out the window when the Saudis are turning Yemeni civilians into flying pieces of mincemeat with American support.



Short answer: yes.

Putin entered Syria for several reasons:

(1) To restore the idea of Russia as a superpower;
(2) To prove to and convince other authoritarian governments, and perhaps democratic governments aligned with the West, that they can count on him if they're in trouble - especially after Iraq and Libya (although Russia was in no shape to help Saddam in the 90s or in 2003);
(3)To exploit the conflict and undermine US policy in the region by supporting one of two forces on the ground capable of defeating ISIS and bringing peace and order back to Syria;
(4) To cement an alliance in the region capable of rivaling that of the US;
(5) To test and showcase new Russian equipment for potential buyers;
(6) To maintain his approval rating and popularity in Russia by keeping the population jingoistic and united instead instead of having them focus on the deterioration of Russian society and the demographic/economic woes the country is facing and will continue to face in the future.

By intervening in Syria, not only did his strategy shift the balance of power in favour of Assad at a time when the SAA looked set for defeat at the hands of the jihadists, but he completed each of his objectives - for the time being. However, if he crumbles to American pressure, he will not only have failed each objective aside from testing and showcasing the Russian military's latest equipment, but will have committed political suicide - both domestically and internationally.

Ergo, if Clinton decides to go ahead with her idea of a no-fly zone, he will have no choice but to challenge the US due to the hole he has dug himself.
Dont think theres a cat in hells chance that either side wants or will be involved in a war. Highly suspect whether Clinton assuming she is elected. Things have already quietened down. Its just reminiscent of good old fashined cold war politics. Take it with a pinch of salt.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Stalin)
Korea.
One question: you said it yourself back then: "So what If they take Korea? Let Americans be our neighbours".
As far as I remember, China backed North Korea, not USSR.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by PTMalewski)
One question: you said it yourself back then: "So what If they take Korea? Let Americans be our neighbours".
That was a bluff in order to get Mao to intervene and do most of the heavy lifting due to China's numbers and proximity to the conflict. Bear in mind the Cold War was already in full swing and that Soviet participation in the Korean War had to be covert, otherwise it faced war with the West.

As far as I remember, China backed North Korea, not USSR.
Both countries backed North Korea - this is before the Sino-Soviet split.

The Soviets were pivotal in the creation of the North Korean Army and Air Force, and in stabilising Kim Il Sung's new regime.

Not only that, but the USSR's role in the war was to provide the North Korean and Chinese air forces with MiG-15's, which, at the time, were at least on par with the American F-86 Sabre, if not better, and made a vast difference to the outdated aircraft the two countries had at their disposal; train the North Korean and Chinese pilots; and fly sorties themselves. As soon as the MiG-15's were in play, they challenged the West's complete air superiority and went so far as to force the UN command to devise Operation Moolah.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by 999tigger)
Dont think theres a cat in hells chance that either side wants or will be involved in a war. Highly suspect whether Clinton assuming she is elected. Things have already quietened down. Its just reminiscent of good old fashined cold war politics. Take it with a pinch of salt.
I certainly hope so, but the the neocons - the same group who gave the world the disasters in Iraq and Libya - have never seen a conflict they haven't liked/wanted to get involved in, and the way the rhetoric is going, they seem to be drooling at the prospect of pushing the United States further into the Syrian conflict.

Whether they fully understand the ramifications of their desire to set up a no-fly zone in the country is debatable, but if Israel, the Gulf states and Sultan Erdogan want to see the end of the Alawite regime in Syria, you can bet your bottom dollar that Clinton won't hesitate to get involved.

Start building your bunker and prepare for the apocalypse.
0
reply
StrawbAri
Badges: 17
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
I've noticed a pattern on tsr.
Whenever a 'top official' says something contrary to the opinion of certain members i.e. Concerning Brexit or Donald Trump, these members dismiss it as ******** and that 'these experts are never right/they've been endorsed by X administration'
But when ever these 'experts/top officials' say something that they agree with then we should all be very afraid and take it seriously.

Hmmm
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (109)
28.02%
No (280)
71.98%

Watched Threads

View All