Russia, Turkey, Iran establish no-flight zones in Syria for US-led coalition planes

[jdbond592]

I was told no fly zones led to WW3. So, rob a store for toilet paper, battery and food?

[Cerilis]

I was told no fly zones led to WW3. So, rob a store for toilet paper, battery and food?

And bottle caps. Don't forget the bottle caps.

[Exeris]

So you're comparing the US putting a no fly zone over Syria, who are Allies with Russia, essentially telling Russia "if you protect your Ally, we will attack you"

with:

Syria's own allies placing a no fly zone over Syria to stop non-Allied-with-Syria planes from flying over it.

Can you see how far you're reaching?

If I came to your house and put down an area on your land where none of your friends could come without threats of violence, would you be happy - yes or no?

I don't see how happiness is relevant but what actions they would be willing to take.

[Deleted]

US interests in Asia-Pacific and Europe are more important.

We just have to stop Iraq and Russia/Iran from getting too close, which we've successfully done for years. Iraq will never be able to replace Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the UAE for us. Not for decades to come at least.

But anyway, Crimea... Syria... what's next? Russia enjoys scoffing down expensive to sustain shit sandwiches. And you know what the part that gets me most about that is? Onstensibly, both allow Russia to project Naval power. Russia has never and will never be a significant naval power. It can't built ships. It never had the ships. It's spending resources on something it's not going to be. Russia's a land power. I mean sure, as Kuntandee said, it can expand it's little dock at Tartus to... what..? Host the Aircraft carriers it isn't building, or the destroyers it doesn't have?

And spare me hitting me with some ridiculous Russian Navy CGI about some 110,000 ton Carrier by 2026. We both know it's bullshit.

"We just have to stop Iran and Russia getting to close". Someone must have said the same thing when they planned the coup against mossadegh. Which pushed Iran and Russia way closer. Yeah. Problem with people like you Skroe is... You're wrong. Everything you do backfires. All the time. It's the only constant in your set of foreign policies. They all backfire miserably. Your job, and the reason why you were educated I'm guessing, is simply to try and reinterpret the embarrassing failures your lobby ran into on the past 75 years. You do that with a fancy terminology and a rich vocabulary... but you're still polishing a smelly turd skroe. Dirty job. I don't envy you.

[rosebull]

"We just have to stop Iran and Russia getting to close". Someone must have said the same thing when they planned the coup against mossadegh. Which pushed Iran and Russia way closer. Yeah. Problem with people like you Skroe is... You're wrong. Everything you do backfires. All the time. It's the only constant in your set of foreign policies. They all backfire miserably. Your job, and the reason why you were educated I'm guessing, is simply to try and reinterpret the embarrassing failures your lobby ran into on the past 75 years. You do that with a fancy terminology and a rich vocabulary... but you're still polishing a smelly turd skroe. Dirty job. I don't envy you.

"You know more than me and i'm unable to properly debate facts with you" Translation

[Shalcker]

Are you talking about majority or "majority" btw? Funny how things like "election results" tend to be all kinds of funny in Russia.

If majority wills certain change, it happens (if it is actually feasible). There aren't many things on which majority agrees, however.

Elections are not necessarily best way to promote changes in Russia... nor are they in "enlightened West", see Trump flip-flopping on his campaign promises.

Easier to persuade those already in power. (Easier doesn't mean easy however)

[Deleted]

"You know more than me and i'm unable to properly debate facts with you" Translation

I'll call you if I ever need a translator. In the meantime though, be quiet.

[caervek]

Ohh sweet summer's child. Do you honestly think Putin would step down even if majority of Russians asked him to?

Assuming you're referring to an election and not a big demonstration then sure. The guy may be a villain in western eyes and extremely cruel/calculative but despite what FOX news thinks he's not actually a dictator, he's a legitimately elected leader and if he lost an election he would be replaced. Just like in 2008-2012 when Medvedev won the presidential election (NB: Putin wasn't allowed to stand in that election as he had served the max two terms, a rule abolished later hence him winning a third term in 2012).

[Thunderball]

US interests in Asia-Pacific and Europe are more important.

We just have to stop Iraq and Russia/Iran from getting too close, which we've successfully done for years. Iraq will never be able to replace Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the UAE for us. Not for decades to come at least.

But anyway, Crimea... Syria... what's next? Russia enjoys scoffing down expensive to sustain shit sandwiches. And you know what the part that gets me most about that is? Onstensibly, both allow Russia to project Naval power. Russia has never and will never be a significant naval power. It can't built ships. It never had the ships. It's spending resources on something it's not going to be. Russia's a land power. I mean sure, as Kuntandee said, it can expand it's little dock at Tartus to... what..? Host the Aircraft carriers it isn't building, or the destroyers it doesn't have?

And spare me hitting me with some ridiculous Russian Navy CGI about some 110,000 ton Carrier by 2026. We both know it's bullshit.

US doesnt have any business with Asia-Pacific or Europe. The sooner you guys realize that the better it's going to be for you in the long run. Quit when it's time, dont stretch it.

On carriers: carriers are useless, only effective against villagepeople. Thanks to US constant warmongering and rise of private weapons producers soon enough even the smallest state in Africa will be able to shutdown every benefit people seem to think carriers have. Russia doesnt need one.

Assuming you're referring to an election and not a big demonstration then sure. The guy may be a villain in western eyes and extremely cruel/calculative but despite what FOX news thinks he's not actually a dictator, he's a legitimately elected leader and if he lost an election he would be replaced. Just like in 2008-2012 when Medvedev won the presidential election (NB: Putin wasn't allowed to stand in that election as he had served the max two terms, a rule abolished later hence him winning a third term in 2012).

Rule has always stated "no more than two terms in a row". Supporting Medvedev was Putin way around that rule. He did however later proposed (and it was passed) constitutional changes resulting in increases of parliament's and president's terms (4 to 5 and 6 respectively).

[rowaasr13]

In all of these (except Iraq of course), there was a real risk of Soviet-friendly governments gaining power (or they had already gained power). That's reason enough. It's not just about the spread of communism as an ideology, but even non-communist country's falling under the Soviet Empire's sway. That's why we did it. It was completely the correct and appropriate policy.

"Oh, people don't want to be friends with us, so we have right to make a bloodbath here and bomb them into stone age!" I wonder, why people despise exceptional nazion after that?

[Deleted]

"Oh, people don't want to be friends with us, so we have right to make a bloodbath here and bomb them into stone age!" I wonder, why people despise exceptional nazion after that?

Oh don't take it with the country. He doesn't represent his country. He represents his lobby. The US is fine. They're just being misguided and held back by a bunch of powerful lobbies.

[Sliske]

I don't see how happiness is relevant but what actions they would be willing to take.

Ok, tell me then - who is more likely to attack or feel threatened:

America and the West, because Russia protected its Ally with a no fly zone

Russia, because America put a no fly zone over Syria, a country Russia is trying to protect.

Here i'll give you an analogy:

Assuming your married - I walk over to your wife, knock you out of the way and stand over her. I warn you that coming near her will cause me to attack you. I then start beating your wife while you watch.

Thats what its like when Hillary wants to put a no fly zone over Syria.

Now lets use the same analogy from the current no fly zone.

A man is beating your wife. You walk over to her, and guard her - while you get rid of the man that hit her, you also are demanding that others not join in and help the man beat your wife.

Somewhere, on a gaming forum, a random retard thinks these are the same.

One is blatant disrespect and dick swinging, the other is morally demanded.

[ParanoiD84]

Same can be said for West. You are too protective of Kurdish terrorists.

Isnt pretty much everyone working with the kurds? Atleast in iraq not sure in Syria. And i dont care one bit about the pkk and i dont think anyone is working with them either but with peshmerga and ypg in iraq, even the Iraqis rely on the kurdish ground forces there to get shit done.

One of isis biggest mistake was to invade Kurdish lands imo, they have been kicking their asses ever since.

But your right working with terrorists is a big no no.

[rowaasr13]

Oh don't take it with the country. He doesn't represent his country. He represents his lobby. The US is fine. They're just being misguided and held back by a bunch of powerful lobbies.

Err... I sincerely hope rest of the country doesn't identify itself as "exceptional nation", so that would not be applicable to them.

[Kuntantee]

Isnt pretty much everyone working with the kurds? Atleast in iraq not sure in Syria. And i dont care one bit about the pkk and i dont think anyone is working with them either but with peshmerga and ypg in iraq, even the Iraqis rely on the kurdish ground forces there to get shit done.

One of isis biggest mistake was to invade Kurdish lands imo, they have been kicking their asses ever since.

But your right working with terrorists is a big no no.

YPG is exclusively Syria. The name for YPG becomes "PKK" when you step into Iraq and vice versa. So yes, you are working with terrorists. If getting shit done is an excuse to cooperate with terrorists, I am sure some could justify ISIS too.

[ParanoiD84]

YPG is exclusively Syria. The name for YPG becomes "PKK" when you step into Iraq and vice versa. So yes, you are working with terrorists. If getting shit done is an excuse to cooperate with terrorists, I am sure some could justify ISIS too.

Just saying they are the best ground force against isis, well peshmerga is and it's probably the best ground force they have atm fighting isis but it seems everyone is using them as pawns for their own gains so they will probably get fucked in the end.

And how is peshmerga terrorists when all they do is fighting terrorists like isis and pkk and whatever they can find. Seems like more of a anti terrorist group as all they do is fighting terrorists. I know pkk is a terrorist group as everyone is labeling them as such, but peshmerga?

It's fun to see though, peshmerga stands with the west getting support and supplies from places like germany and sweden and shit ton of other places and pkk getting support from iran and the assad regime just to name one messy thing and there is plenty more in those regions. Shouldnt turkey point fingers at iran for supporting pkk?

[Kellorion]

And who the fuck does Iran think they are in anything?!

[Theinquisition]

Yeah and how does Russia plan to enforce it? We established last month: Russia can't protect anybody.

Pretty much this.

Not much use in creating sanctions that no one can enforce. We will do as we please.

[ParanoiD84]

And who the fuck does Iran think they are in anything?!

Well they are not doing much themselves but they are supporting loads of terrorist like in yemen and syria. A big terrorist sponsor lol.

[Gorgodeus]

Assuming you're referring to an election and not a big demonstration then sure. The guy may be a villain in western eyes and extremely cruel/calculative but despite what FOX news thinks he's not actually a dictator, he's a legitimately elected leader and if he lost an election he would be replaced. Just like in 2008-2012 when Medvedev won the presidential election (NB: Putin wasn't allowed to stand in that election as he had served the max two terms, a rule abolished later hence him winning a third term in 2012).

Legitimate means that your opposition is not supressed or murdered.