Russia tried to murder US soldiers and Trump Ignored It

[Free Federal States]

And for the record, I’m only talking about the war scenario because it’s more fun to discuss than the others. As I said before, ideally there’s a diplomatic solution, but I pretty much draw the line at killing US troops. It’s not okay that they can go unpunished. Russia doesn’t seem to care about diplomacy anyway - only shows of force (which they always seem to outdo us with)

Also I’m not John Bolton. I’m not saying we should fight them just because we haven’t had a war in a while. As mentioned above, Russia only sees military might on display as a gauge of power. This is (at its core) a really serious and violent scare tactic. We do this, and Russia will think twice before messing with us.

[Free Federal States]

That is a very fair weakness to point out, and there is no counter. The US can’t force Syrians to get along with each other, but the primary goal is beat Russia. Frankly, I don’t really care what happens in the Middle East so long as it doesn’t hurt Americans. Russian dominance potentially hurts Americans (in the form of attacking US allies, creating a massive global war in which thousands of Americans die, maybe everyone if it goes nuclear) way more than a bunch of newly emerging Syrian terrorist cells or whatever the result is (A few horrible and brutal attacks against civilians where the casualties are probably ~300 at worst).

[Free Federal States]

Idk man I’m not a genius, I just want Russia to leave us alone

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Idk man I’m not a genius, I just want Russia to leave us alone

Use the quote button so it shows who you're replying to. Otherwise you're fine!

As far as I'm concerned the "Russians paying Taliban" story is quite plausible. But it's not proven.

[Free Federal States]

Yes that’s absolutely fair too. I don’t support taking military action unless we know that it’s true or are certain beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I think it likely that it’s true based on other aggressive Russian policies and that, with Trump in power, Putin thinks he can get away with anything.

[Ansarre]

My advice for Ansarre is to stop watching CNN and start watching Russia Today.

"Hey don't listen to free and independent media, listen to Kremlin funded propaganda!" You're kidding, right?

[Atheris]

My advice for Ansarre is to stop watching CNN and start watching Russia Today.

"Hey don't listen to free and independent media, listen to Kremlin funded propaganda!" You're kidding, right?

I wouldn't call CNN free and independent.

The best choice is to read your news from a mostly unbiased source, like The Economist, or Washington Post (which is what I use).

[Shofercia]

I think the US should respond to Russia by deploying forces directly against Russian allies. We mobilize our reserves and tell the Russians to get the hell out of Syria. We give them one week to pack up and leave. At the end of that time, we kick the living crud out of Assad, and if any Russians are there, we warned them and they had a reasonable amount of time to withdraw. We increase arms sales to Ukraine, deploy more military advisors there, and maybe advocate for them to join NATO.

Here’s why I advocate this:
1) Russia needs to lose prestige AT THE HANDS OF THE UNITED STATES so we can prove that we are still a worthy ally, and that Russia is not.
2) In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians blinked first. They might blink first again. If they don’t, fighting a war against Russia ONLY INSIDE OF SYRIA is infinitely preferable to fighting them on a larger scale. We can simply issue new rules of engagement for the conflict that’s already ongoing and then launch a limited military operation.
3) Syria is preferable to intervene against than Iran. Syria is a smaller country with a smaller population, and fewer forces will be needed to hold it without an insurgency popping up (1:20 soldier to civilian ratio according to my history teacher a few years ago). Additionally, Syria has factions already on the ground who would want to ally with us if we were to intervene. Lastly, the country has been at war a long time. When our troops march into Damascus, the Syrians will be very tired and even hardliners might simply accept peace, choosing to push their agenda politically instead of militarily. When we’ve won, we let our Syrian allies create the replacement government and don’t do ANYTHING to try and create a system that looks remotely like ours. That just doesn’t work (cough cough, Iraq and Afghanistan). The end goal is to establish an anti-Russian regime that the people of Syria can live with, not a democracy.

If all goes well, the Russians will lose allies and prestige, and we might gain some of those. Russia will probably be very angry, but they started it by having our troops killed. Then, we use careful diplomacy to reduce tension. Longstanding anger can contribute to larger wars in the future (Franco-Prussian War leftover resentment contributed to World War I) but if managed correctly, we can demonstrate “the stick” by beating Assad and offer Russia “the carrot” if they change their ways and start contributing to world peace. We have to make it very clear that we will not roll over for Putin, but also very clear that we are willing to be their friends if a mutually beneficial relationship is desired by them.

Edit: I am aware that this is an extremely risky plan, and is probably a little bit extreme. However, I strongly believe that we have to demonstrate that we are better than the Russians. I feel like they are constantly getting the better of us, and this has embarrassed us and deteriorated our position as a world power. If we are to maintain international security and democracy, a little bloodshed now to stop a bully is better than a lot of bloodshed later (think Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy and you’ll get what I mean)

So you want to start a nuclear war over a report whose intelligence is still being confirmed? Genius! You do realize that Dr. Strangelove was fiction, right? Not sure if you're aware of actual History, but during the Cuban Missile Crisis the US also agreed to move nukes out of Turkey. The US then pulled a brilliant PR move on how Macho Murika was vs Rusha, but that was just PR; it wasn't reality. So not only are you basing your actions on a report that's probably bullshit, you're basing Russia's response on a decade old PR move, and risking nuclear warfare in the process. That is the very definition of sheer stupidity.

You want to prove the worthiness of US as an ally by engaging in a war in the Middle East against an army that can actually fight back? That's like someone trying to prove that they're an elite driver by driving a car without an engine. Why don't actually ask how America's allies, other than the UK, feel about Middle Eastern Warfare? At this point I'd prefer the French Battle Plan to yours. Do you just not realize how complex of a region the Middle East is?

Thinking that the Russians will contain this war inside Syria is simply continuing the thread of utter stupidity. US escalates in Syria, Russia escalates in Iraq, where US troops are extremely vulnerable. Russia's committed to Syria, so no blinking will occur, nor will you be able to contain said war to Syria. Also, Ukraine's armed forces are still fucked, and Russia's Army could probably waltz in Kiev. And if it's the US escalation that's to blame, I doubt you'll get any sympathy from European allies not named UK.

You won't be marching onto Damascus, you'll be crawling under intense Russian missile fire, because in this case, you'd be the aggressor. How'd being the aggressor work out for Saakashvili in 2008? For Khattab in 1999? Do you think Americans are going to support a long term conflict in the Middle East against a professional army with damn good missiles, in the midst of an economic recession, COVID-19 spikes, and quite a bit of violence?

Also, you don't become friends with Russians by attacking Russian military bases, like the bases in Syria. What you're proposing isn't a risk - it's sheer lunacy.

[Shofercia]

Why would I want to do that?
1) Russia loses allies
2) Russia loses prestige
3) If Russia chooses to fight, we beat them and they lose more prestige (and also some troops to make up for the ones they had killed)
4) America’s value as an ally is put on display and people see that we’re still worth keeping around, even after four years of Trump

What would we do after taking out Assad’s government? That’s explained.
-Allow local allies to take the lead in creating the new government
-We don’t impose an American-style democracy on Syria. If that’s what the Syrians want as a replacement, that’s what happens, but our goal is removing Russia and creating a stable Syria, not a democratic one

Edit: At the same time, I should mention that I support solving this diplomatically, but this is a strategy that I think will force Russia’s hand and might get them to quit doing inflammatory things
Edit 2: oh wait, you’re asking about fighting them in a larger war aren’t you? (Sry read over that first couple times). I don’t want to fight Russia in a larger war. That is not worth the potential cost. However, beating Russia in a small war potentially reaffirms American strength and shows that we’re not cowards like we seem to be acting. If we lose a small war, it’s just one more embarrassment on top of all the others and can be blamed on any number of factors.

It doesn't matter what you want. If you're going to attack Russia's bases in Syria, you're going to get a large war that will include Iraq. You can't even create a stable Iraq, where there's no real foreign interference, except Iran. How're you going to create a stable Syria with constant Russian interference? Also, how's the weather in Kiev, I hear it's lovely this time of year for Russian tanks. Don't like that? Don't attack Russia's bases. How would you feel if Russia told America to GTFO from Germany, or else Ramstein AFB gets attacked? That's exactly what you're doing.

And for the record, I’m only talking about the war scenario because it’s more fun to discuss than the others. As I said before, ideally there’s a diplomatic solution, but I pretty much draw the line at killing US troops. It’s not okay that they can go unpunished. Russia doesn’t seem to care about diplomacy anyway - only shows of force (which they always seem to outdo us with)

Also I’m not John Bolton. I’m not saying we should fight them just because we haven’t had a war in a while. As mentioned above, Russia only sees military might on display as a gauge of power. This is (at its core) a really serious and violent scare tactic. We do this, and Russia will think twice before messing with us.

You don't even know if the program existed, or if it's something like Iraq had WMDs bullshit. At least be honest with yourself, and admit that. Also, real war ain't fun. Might want to read Willie Sherman on the subject.

That is a very fair weakness to point out, and there is no counter. The US can’t force Syrians to get along with each other, but the primary goal is beat Russia. Frankly, I don’t really care what happens in the Middle East so long as it doesn’t hurt Americans. Russian dominance potentially hurts Americans (in the form of attacking US allies, creating a massive global war in which thousands of Americans die, maybe everyone if it goes nuclear) way more than a bunch of newly emerging Syrian terrorist cells or whatever the result is (A few horrible and brutal attacks against civilians where the casualties are probably ~300 at worst).

And Russians killing Americans in Iraq because some brainiac decide to destroy Russia's military bases in Syria based on a faulty report, will actually hurt Americans, and casualties aren't going to be in the mere hundreds.

[Baltenstein]

Nervermind the fact that RT's own journos quit their jobs while live on-air because there is a human limit to how much agitprop you can parrot with a straight face.

I know. If only it paid as much as MSNBC...

So, when will Baltenstein and Ansarre get together to found a neocon region?

May I suggest [Arsenal of Democracy]?

What kind of non-sensical response is that? That's not even a Whataboutism, that's just...weird.

[Gormwood]

I know. If only it paid as much as MSNBC...

So, when will Baltenstein and Ansarre get together to found a neocon region?

May I suggest [Arsenal of Democracy]?

What kind of non-sensical response is that? That's not even a Whataboutism, that's just...weird.

Do you know any MSNBC journalist who quit on air?

[Esotyrica]

What kind of non-sensical response is that? That's not even a Whataboutism, that's just...weird.

Do you know any MSNBC journalist who quit on air?

no but i want them to

[Ansarre]

"Hey don't listen to free and independent media, listen to Kremlin funded propaganda!" You're kidding, right?

I wouldn't call CNN free and independent.

The best choice is to read your news from a mostly unbiased source, like The Economist, or Washington Post (which is what I use).

Washington Post is good if you avoid their opinion pieces.. I regularly go to the Guardian, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, the Economist, and the Telegraph. All good sources. CNN definitely is independent though, unlike RT which is directly controlled by the Kremlin.

[Loben The 2nd]

I dunno, we gave the afghans weapons in the 80s to kill Soviet soldiers, seems a bit tit for tat.

[Kowani]

I wouldn't call CNN free and independent.

The best choice is to read your news from a mostly unbiased source, like The Economist, or Washington Post (which is what I use).

Washington PostJeff Bezos is good if you avoid their opinion pieces.. I regularly go to the Guardian,Financial Timesmultibillion Japanese company,Foreign Affairsmouthpiece for the elite, the EconomistItalian multibillionaires, and the Telegraph British billionaires. All good sources. CNN AT&T definitely is independent though, unlike RT which is directly controlled by the Kremlin.

Wow. One independent paper.

[Cisairse]

NYT is independent, just get your news from them

[Red Intria]

Independent doesn't mean unbiased. Ansarre could start an independent media org today, it would have a neocon bias.

Which is fine. I advise looking at all media as biased. Question everything, use Occam's Razor judiciously (but not religiously - it is a tool, not a law).

Anyway, to get away from general media thoughts, and back to the accusation at hand: Along with the denails of the Americans, the Russians, and the Taliban, the commander of CENTCOM, Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, doesn't buy it.

“You see a lot of indicators, many of them are troubling many of them you act on. But, but in this case there just there wasn't enough there I sent the intelligence guys back to continue to dig on it, and I believe they're continuing to dig right now, but I just didn't see enough there to tell me that the circuit was closed in that regard.”

Not a full denial, of course, because that would be unwise, tough to prove a negative. But he is saying he's seen nothing tangible.

Advanced Clickbaiting by the NYT imho.

[Slavakino]

I dunno, we gave the afghans weapons in the 80s to kill Soviet soldiers, seems a bit tit for tat.

The biggest mistake in US history behind funding Israel and the consequences were inevitable

[Shofercia]

NYT is independent, just get your news from them

NYT's record:

Supported War in Iraq
Supported War with Libya
Supported Escalation in Ukraine
Supported Taking a Bigger Role in Syria
Supported Bolton's Book, which called for War with Iran, without even trying to discredit that part of it

I think the New York Times can independently assess how the military industrial complex's balls taste, since NYT constantly has said balls in their mouth.

[Atheris]

NYT is independent, just get your news from them

NYT's record:

Supported War in Iraq
Supported War with Libya
Supported Escalation in Ukraine
Supported Taking a Bigger Role in Syria
Supported Bolton's Book, which called for War with Iran, without even trying to discredit that part of it

I think the New York Times can independently assess how the military industrial complex's balls taste, since NYT constantly has said balls in their mouth.

Ugh. That's something I didn't want to read first thing in the morning.

[Cisairse]

NYT is independent, just get your news from them

NYT's record:

Supported War in Iraq
Supported War with Libya
Supported Escalation in Ukraine
Supported Taking a Bigger Role in Syria
Supported Bolton's Book, which called for War with Iran, without even trying to discredit that part of it

I think the New York Times can independently assess how the military industrial complex's balls taste, since NYT constantly has said balls in their mouth.

Feel free to explain how NYT's reporting did any of that.

[Gormwood]

NYT's record:

Supported War in Iraq
Supported War with Libya
Supported Escalation in Ukraine
Supported Taking a Bigger Role in Syria
Supported Bolton's Book, which called for War with Iran, without even trying to discredit that part of it

I think the New York Times can independently assess how the military industrial complex's balls taste, since NYT constantly has said balls in their mouth.

Feel free to explain how NYT's reporting did any of that.

Proud defender of Russia.

[Cisairse]

Feel free to explain how NYT's reporting did any of that.

Proud defender of Russia.

What does your post have to do with my post?

[Gormwood]

Proud defender of Russia.

What does your post have to do with my post?

Shof jumps into any thread that casts Russia in a negative light and starts poisoning the wells.

[Cisairse]

What does your post have to do with my post?

Shof jumps into any thread that casts Russia in a negative light and starts poisoning the wells.

Ah, I see.