Russian ground troops and MIGs in Syria.

[mrjarrell]

Bulgaria, a NATO member, is refusing to let Russian military flights fly through their airspace on their way to Syria. Makes sense to me. Let the Russkies take the long way around. They've got oil to burn.
https://news.vice.com/article/bulgaria-to-russian-military-aircraft-you-shall-not-pass

 

[1DOWN4UP]

CBS News / AP ^

 

[9mmfan]

If that were the US flying in troops and equipment to the Kurss there would be worldwide outrage.
Russians do it and calm news stories appear.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

U.S. Moves to Block Russian Military Buildup in Syria

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Refugee crisis: Pressure builds for U.S. to take in more Syrians - CNNPolitics.com

How long until a terrorist event in the US that can be traced back to taking in Syrian refugees

 

[mrjarrell]

Refugee crisis: Pressure builds for U.S. to take in more Syrians - CNNPolitics.com

How long until a terrorist event in the US that can be traced back to taking in Syrian refugees

How many firefights broke out after we took in refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia? Or Ethiopia? Or any of the myriad countries around the world where we have taken in refugees from? Could a terrorist sneak in under the cover of this? Sure. But the vast majority of these people are going to be fine, upstanding people looking to escape the horrors of war and the IS. We turned away massive numbers of jews prior to WW2 and look what happened there. We know that the terrorists of IS will do to these people if they remain. I'd rather take the risk that a couple of bad guys get through than turn our backs on these people in their darkest hour.

 

[Thor]

Bulgaria's refusal to allow Russia to use their airspace, without an ongoing crisis but used as political theater will push the Russians to retaliate. Probably in a way the State Dept and the current misadministration does not expect. The current situation in Syria is a crisis...to Syrians not NATO, this will make it a NATO problem. I'm sure they won't let whatever crisis they generate to go to waste though. At best it is a return to the Cold War. I'm not sure Putin would be satisfied with that.

 

[Thor]

I would prefer that we let in immigrants that will benefit the republic, not just open the flood gates because of bleeding heart whiners. "Oh, but we must let our country devolve into a third world hole because think of the children, and they've become so uncomfortable in the countries they've created".

Meh, shut the borders and make them prove they will be good citizens first.

 

[T.Lex]

We turned away massive numbers of jews prior to WW2 and look what happened there.

Source? I've never heard of that. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I never heard of it.

We know that the terrorists of IS will do to these people if they remain. I'd rather take the risk that a couple of bad guys get through than turn our backs on these people in their darkest hour.

Really? Where were you during the Rwandan genocide(s)?

Just to make sure I'd understand, you'd rather spend USian time/talent/treasure on relocating people to here - possibly even terrorists that would do us harm- than do what is necessary to help them make their homeland safer?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Rubio: Hey Maybe The US Should Take In A Bunch Of Syrian Refugees

Article makes a few observations and reminders (Boston Bombers came in as refugees, for example).

Many, if not most of the Syrian refugees, are men of military age. Why aren't they fighting for their homeland?

 

[T.Lex]

Why aren't they fighting for their homeland?

That one is easy:
1) They would lose.
2) Even if they won... can they really beat Daesh for another generation or so?

ETA:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34196438

Syrian rebels linked to al-Qaeda have seized control of a key airbase in the north-western province of Idlib after a two-year siege, Syrian state TV says.
Abu al-Duhur airbase was the final regime position in the province, which is now held almost entirely by rebels.

Idlib also borders Turkey. Which means Russian troops, if they take the fight to Idlib, will be fighting in territory contiguous to a NATO member.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34188569

But some of the photos are tagged with locations in Syria's huge Homs province, which includes areas which have seen intense fighting. Additionally, the WIU researchers looked at a YouTube video from August apparently showing fighting to the north of Latakia, Syria's main port city which lies to the north of Tartus.

Latakia and Idlib are relatively near each other.

 

[Compatriot G]

Source? I've never heard of that. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I never heard of it.


Really? Where were you during the Rwandan genocide(s)?

Just to make sure I'd understand, you'd rather spend USian time/talent/treasure on relocating people to here - possibly even terrorists that would do us harm- than do what is necessary to help them make their homeland safer?

Voyage of the St. Louis

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That one is easy:
1) They would lose.
2) Even if they won... can they really beat Daesh for another generation or so?

Also, I guess this isn't much worth fighting for.

 

[T.Lex]

Voyage of the St. Louis

Interesting - I was not familiar with that story.

But, it doesn't really support the assertion that the US turned away "massive" numbers of Jews. There were immigration quotas at the time.

US officials could only have granted visas to the St. Louis passengers by denying them to the thousands of German Jews placed further up on the waiting list.

But that's different than the idea of specifically turning a blind eye to "massive" numbers.

United States Policy Toward Jewish Refugees, 1941?1952

Although thousands of Jews had been admitted into the United States under the combined German-Austrian quota from 1938–1941, the US did not pursue an organized and specific rescue policy for Jewish victims of Nazi Germany until early 1944.
... Once the United States entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany.

 

[mrjarrell]

Source? I've never heard of that. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I never heard of it.


Really? Where were you during the Rwandan genocide(s)?

Just to make sure I'd understand, you'd rather spend USian time/talent/treasure on relocating people to here - possibly even terrorists that would do us harm- than do what is necessary to help them make their homeland safer?

Certainly we should have taken in refugees from the Rwandan genocide. It stands as a shameful mark against the US and the rest of the world who stood by and let it happen.
And yes, I'd rather we take in refugees from Syria and Iraq than send our soldiers there to bleed and die in that region again. You're welcome to go and volunteer, though. The Kurds are always open to accepting volunteers.

And, on turning away jewish refugees, I'd point you at the St. Louis and the US' immigration policy that stood until 1944. Yes, some jews were allowed in, but many were turned away.

 

[T.Lex]

And yes, I'd rather we take in refugees from Syria and Iraq than send our soldiers there to bleed and die in that region again.

Even if it results in a 9/11-style attack on civilians?

(I think I know the answer, because, if nothing else, you are consistent.)

 

[JTScribe]

The world doesn't seem to want us to be their policeman, why should we be their den mother?

 

[GIJEW]

It's way more cost effective to just send cash and supplies to support refugees in turkey or maybe jordan instead of flying them over here. That, and those refugee camps could make good recruiting offices for the "moderate rebels" that the BO admin has been talking about arming.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The world doesn't seem to want us to be their policeman, why should we be their den mother?

What do you think the world would look like if we hadn't checked Russian influence throughout the Cold War? We don't police because we care about the people involved. Look at the poo holes in South America and Africa for examples of that. Genocides, tribalism, dictatorships, we don't care enough to wade in to that. No, we interfere where if we don't someone else will. That someone else has traditionally been Russia in our life times.

So again I'll ask the question from earlier in the thread. If the US (and I'll add the UK and France) didn't exert influence in the Middle East, and allowed USSR Russia to influence the region unchecked, what would the world look like today? We can complain about world policing and interfering and empire building etc. etc. and the outcomes have often been messy but that's how the real world works. Things change, things don't pan out like we'd planned, etc. But what was the price of doing nothing in a region that has NEVER successfully repelled an outside invader without outside help and who has been the source of cheap energy (ie a working economy) for decades when the Soviets very much wanted to exert their influence over it?

 

[JTScribe]

What do you think the world would look like if we hadn't checked Russian influence throughout the Cold War? We don't police because we care about the people involved. Look at the poo holes in South America and Africa for examples of that. Genocides, tribalism, dictatorships, we don't care enough to wade in to that. No, we interfere where if we don't someone else will. That someone else has traditionally been Russia in our life times.

So again I'll ask the question from earlier in the thread. If the US (and I'll add the UK and France) didn't exert influence in the Middle East, and allowed USSR Russia to influence the region unchecked, what would the world look like today? We can complain about world policing and interfering and empire building etc. etc. and the outcomes have often been messy but that's how the real world works. Things change, things don't pan out like we'd planned, etc. But what was the price of doing nothing in a region that has NEVER successfully repelled an outside invader without outside help and who has been the source of cheap energy (ie a working economy) for decades when the Soviets very much wanted to exert their influence over it?

Not talking about then, I'm talking about here and now. We're in a completely different position geopolitically at this time. Is Putin's Russia the same existential threat that the USSR was? Maybe, I don't know. But given our experiences with proxy wars, is it really worth it, or should we be consolidating our efforts in our own sphere of influence instead of trying to expand it?

Europe was lost, demographically speaking, before this Syrian crisis began. Any efforts to aid them are going to be throwing good money after bad in the long run. IMO this whole situation is going to bite the nations who take in large amounts of people in the butt, big time:

http://www.thelocal.de/20150626/refugee-school-calls-for-uniform-modesty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn-UCR5p0y0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKoatWM

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...rowing-food-and-water-away-onto-train-tracks/