Reply With Quote
I called it years ago in this same forum Lavrov and Putin will run circles around Obama and Kerry.
Obama and the rest of the neocons were convinced they could bomb the out of Damascus. Like they did Tripoli just weeks before. They were already coloring their Mission Accomplished poster.
But Putin and Russia had other plans. They basically unmasked the US plans and bull about chemical weapons. And called Kerrys bluff. Then the US civilians gave Obama and US politicians an ultimatum. You attack Syria and its your ass.
The politicians folded. That's how the Syria plan went for them neocons.
I called it years ago in this same forum Lavrov and Putin will run circles around Obama and Kerry.
Russia to the rescue!
I see you missed my hint.
All well and good, sure.
The Russian military has about zero operational experience with formal brigade level deployments remote from their borders.
Tanks, as powerful as they are, tend to be crewed by squishy things that need food, and tend to run out of fuel eventually. Those guns with a range of 2 miles can be silenced by simply detonating a well placed IED on the supply route, as the US army found out to the tune of a few thousand dead. The base they are establishing is over a hundred miles (closer to 200) from where any real fighting with ISIS might take place.
I would guess the brigade they are deploying will be, as you noted, pretty effective at first, especially coupled with airstrikes of any sort, but ISIS is not a rag bag bunch of militia that turn tail and run at the first sign of opposition.
That all assumes, though, that the deployment will be offensive, which is somewhat tentative.
Most analysis seems to indicate that this will be a forward airbase, so the Russians may simply be digging in and protecting an airfield, along with their own interests.
I guess we will get to see what happens.
That was almost a coherent thought. Almost.
Kind of scary to think this will be a formal training of the sort.
Meh, if the Rooskies want to wade into the swamp of ME sectarian violence... they are dumber than hater thinks they are.
I would bet a small amount of money that they will simply defend the airbase, unless we see a lot more armored vehicles deployed.
I'm thinking jets and attack helicopters will be deployed next
So murdering thousands of innocent women and children is cool if you're Syria but BAD BAD BAD if you're Israel. I'll try to keep it straight...Syria is good, Israel BAD BAD BAD.
Did you get those ideas from cnn back in 2011 or what? Sounds ridiculous
Whatever it takes to stop this migration. Russia to the rescue indeed.
Obviously Assad is a bad actor, but who else do you want in power? The "moderate rebels" that don't exist? ISIS? Al Nusra? There are no good options, he's the least bad. Also not really sure of the proof of intentional civilian murder by the Assad regime. There are so many different factions fighting, it is muddy and I don't trust western media and government propaganda claims. Israel on the other hand has a policy of intentional civilian murder. Just go read the testimonials of their own soldiers: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/
What makes you think Russia wants to stop the migration?
How does stopping the migration help Russia?
Is it more coherent than saying most of the refugees are Shiite?
Doesn't matter. He can kill as many civilians as he wants because it's hard to find someone who won't. I understand that now.
They do exist, just in smaller than hoped for numbersThe "moderate rebels" that don't exist?
Both indiscriminately kill civilians so in reality I don't see much difference. Except Assad has a working air force.ISIS?
What does that have to do with your indignation that Israeli leadership is full of war criminals who deserve, at the very least, to be ousted from power and put on trial? Why don't you share that indignation when it comes to Muslims killing Muslims?There are no good options, he's the least bad.
Also not really sure of the proof of intentional civilian murder by the Assad regime. There are so many different factions fighting, it is muddy and I don't trust western media and government propaganda claims.That's rich. Look up Barrel Bombs and read into the countless reports from neutral organizations about atrocious war crimes committed by the Syrian Army. Or are you going to claim Assad didn't know about what his own army and air force were doing?
That story is pretty horrifying. Yet it pales in comparison to what Assad is doing to his own people.Israel on the other hand has a policy of intentional civilian murder. Just go read the testimonials of their own soldiers: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/
Syria good, Israel BAD. See I'm already catching on!
Barrel bombs are an improvisation and are not very accurate, the civilian deaths are accidental. If westrn backed terrorists weren't invading the country there would be no need for any bombs.
Egyptian government just massacred scores of unarmed morsi supporters. Look it up. But because they are on the side of the US, those are not crimes
That's the double standard everyone must acknowledge. Assad just like Egypt army is stabilizing the country
. Look at Yemen and what the Saudi army is doing to civilians.but they are our allies so its ok
First of all, "that story is pretty horrifying" tells me you don't know about Breaking the Silence. There are hundreds of testimonials from Israeli soldiers on how they committed or were directed to commit war crimes. It's not "a story", it is a series of testimonials that demonstrate the state of Israel directs their army to violate international law and murder innocents.Doesn't matter. He can kill as many civilians as he wants because it's hard to find someone who won't. I understand that now.
They do exist, just in smaller than hoped for numbers
Both indiscriminately kill civilians so in reality I don't see much difference. Except Assad has a working air force.
What does that have to do with your indignation that Israeli leadership is full of war criminals who deserve, at the very least, to be ousted from power and put on trial? Why don't you share that indignation when it comes to Muslims killing Muslims?
That story is pretty horrifying. Yet it pales in comparison to what Assad is doing to his own people.
Syria good, Israel BAD. See I'm already catching on!
Secondly, focusing on the government acts which are committed in our own name as opposed to those committed by others is completely bankrupt. As Chomsky famously expressed:
The Saudi slaughter of Yemeni civilians and the refusal to take responsibility for those deaths despite the US/West supplying of the very weapons that are killing innocents is just the latest example: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/15/...ts-first-duty/“My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence.
“But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.”
There are lots of reasons why people prefer to focus on the bad acts of the Enemy Tribe rather than one’s own. A big factor is strategic: When the focus of Americans is on the bad acts of Putin or North Korea or Iran or whatever Villain of the Moment is being featured or on the injustice of those places, their focus is not on the things they can actually do something about: the bad acts of their own government and the injustices in their own society. Constantly directing people’s attention to bad things being done by other tribes is simultaneously distracting and distorting: It creates the impression that Bad Things (imprisoning journalists) are only done by Them, not by Us.
But at least as big a factor is a psychological one: Humans intrinsically feel better when we are condemning others rather than ourselves. That’s why bitter, judgmental gossip has long been a favorite pastime: It’s self-soothing to sit in critical judgment of others. There’s a reason the Gospels have to remind human beings to “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”: It’s precisely because the universal temptation is to ignore our own flaws since that’s so much more self-flattering and pleasing.
None of these are absolute rules; some caveats are needed. There’s a benefit from knowing about the acts of adversary governments. We want reporting on those countries as well, and journalists assigned to those countries do their job by highlighting the conduct of those governments. Nor should the bad acts of adversary governments be expressly denied or actively minimized, as that becomes its own form of deceit and propaganda. And then there are times when the bad conduct of other governments produces such great human suffering that collective action becomes both possible and justified, in which case focusing on it can be justified.
...
It’s not only “easy” to “denounce the atrocities of someone else.” It’s also profitable: strategically, propagandistically, psychologically and emotionally. That’s why it’s such a popular thing to do. It’s been true for decades in the U.S. and still is: Write or talk about the invasions, bombings, tyrant-support and torture by your own government and you’ll immediately face demands from nationalists that you focus instead on Russia, upon pain of being accused of being a secret Kremlin agent if you don’t. That is what also explains the obsession among some Westerners to depict Islam, rather than their own governments, as the Prime Force of Violence and Aggression. It’s also what drives the tactic of minimizing your own country’s sins by pointing to someone who is doing worse.
It’s just pure tribalism in its most classic and primitive form: It’s the Other Side that is always the Bad One. Journalistically, that behavior is as cowardly as it is inconsequential: Americans and other Westerners have been inundated for decades with demonizing language about U.S. adversaries from Russia to China to Iran to Muslim extremists. There’s very little valuable, and nothing particularly courageous or interesting, about sitting in the U.S. echoing those self-serving, self-pleasing and already widely accepted narratives. What Americans have lacked, woefully, is a journalistic focus on the bad acts done by their own government, a direct challenge to the propagandistic banalities they’ve been fed to glorify their own side.
This is largely true. We have now seen that a stabilizing repressive regime is sometimes preferable to chaos. The rules are clear.Egyptian government just massacred scores of unarmed morsi supporters. Look it up. But because they are on the side of the US, those are not crimes
That's the double standard everyone must acknowledge. Assad just like Egypt army is stabilizing the country
But your take on Russia is hilarious. They are driving into the ter. Their standard of living is going down and people are asking where there sons are getting killed. They talk big and live like . They won't save anything. And if they do, they will pay the price. Putin is trying to become economically relevant again. He is not getting invited to any trade meetings so he has to try something.
The nation with huge resources just squandering everything. Can't even grow enough food to feed themselves. It's a pitifully run country. Probably the most wasteful on the planet for what they have. But they got tanks! And a leader who takes his shirt off.
Nobody is denying Russia is going through tough times but its not really their doing. The West is punishing them for standing against the status quo. The status quo was to arm and train terrorists, they don't want that. Putin has said he will never ever negotiate with terrorists.
Still this is a people that overcame a nazi invasion in the middle of the Siberian winter while the "allies" were having their hands full vs teenage nazis on the western front. And the Russians persevered and the Russians won. Lets no mistake about it Russia is the ONLY country in the world that was able to drive the nazis off their territory on their own. No help.
You underestimate the level of crisis the Russians can take. They could easily take about 40 million civilian losses and still win.
Meanwhile US would probably throw in the towel if their civilians are deprived of their next iPhone
Dude I agree they are a tough people and deserve respect but they didn't do it with no help. Opening another front is help, giving them an insane amount of supplies and materials was help, also we baited Japan into a fight so they wouldn't have to worry about an attack from the east and could focus on one front. 1 on 1 the soviets get stomped and greater Germania is born. The population of Germany would be over 500 million and the technological advances today would be incredible. Germany isn't the only one who lost that war, we all did especially whites.
Never fight a land war in Asia. The nazis learned the hard way. Biggest mistake of hitlers life was invading Russia.
They should have been content with taking all of Europe and making a deal with the ruskies.
Remember. Germany needs to thank their lucky stars the allies arrived in Berlin on time. A few weeks late and Russia would have erased Germany and its people from the history books.
No wonder German girls welcomed allies with their legs open
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
