The GOP proposal for a No Fly Zone in Syria

[Pete at Home]

I'd stopped reading GOP presidential candidate remarks since they seem intent on throwing the election again in their race to the bottom against Clinton's straw man Trump.

But there's one gem in all that mud. The proposal to create a No Fly Zone in Syria.  Most of the refugees fleeing Syria are fleeing Assad.  Could the US and iallies control the skies and shoot down war planes over non ISIS territory?  What would Russia's response be?

[Fenring]

But there's one gem in all that mud. The proposal to create a No Fly Zone in Syria.

No.

Most of the refugees fleeing Syria are fleeing Assad.

No. 

Could the US and iallies control the skies and shoot down war planes over non ISIS territory?

No. 

What would Russia's response be?

Gee I wonder what their response would be to having their planes shot down. Those are, of course, the planes you're talking about.

[Pete at Home]

I actually do wonder.  If you think you actually know, then tell me what precisely what you are sure Russia would do in response--

1. To a united NATO and EU establishment of a no fly zone over non ISIS Syria and Iraq.

2. The enforcement of that zone by shooting down a Russian plane in that area?

[Pete at Home]

Most of the refugees fleeing Syria are fleeing Assad.

No. 

Source?  The polls listed on a previous thread suggested Assad was the bogeyman feared by most refugees.

[Fenring]

Most of the refugees fleeing Syria are fleeing Assad.

No. 

Source?  The polls listed on a previous thread suggested Assad was the bogeyman feared by most refugees.

If Assad is so bad to them why weren't they fleeing from him 5-10 years ago en masse? Did he suddenly go bad, like Evil Ash?

As for your other question, I don't think I have to answer what would happen if American allies started shooting down Russian planes over a nation that has invited Russia in and not NATO, and that is backed by China and probably India. I've already mentioned this in another thread and I abbreviate things by calling politicians calling for a no-fly zone as the World War III Party.

[Pete at Home]

Sounds more like a Vietnam II than a wwiii.   Ruskies still love their kids.  I don't see anything going global.

[Pete at Home]

"If Assad is so bad to them why weren't they fleeing from him 5-10 years ago en masse? "

Ask them. They say they are fleeing Assad.

[NobleHunter]

My understanding is that up until the Arab Spring kicked off the civil war in Syria, it was reasonably stable and prosperous. Even if the guy in charge is a tyrant and a dictator, people usually don't pick up and leave when they aren't likely to starve or get shot. Now Syrians are very likely to starve or get shot, so they leave. Not to mention a rather high chance of ethnic cleansing if the wrong groups end up on top.

Blaming Assad is way to demonstrate they aren't supporters of his regime without claiming affiliation with or opposition to any of the rebel groups.

The US shooting down Russian planes might not lead to WW3 but it'd be a very unstable circumstance. Presumably both sides are smart enough not to escalate, but it's not smart to rely on that presumption.

[Fenring]

Presumably both sides are smart enough not to escalate

They thought the same thing before WWI. You know, that other time when there were multiple alliances and one act engaged them all in a way no one actually thought would happen.