Russia brings the fight to ISIS in Syria!!!

#602
#602
putin-vodka-meme.jpg
 
#604
#604
Something to think about... would Russia have even attempted to move into Syria if they didn't have confidence in their military force? If Russia thought they had inferior equipment or if they felt they would be outclassed/embarrassed, would they have done this?
 
#605
#605
Rasputin_Vol said:
Something to think about... would Russia have even attempted to move into Syria if they didn't have confidence in their military force? If Russia thought they had inferior equipment or if they felt they would be outclassed/embarrassed, would they have done this?
Click to expand...

Wonder if they thought the same thing in 1979 before Afghanistan...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#608
#608
So now Obama uses troops in the fight against ISIS? WTF has he been, day late and dollar short with his indecision as usual. Now we are there is support of the rebels (whoever they are) and Russia is supporting Syrian troops. Who thinks this is a good idea?
 
#609
#609
VolsNSkinsFan said:
0bama is sending in troops into Syria. Incredibly stupid. Does this guy keep any promises?
Click to expand...

No, he keeps no promises. Its not just him though. All of Washington is overran with war hungry criminals.

We are in Syria illegally. We invaded Iraq illegally. The ideology is global domination at any cost. End game being Russia and China as puppet states.

It's high time the American people realize that their sons and daughters have been dying and will continue to die for global hegemony, and not the humanitarian, saving the world from evil bull**** our government and press feed us on a daily basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#610
#610
Pacer92 said:
No, he keeps no promises. Its not just him though. All of Washington is overran with war hungry criminals.

We are in Syria illegally. We invaded Iraq illegally. The ideology is global domination at any cost. End game being Russia and China as puppet states.

It's high time the American people realize that their sons and daughters have been dying and will continue to die for global hegemony, and not the humanitarian, saving the world from evil bull**** our government and press feed us on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Two questions:

1. What's your definition of a legitimate government?

2. What's your definition of a legitimate state?

While interrelated, those two things aren't exactly the same.

I agree with you that Iraq 2003 was a wrong and foolhardy decision (in case that still needs to be clarified) and that the US should largely stay out of the Syrian Civil War, outside of securing the Iraqi-Syrian border region and taking a firm diplomatic stance against the Assad government. So, these aren't trick questions.
 
#611
#611
Rasputin_Vol said:
They learned their lesson in 1979. We still haven't learned ours since the Korean War...
Click to expand...

If I was going to use historical precedents, I'd use Vietnam instead.

The Korean War was largely successful on our part. Kept Russia from turning the rest of the Korean Peninsula into a Kim-run perennial ****house.
 
#612
#612
IPleadInsanity said:
So now Obama uses troops in the fight against ISIS? WTF has he been, day late and dollar short with his indecision as usual. Now we are there is support of the rebels (whoever they are) and Russia is supporting Syrian troops. Who thinks this is a good idea?
Click to expand...

Depends on the reasons and strategy. My suspicion is that the reason to put soldiers on the ground is to deter Russian strikes. It's pretty well known that Russia was targeting not ISIS but other groups that the US has been supporting. Russia has been emphatic that it is ONLY targeting ISIS. If the US makes it KNOWN that they are placing US military on the ground in an advisory role, then Russia would KNOWINGLY be attaching US interest. If (and that's a big if) this is the case then i actually say, "well done" by the admin.
 
#613
#613
Roustabout said:
Depends on the reasons and strategy. My suspicion is that the reason to put soldiers on the ground is to deter Russian strikes. It's pretty well known that Russia was targeting not ISIS but other groups that the US has been supporting. Russia has been emphatic that it is ONLY targeting ISIS. If the US makes it KNOWN that they are placing US military on the ground in an advisory role, then Russia would KNOWINGLY be attaching US interest. If (and that's a big if) this is the case then i actually say, "well done" by the admin.
Click to expand...

At the moment, barring something unforeseen, the Russian objective in Syria is pretty clear: defeat the Syrian opposition while only giving a token fight (for the time being) to ISIS so as to create facts on the ground favorable to Russia's narrative. Get the remnants of the legitimate opposition out of the way first, so that then the war is merely a matter of Assad v. ISIS. Faced with such a manipulated choice, of course the majority of the world, including Westerners, will sympathize with Russia's campaign to bolster Assad. Sad that this is unfortunately the reality of the situation, since Assad has killed more innocents than ISIS.

As for the decision on our part to send in 50 or so special forces, it remains unclear what the objective is. That's not surprising though since the situation in Syria is much tougher for the US than it is Russia, the latter of course not having as many moral qualms in bolstering a dictatorial human rights abuser.
 
#614
#614
Roustabout said:
Depends on the reasons and strategy. My suspicion is that the reason to put soldiers on the ground is to deter Russian strikes. It's pretty well known that Russia was targeting not ISIS but other groups that the US has been supporting. Russia has been emphatic that it is ONLY targeting ISIS. If the US makes it KNOWN that they are placing US military on the ground in an advisory role, then Russia would KNOWINGLY be attaching US interest. If (and that's a big if) this is the case then i actually say, "well done" by the admin.
Click to expand...
When you say the groups the US was supporting, do you mean the FSA that was sending arms to ISIS as soon as we gave them weapons or the dozens or so fighters we trained for $500 million?
 
#615
#615
Roustabout said:
Depends on the reasons and strategy. My suspicion is that the reason to put soldiers on the ground is to deter Russian strikes. It's pretty well known that Russia was targeting not ISIS but other groups that the US has been supporting. Russia has been emphatic that it is ONLY targeting ISIS. If the US makes it KNOWN that they are placing US military on the ground in an advisory role, then Russia would KNOWINGLY be attaching US interest. If (and that's a big if) this is the case then i actually say, "well done" by the admin.
Click to expand...

So basically, you support the strategy of using our US soldiers as human shields halfway around the world?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#618
#618
volprof said:
Two questions:

1. What's your definition of a legitimate government?

2. What's your definition of a legitimate state?

While interrelated, those two things aren't exactly the same.

I agree with you that Iraq 2003 was a wrong and foolhardy decision (in case that still needs to be clarified) and that the US should largely stay out of the Syrian Civil War, outside of securing the Iraqi-Syrian border region and taking a firm diplomatic stance against the Assad government. So, these aren't trick questions.
Click to expand...

If you agree about iraq, it should be fairly easy to see the the similarities with Syria. The main difference being the will of the American people to fight another war like that. Our government wasnt naive to the fact that American citizens weren't going to allow another illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Syria was a legitimate state ran by a legitimate govt/ruler, albeit not pro-US. So, we cause unrest by aiding opposition. We demonize and flat out lie to make our interests and agenda appear legit, continuing to this day. Our govt has proven time and time again that it will say and do anything, and when all else fails, invade illegally. It's the same thing now in syria.

A legitimate government is decided by the people. There is opposition in every country in the world, including here. If the people who opposed the wrong doings of our govt decided to protest en masse, it would look like a revolution. Without going too in depth, legitimacy of a government revolves around its moral standards and laws. The acceptance or refusal by the people of that state deem it legitimate or not imo.
 
#620
#620
Pacer92 said:
If you agree about iraq, it should be fairly easy to see the the similarities with Syria. The main difference being the will of the American people to fight another war like that. Our government wasnt naive to the fact that American citizens weren't going to allow another illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Syria was a legitimate state ran by a legitimate govt/ruler, albeit not pro-US. So, we cause unrest by aiding opposition. We demonize and flat out lie to make our interests and agenda appear legit, continuing to this day. Our govt has proven time and time again that it will say and do anything, and when all else fails, invade illegally. It's the same thing now in syria.

A legitimate government is decided by the people. There is opposition in every country in the world, including here. If the people who opposed the wrong doings of our govt decided to protest en masse, it would look like a revolution. Without going too in depth, legitimacy of a government revolves around its moral standards and laws. The acceptance or refusal by the people of that state deem it legitimate or not imo.
Click to expand...

So in light of the popular uprisings against Assad, resulting from the effects of that nation's extended drought and his government's ability to confront it, do you think he's never lost legitimacy? In other words, do you think Assad has confronted this crisis in a manner that should be appropriate for any "legitimate" leader?
 
#621
#621
Rasputin_Vol said:
When you say the groups the US was supporting, do you mean the FSA that was sending arms to ISIS as soon as we gave them weapons or the dozens or so fighters we trained for $500 million?
Click to expand...

Your "FSA is ISIS" narrative is getting old and trite.

Even the Russian Foreign Ministry has given up on this hackneyed narrative it started by trying to reach out (or at least pretending to for the sake of international press and opinion) to the FSA.

I know your side persistently tries to skew the facts and bend left into right and vice versa, but you can't have it both ways. The FSA is either a terrorist group or it is not. At the moment, your spiritual heads in the Kremlin suggest that it is not, so I advise you to stick to the new narrative.
 
#622
#622
volprof said:
So in light of the popular uprisings against Assad, resulting from the effects of that nation's extended drought and his government's ability to confront it, do you think he's never lost legitimacy? In other words, do you think Assad has confronted this crisis in a manner that should be appropriate for any "legitimate" leader?
Click to expand...

It's no secret we had plans to disrupt Syria going back to 2006. Like I stated earlier, opposition exists in every state. Im positive it existed in syria and I think we exploited that by funding and legitimizing a small minority to fuel a civil war. I believe, without the funding and backing of our government, this would've been squashed years ago.

Why do we never support diplomacy at the onset of these uprisings? We support the complete removal without diplomatic efforts to hear all sides. Why is using force the trending political solution in most of our efforts??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#623
#623
Pacer92 said:
It's no secret we had plans to disrupt Syria going back to 2006. Like I stated earlier, opposition exists in every state. Im positive it existed in syria and I think we exploited that by funding and legitimizing a small minority to fuel a civil war. I believe, without the funding and backing of our government, this would've been squashed years ago.

Why do we never support diplomacy at the onset of these uprisings? We support the complete removal without diplomatic efforts to hear all sides. Why is using force the trending political solution in most of our efforts??
Click to expand...

The entire Syrian conflict is over a Qatari natural gas pipeline that Assad wouldn't allow to be built.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#624
#624
Oh, okay, so the drought never happened and the rural Syrians who moved to the cities to avoid its harshest effects, causing urban unrest that Assad ineptly managed didn't have anything to do with it.

Well, historians and Syrians alike, cancel the drought from your official records.

It was a Qatari pipeline instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top