Should Obama have invaded Syria when he had the chance?

Post Reply New Topic

Should Obama have invaded Syria? I'm not sure. He has taking a huge stance already on climate control and his lack of liberalism on the topic of most Arabic states has led him to under surge in territories that serve little purpose to him or anyone but to manipulate and control contrasting counter terrorism alliances, that do little to oppose or serve the neighbouring counter elite .

My instincts say that Obama should have overrun Syria with a bulldozer.

But my sensible side agrees with Jacoby, by and large.

The lady was wrong. Obama was just as aggressive as Bush, but choose the bottom-up approach of supplying the rebels, instead of the top down approach of invading with our own forces.

It almost worked, but Putin came to the aid of Russia's traditional ally- the Assad dynasty- and propped Assad up- and the war was prolonged (take your pick for scapegoating prolonging the war- Obama, or Putin).

Bush choose to deal with Iraq by restaging Vietnam.

Obama choose to deal with Syria by restaging the Bay of Pigs.

Both used fiascos as 'role models' and (surprise! surprise!) both presidents ended up with new fiascos!

Muslim terrorists fighting each other in Syria instead of attacking the West is a fiasco? Hand them more rope, I say.

Terrorism can't be destroyed.

Back when the Allies faced Germany and Axis forces in WWII this hasn't even been invented. I recall one of the assassination attempts on Hitler was a guy wired himself with a bomb but he chickened out and Hitler lived to see another day.

or When the Israelis faced Arab troops in 1967/1973 they were up against Tanks, planes, and soldiers (yes, the ones with uniform).

Nowdays people realize they can fight dirty and without concious. Because the cause justifies the means? well, why won't I hide behind the innocent? why won't I suicide bomb if I can? Why can't I cut out people's heads? Because "I" can, because nowdays war isn't just about which tank is getting his shot off first.

ISIS: Imo if coalition forces don't get full support to bring the conflict to a definitive one sided end, this is gonna last longer.

More neocon BS from Humanaut. Assad was never an enemy of the West. He is, on the other hand, considered by many Zionists as an enemy of Israel, and Israel is clearly the country Humanaut cares about more than any other.

What's your story, humanaut? Are you jewish yourself or is it just that repeating jewish supremacist likudnik propaganda makes you feel like a tough guy?

I don't think there was ever an opportune time to intervene. If we intervened in 2011 there would be an ensuing power struggle and a situation like we have now in Egypt or possibly just set the stage for a second civil war like in Libya. Any later and it would've been a bloody, fruitless quagmire no different than Iraq. ISIS could still grow in Iraq's marginalized Sunni countryside (which is where they originated in the 2000s anyway before they were drawn to Syria), Iran and Russia would disconnect us politically, and nothing good could come about it. The war is utterly depressing and tragic, but I can't imagine a situation where intervention would help things in the long term.

Agreed and I actually think whist clear we messed things up bad in Iraq, we shouldn't feel guilty for everything becuase there is complex pre-existing sectarianism too and this is the crux of much of the problems.

I support negotiations with Iran on the basis that we should back any one horse more in the region. We also caused a coup in Iran and this had nothing to do with spreading democracy (on the contrary), so we are partly to blame for the current regime.

I expect Germans in the late 1930s couldn't see anything wrong in invading other country's either.

A better comparison might be with how Russia dealt with Vietnam. Remember though that this took over 10 years to bear fruit plus there wasn't much of a refugee problem, at least not outside of Vietnam.

Cut off their food supply and just ship them pork and pork bacon!

The Russians have moved in, air power and ground. Where they park that much they also bring air defense.

The last reconnaissance photos showed a hundred jets. ISIS has no air defenses, they are about to get mowed down.

The Russian buildup continues, Assad advances on all fronts. They are bringing the war to ISIS.

Next I expect them clearing the Kurds southern front, cutting supply lines from Turkey, all the way over to Iran.

This was the proposed pipeline route from Iran to the coast. It also gains the big hydroelectric dams.

Russia is good at hunting terrorists.

Putin has been making overtures to Obama to join together in Syria against ISIS.

Should Obama do this?

Apparently, Obama initially said No, but there may be a thawing over this idea and Putin is meeting Obama at UN assembly in NYC soon.
I wonder if this might work?

Problem is that Syria is USSR`s only Mediterranean port (+oil pipeline). Putin said he will go in with or without US support.... interesting times!

The fight is on, Syrian planes hit ISIS out to the Iraq border, all along their main supply route, killed hundreds, on the first day. Now ISIS has to reinforce their positions, bring more troops and supplies, and the Russians are watching.

This supply line reaches Anbar in Iraq, it starts at the Turkish border in Syria.

Snip!

Air power has never won a war. Look for the Russians to send in ground forces.

Perhaps not on its own, but air supremacy is an essential part of the equation.