DescentBB

Looks like Russia's intervention in Syria will not go unanswered:

Russia’s bombing of rebel positions has angered countries in the region that have been trying to oust Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Analysts say Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are now likely to increase military aid to the anti-Assad groups they support

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... g-of-assad

Obama's failure has now brought us to the brink of world war. If he does not care for our country- I at least hope he doesn't want to be the president that helped wipe out human civilization.

He should drop all support for the "rebels" and keep Turkey from escalating things further. If not, this will snowball into WWIII since face matters more to these psycopaths than human life.

Turkey is extremely problematic since they sit RIGHT on the border with Syria and may do something stupid like send convoys of weapons or make an incursion to create a buffer for insurgent fighters. Erdogan is a nutjob that's foolish enough to try something like that if he becomes desperate to take out Assad by any means at his disposal.

All it takes is Putin killing some Turkish troops and off to the races it'll be for world war.

my, what a cheery outlook!

Why should anyone have a cheery outlook about what is going on over there? In war mistakes get made and what happens after the mistake depends on the people running the show. Night may be right where egos transcend rational thought and escalations happen.

aware of all that, just not about to come CLOSE to making the jump to world war or the like.

I’m thinking Nightshade is TB.

it absolutely is thunderbunny.

I noticed that too. I didn't think one could change their screen name here, it was etched in stone. However, Nightshade is a more apropos name to match his usual doomsday posts by the way.

tunnelcat wrote:I noticed that too. I didn't think one could change their screen name here, it was etched in stone. However, Nightshade is a more apropos name to match his usual doomsday posts by the way.

Unfortunately, I think it's inevitable given human nature... "Doomsday," I mean.

Syria conflict: Turkish jets intercept Russian plane

Yeah, but DOOMSDAY all the time? We be horribly dead a million times over if every doomsday prediction out there were even remotely true.

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, but DOOMSDAY all the time? We be horribly dead a million times over if every doomsday prediction out there were even remotely true.

or, even if only TBs predictions alone!

tunnelcat wrote:I noticed that too. I didn't think one could change their screen name here, it was etched in stone.

You can't change your alias... But I can. (It is possible to toggle the board to allow name changes, but it was disabled because of too much abuse. However, administrators can still change aliases by request, I've done a few over the years.)

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, but DOOMSDAY all the time? We be horribly dead a million times over if every doomsday prediction out there were even remotely true.

It's not "all the time."

It can happen at ANY time. There's a difference- and there is an increasing probability it will happen (with time) given the increasing boldness of our newly empowered adversaries.

Nightshade wrote:There's a difference- and there is an increasing probability it will happen...

Good luck trying to prove that. I've read plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Nightshade wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, but DOOMSDAY all the time? We be horribly dead a million times over if every doomsday prediction out there were even remotely true.

It's not "all the time."

It can happen at ANY time. There's a difference- and there is an increasing probability it will happen (with time) given the increasing boldness of our newly empowered adversaries.

Sometimes you just have to crawl out from under the bed and live your life, because most of the things that go on around us are not under our control anyway.

vision wrote:

Nightshade wrote:There's a difference- and there is an increasing probability it will happen...

Good luck trying to prove that. I've read plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Well, for one- this is Obama's new red line in Syria:

Inaction is a form of action. Our involvement (or perceived non-involvement) on the world stage is heavily calculated. Neither you nor I are privileged to the kinds of information the administration uses to make global decisions. Here, start with this and see if you can sort out our foreign policy decisions in that part of the Middle East:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/06/ ... ria-chart/

Looking forward to your highly-educated, insightful response.

vision wrote:Inaction is a form of action.

Indeed- and Putin has taken the measure of our current administration and found it to be weak and exploitable.

Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, know they have a little more than a year to do what they wish on the world stage and to diminish US influence without fear of US response. They know Obama will not lift a finger against them and at worst, rant in impotent petulance as they consolidate their hold over more territory...more resources and more people than they ever have in the decades previous to Obama's disastrous two terms in office.

You see Ukrainian territory annexed, Crimea is now Russian Federation territory and eastern Ukraine from just north of Mariopol through Lugansk and the Donbass regions under their total influence... You see China building up islands out of reef formations and claiming the South China Sea as their own lake. You see Iran being rewarded with $150 billion dollars for what is essentially no concession on their part over their nuclear weapons program and emboldened to support Assad and take yet more lives with their militias and terror organizations flush with cash.

The US would now be wise to tip toe away from these regions with its tail between its' legs because Obama has lost them. The only question now is- does he have the power to prevent our former allies from escalating violence against Putin and Xi's interests and provoking world war in the process- because UNLIKE Obama, our former allies still want to stand up to fight for and retain their national interests. They just can't count on the USA anymore to back them up.

Putin may be bold enough to try to obliterate NATO by forcing one of the weak nations under the "NATO umbrella" to invoke Article V- and he is probably betting that nobody, not Western Europe NOR the United States, will respond militarily.

NATO will be gone and Obama's failure will be complete.

Of course if not- we'll have Obama to thank for nuclear war soon after.

WEAKNESS invites WAR.

you lose me at 'Obama has lost them', which presumes that the US has had ANY real control over affairs in the Middle East since the mid-70s. Sure, we've shown reactionary power, but ZERO control. Hence, one cannot 'lose' what one never 'had'. Trying to maintain the illusion of control, at a huge human and financial cost is the core mistake of the neo-cons.

Obama started losing control when he refused to sign the Status of Forces agreement that Maliki wanted

He lost control when he demanded Mubarak step down

He lost control when he failed to encourage the Iranian student uprising

He lost control when he purged the military leaders of the US military

He lost control when he abandoned Kadaffi

He lost control when he stepped back from his Syrian red line.

And this is just the middle east

And you slick want us to believe how masterful Obama is in foreign affairs.

woodchip wrote:Obama started losing control when he refused to sign the Status of Forces agreement that Maliki wanted

He lost control when he demanded Mubarak step down

He lost control when he failed to encourage the Iranian student uprising

He lost control when he purged the military leaders of the US military

He lost control when he abandoned Kadaffi

He lost control when he stepped back from his Syrian red line.

And this is just the middle east

And you slick want us to believe how masterful Obama is in foreign affairs.

Obama has the good sense to realize, as I pointed out, that we haven't controlled a goddamn thing for a LONG, LONG time. We like to have the egotistical, jingoistic notion that we do, but we do not. I hesitate at the word 'masterful' but he's a long ways better than any of his predecessors since Nixon.

sorry, couldn't resist.....for those that get it:

Nightshade wrote:

vision wrote:Inaction is a form of action.

Indeed- and Putin has taken the measure of our current administration and found it to be weak and exploitable.

Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, know they have a little more than a year to do what they wish on the world stage and to diminish US influence without fear of US response. They know Obama will not lift a finger against them and at worst, rant in impotent petulance as they consolidate their hold over more territory...more resources and more people than they ever have in the decades previous to Obama's disastrous two terms in office.

You see Ukrainian territory annexed, Crimea is now Russian Federation territory and eastern Ukraine from just north of Mariopol through Lugansk and the Donbass regions under their total influence... You see China building up islands out of reef formations and claiming the South China Sea as their own lake. You see Iran being rewarded with $150 billion dollars for what is essentially no concession on their part over their nuclear weapons program and emboldened to support Assad and take yet more lives with their militias and terror organizations flush with cash.

The US would now be wise to tip toe away from these regions with its tail between its' legs because Obama has lost them. The only question now is- does he have the power to prevent our former allies from escalating violence against Putin and Xi's interests and provoking world war in the process- because UNLIKE Obama, our former allies still want to stand up to fight for and retain their national interests. They just can't count on the USA anymore to back them up.

Putin may be bold enough to try to obliterate NATO by forcing one of the weak nations under the "NATO umbrella" to invoke Article V- and he is probably betting that nobody, not Western Europe NOR the United States, will respond militarily.

NATO will be gone and Obama's failure will be complete.

Of course if not- we'll have Obama to thank for nuclear war soon after.

WEAKNESS invites WAR.

No, going to war doesn't always guarantee success. It can sometimes lead to failure and an embarrassing loss of stature in the world and thankfully, it won't be our butts on the line this time. Let Putin do his thing and mire his country in yet another intractable war in the tar pit that is the Middle East, a war he probably won't win when all the dust settles. Even better, maybe the jihadists will put Russia in their cross hairs instead of the U.S. Putin's minions obviously haven't learned from their mistakes of the past in Afghanistan. Maybe it's Obama who has learned something from our past mistakes. Syria will be Putin's equivalent to Bush's War in Iraq. Wait and see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vladimir- ... 48026.html

What happens after THE KISSES, especially with dolphins.

“Maybe World War III has started already,” said Paul Teller, Ted Cruz’s chief of staff. We were sitting in the senator’s office under the ten foot wide modernist portrait of Reagan at the Berlin Wall that dominates the room. ”We always thought it would be nuclear weapons but…” He shrugged, a quizzical look on his face, as if he himself were surprised at what he had just said. But I knew where he was coming from. Who wouldn’t? The Middle East was in flames, the whole complexion of Europe changing, and America had turned tail. And we didn’t even know at that point, it was Wednesday afternoon around five, that Russia was flying cruise missiles into Syria.

I glanced over at Nick Muzin, Cruz’s deputy chief, and he didn’t seem to disagree either. Muzin is a MD/JD and Teller a Ph.D. in government. The senator clearly surrounded himself with smart guys. It spoke well of him.

http://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/201 ... thinkable/

Of course our usual gang of lefty progressives will sneer and let their normalcy bias dismiss the increasing din of war rising around them- but they do so at their own peril.

Particularly when their messiah (Obama) has decided to do the STUPID and CHALLENGE the CHINESE after letting the problem fester for too long and make it unnecessarily escalatory.

The same with NATO 'responding' to Russia's entering the Syrian civil war: and also unnecessarily escalate matters with RUSSIA NATO said it was prepared to send troops to Turkey to defend its ally after violations of Turkish airspace by Russian jets bombing Syria and Britain scolded Moscow for escalating a civil war that has already killed 250,000 people.

Obama got what he wanted: American RETREAT. Coming back like a snotty petulant little fool to poke the bear and the dragon in the butt that he just let into the barn will only create a war none of us are likely to survive.

Here...perhaps a source that slick and our other lefties will trust: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10 ... s-o08.html

"The path to war with Russia is by no means accidental. From the outset, the US intervention to topple the regime in Damascus was aimed at weakening the principal allies of the Syrian government—Iran and Russia—in preparation for a direct assault on both countries.
More and more directly each day, the eruption of American militarism, rooted in the historic crisis of American and world capitalism, confronts humanity with the specter of a nuclear Third World War."

Different narrative- but the same end result, n'est-ce pas?

Ted Cruz is a crazy religious ideologue and his staff are warmongers bought and paid for by our giant military industrial complex. Smart my ass. They're nothing but bought off military cronies out to make a buck off yet another war. There's no nationalism or patriotism in their minds at all, only war for profit. Cruz is a nutcase who doesn't need his finger on the button either because he's just stupid enough to push it.

So we're not technically retreating, but sitting back and watching the fireworks. We've already botched up the whole Middle East trying to "Democratize" things over there, which those people obviously can't handle, and that was even before Obama was elected. It did us NO GOOD. Why do we keep going back for more? I seriously doubt we could change things one little bit. Everyone over there hates us, and they always will as long as we keep fighting wars on their soil.

Another couple of questions for Nightshade. Why do you believe that when things blow up in our national faces after some idiotic war of choice goes horribly wrong and the war lovers insist that by just going back in and doing more fighting, this will magically make things hunky dory, even after we couldn't get things right in the first place? Why do you blame lefties in this case when it was the Republicans who were the ones in power when we invaded Iraq, a sovereign nation by the way, under false pretenses and lies and it was Republicans who's careless decisions ultimately lead to the creation of ISIS by fumbling the ball at the worst possible moment? Are you pissed off us lefties couldn't clean up YOUR MESS? I say keep the hell out that dirt hole and let Putin hang himself and leave Russia to it's new Middle East morass. I'm pretty sure most people in the Middle East will quickly learn to hate the Russians as much as they already hate the U.S. I'm guessing a few years from now, Russia will be the one who's in trouble, financially and militarily.

well put, TC.

callmeslick wrote:The Sky is Falling, I tell you!!

Was the sky falling during the Cuban missile crisis?

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:The Sky is Falling, I tell you!!

Was the sky falling during the Cuban missile crisis?

if you cannot tell the difference in the two scenarios, you aren't bright enough to be debating the matter.

Never fell, did it Nightshade and I lived through it. Smart heads prevailed, on both sides. You'll notice that Kennedy was, ewwwww, a liberal too. NO ONE wants a nuclear war. There are no winners and besides, it there's no profit to be made when both sides have been totally annihilated. Only crazy warmongers and ideologues would be stupid enough to push THE BUTTON, and Cruz is one of them. Trump probably is too.

tunnelcat wrote:Never fell, did it Nightshade and I lived through it. Smart heads prevailed, on both sides. You'll notice that Kennedy was, ewwwww, a liberal too. NO ONE wants a nuclear war. There are no winners and besides, it there's no profit to be made when both sides have been totally annihilated. Only crazy warmongers and ideologues would be stupid enough to push THE BUTTON, and Cruz is one of them. Trump probably is too.

I guess nobody is reading what I post. OBAMA may about to be the one to push "THE BUTTON."

Nobody caught on to that?

Highly unlikely. He's not a stupid man and he does have a family.

tunnelcat wrote:Highly unlikely. He's not a stupid man and he does have a family.

Didn't you read the part of the useless, dangerous and little more than symbolic "challenges" Obama (and NATO) are staging as I type?

so what? Nothing in that mess of words in your links in ANY way indicates serious brinksmanship. As noted by TC, Obama is a bright man. He is not ABOUT to CONSIDER some nuclear response unless we face an imminent attack upon the mainland US(OK, maybe Alaska or Hawail, but still....). Once again, I have to state, if you cannot see the difference between the here and now and the Cuban Missle Crisis, you don't have enough of a grasp on history to be discussing such matters.

Guys, I'll tell you one simple thing. The USA calls my sympathy for the fact that an ordinary person from any country may come to the USA to realize the abilities that he can not implement in his home country and live a quieter life as a law-abiding citizen of the United States. But perhaps I will never go to live in the USA, because I am concerned about the infinite stupidity of the political leaders of this country. If I live in Russia, I don't care neither the U.S. nor NATO, while if I will live in USA, I definitely will continually be afraid of Russia, because I too well know this country. I have only one question - why are constantly in conflict with Russia, while we can just cooperate and jointly develop the economy of both countries? It would be better to croak all the Clintons and Bushes, and the sooner it happens the better for everyone.

sigma, Most Americans are not in fear of Russia, except TB(but, he's afraid of EVERYTHING). I think we share with you a distrust of the other nations' leadership. You don't trust ours, we don't trust Putin. There were a couple decades when the US and Russia DID cooperate for common goals. It will come around again, I suspect. Too much mutual interest. I wouldn't be surprised it Putin and Obama are playing one show in public and another behind the scenes. As I said in another thread, I think the Obama admin realized the anti-Assad path, pushed hard by the opposition leadership and gone along with by his side, is dangerous. I suspect Obama looks back at what happened after removing Hussein and Gaddhafi(both bad ideas from the American party in charge of bad ideas), and realized that Syria could go just as badly or worse. He'll let Putin have his moment, pull us back out of the morass a bit, and refocus.

"Refocus" is the right word, because even the blind can see that the US policy has lost all landmarks and they act like robots programmed during the cold war.

sigma wrote:"Refocus" is the right word, because even the blind can see that the US policy has lost all landmarks and they act like robots programmed during the cold war.

actually, I can't disagree with you.....however, I feel the same about your leadership, although with a twist. I think they may USE that sort of approach when it is needed to distract folks from other matters. Appealing to nationalism always serves the leadership when the ship of state is leaking a bit.