|
Volkerball posted:Didn't come straight out and say the rebels were responsible if I'm not mistaken, but he sounded awful silly when Kucinich countered with all the information from the UN report (which it sounded like Assad hadn't even read). I'm pretty sure I know why Assad didn't read the UN report.
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Emden posted:Because it comes from an organization that may as well be a branch of the US government? No because he did it all and therefore already knows what the UN report would say.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
J33uk posted:Kerry's giving an unscheduled statement on Syria shortly (which given that it's the State Department, may not be that shortly) Wait! The Russians are on the verge of revealing their evidence that it was the rebels! But seriously, this whole time that Obama has waited to possibly strike actually built up his case.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Arkane posted:So they get to keep 6,000 centrifuges at their heavily fortified sites (Natanz & Fordow). What could go wrong? What a bargain. As much as I want this to be a breakthrough I get the feeling it's not a good deal for the U.S. In order for all sanctions to be lifted and to renormalize relationships Iran should have to give up all enrichment. To be able to hold on to some capability and to be able to keep some facilities but just turn them off isn't a good bargain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I guess a huge upside is that we won't wake up six months from now to a Iranian nuclear bomb test. According to the scribd document, the estimate was 2-3 months away. Otherwise why bother with this negotiation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
If Iran has the bomb KSA will get the bomb, it's that simple. If Iran doesn't have the bomb there's no reason for KSA to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Many European countries used to have excellent relationships with Iran. Italy Germany and Switzerland mostly, but also France. It is natural that they wanted to keep them friendly, and also natural that they didn't want to openly disappoint the USA. I know one European that has really really really bad relations with Iran. Perhaps even worse than America's.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It's about nuclear power anyway. The bomb stuff seems to be a pr sideshow to me. I think at least it has to be about America thinking Iran is reaching for the bomb. Otherwise who gives a gently caress and why in the world would anybody subject themselves to these high stakes negotiations over nuclear power. And really America would reduce sanctions so that It can prevent Iran from producing nuclear power?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Thought experiment: every country in the Middle East gets one nuclear weapon That one is easy. Everyone uses their bonbon Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'd much rather see the US aligned with Iran than with KSA. The Saudis are assholes, and we should've cut them loose ages ago. The British were the patrons of the Iranians and the U.S. were involved with the KSA. The British got kicked out of Iran because they economically exploited them like a traditional colony. The British then came to the U.S. several times to intervene and were denied. Then for some reason Eisenhower agreed to topple the unfriendly (to the British) government of Iran. And the rest if loving history of how we got involved in the debacle of Iran. So yeah, thanks British petroleum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
I can't for the life of my understand where Putin is going with this. I s the increased involvement just to save Assad or is there strategic plans for more involvement.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
farraday posted:If blowing up mosques and killing children was going to win the war Assad would have won years ago. It very hard for me to see how the amount of resources that Russia is investing in terms of bombing is going to ensure a victory. To that end Russian involvement seems kind of pointless. They are going to end up propping up an unpopular regime who can't fight off an insurgency in its own. Unfortunately the U.S. has a lot of experience in this sphere and outcomes are dismal. The only advantage is the boost in world opinion and domestic opinion as Russia is getting involved militarily on a global scale once again since the days of the USSR. China has parked their aircraft carrier somewhere off the coast so I think they may get much needed exposure for their naval aviation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Nobody in congress requested that intervention be put up for a vote, and there were a lot of republicans who supported it on the grounds of preventing casual chemical weapons use. As far as conservatives supporting Obama goes, that was a high water mark. But Obama punted it anyways. Volkerball posted:Nobody in congress requested that intervention be put up for a vote, and there were a lot of republicans who supported it on the grounds of preventing casual chemical weapons use. As far as conservatives supporting Obama goes, that was a high water mark. But Obama punted it anyways. Involvement from the U.S. perspective has always been a lose-lose proposition. There were too many religious crazies such that even if you toppled Assad the resulting state was away assured to be one that hated America.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Hezbollah troops? You're making GBS threads me. This is really the Cold War all over again with Russia reaping the benefits of funding/supporting covert groups in the ME. On the other hand it's hundreds so I can't see the impact.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
They are such assholes but you have to admire the bravado.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
I don't know why the Russians are acting like such pricks. They don't have the resources for it. Their economy is in tatters in general and doubly so because of oil prices they're fighting another war in Ukraine. They're GDP is like the level of Italy or some other small European country. You don't see Italy bombing some country and telling the U.S. 1 hour before to clear out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:If the US isn't flying over western Syria and the Russians are saying clear out of eastern Syrian airspace, if the US complies (which it appears they are negotiating to do so in some form) how likely would we see direct targeting of ISIS by Russian jets? Are the Russians saying clear out so they can actually strike ISIS? Oh great Eastern/western zones of control. This is the Cold War all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
So reports say that Russia is essential bombing the rebels that the U.S. supports. This is more or less a proxy war or even one step closer to direct conflict since Russia itself is doing the bombing. I think the U.S. is also kind of handcuffed because there's not much we can do. What are we supposed to do provide SAMs so they can shoot down Russian planes?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Rukeli posted:Video reportedly showing an SU-25 downed over Hama (pilot ejects): https://www.facebook.com/roissya24/videos/1613612342235478/ Already? Russia needs to start working on stealth technology ASAP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Wow I didn't know it was this bad over there. You wonder about the wisdom of starting these strikes when they're already involved in Ukraine and their economy is in the shitter. How much can they contribute here and how long can they keep it up?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:One of the things I'm wondering about now - is Russia's involvement in Syria going to incite a jihad against them, and, if so, what extent could it reach? All in all, though, I find it doubtful that there can be an internal escalation in Chechnya which would require anything more than local police and interior ministry units. I think it will increase extremist attention towards Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:They're cheap as gently caress, the Russian public doesn't give a poo poo about Syrian civilians, and Russia's remaining friends on the world stage don't give a poo poo about civilian casualties. Yeah but guided munitions isn't just about avoiding civilian casualties. You're going to hit what you want to and miss less meaning you don't have to fly as many sorties.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:This isn't a problem if your target is whatever buildings and vehicles happen to be on the wrong side of the front line. You're still going to want to hit targets of opportunity with a high degree of accuracy. Maybe even more so because the window to hit them may not be open forever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I think the only alternate is what McCain suggested, which is having some advanced anti air weapons fall off a truck in Homs. It's a bit less public, but it's also more confrontational. With a no fly zone, we can tell Russia that their planes will be shot down beginning at X time. Then it's on them to decide whether to escalate. It gives them an opportunity to back down. If we just give the opposition the means to take out Russian jets, the odds of a plane being shot down are much higher than with a no fly zone, and that's obviously something we should try to avoid. It's really the only option other than turning a blind eye, and doing that creates more problems than it solves. I think whether a no-fly zone is a good idea or not boils down to one issue: do you want to shoot down a Russian jet. If yes then go for the no fly zone. If not then you're going to look stupid when the Russians violate it and you do nothing. So do you want to shoot down a Russian jet? My bet is no.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Why is the onus on the US to not shoot down a Russian jet rather than on Russia to not violate a no fly zone they were clearly informed about? If Putin wants to call a bluff when there isn't one, that's his problem, but to be honest, I don't see him doing that. He'd find some other way to save face rather than risk having poo poo get shot down and then slinking away with his tail between his legs. Because if you are going to threaten something you must be willing to follow through even if you don't think it's likely. You can institute a no fly zone and calculate that it's highly likely that Putin will back down and not violate. Fine, not a problem. But you have to account for the worst case scenario in which Putin violates it in which case you must follow through on your threat. So are we willing to follow through? If not, then don't make the threat and don't do a no fly zone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
A no fly zone is not going to be feasible at this juncture. Obama has been indeed outmaneuver in the short term by Putin on many fronts. I feel (hope) that it's because Obama overestimates the rationality of Putin in terms of long-range strategy. I mean why would you choose to comit yourself to a long and expensive war to the side that is losing and everyone hates at a time when your own economy is in the shitter. Oh yeah your economy wasn't that hot to begin with because your baseline GDP is poo poo and these interventions in far away foreign countries are expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Is it even legal to have warplanes active that have no markings? If they get shot down and have no markings on uniforms they are not entitled to anything under the Geneva convention. Also as Russian volunteers are set to enter the ground war if they don't have uniforms or markings they are likewise not entitled to the Geneva convention. But on the other hand technically neither are the rebels or ISIS....so it's pretty much a mess. I don't know why Russia is bothering with scrubbing all their markings anyway. They already announced to the world they are bombing they have bombing videos....what's the point?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:Maybe the markings were scrubbed in preparation for a war somewhere else and they changed their plans? By somewhere do you mean Ukraine?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Mackers posted:What are the bets the Russians launch a ground offensive against the opposition sooner rather than later? They know the airstrikes are only going to soften these areas. There are absolutely going to be Russian ground troops in this thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Loyalists and Syrian media are suggesting it'll be within a matter of days, likely from Homs and Hama. Now whether there will be Russians on the ground or merely in the sky remains to be seen, but they've definitely forward deployed several hundred troops and some artillery pieces to Hama in the past 48 hours. "Although President Vladimir V. Putin has ruled out sending ground forces to Syria, a senior Kremlin defense official told Russian news agencies on Monday that military veterans who had fought in eastern Ukraine were likely to start showing up as “volunteer” ground forces in Syria" "The statement by the official, Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament, asserted that such volunteers “cannot be stopped.”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
I don't see the point of Russia violating Turkey's airspace. What could they have to gain from such a maneuver?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:I feel like the fake information on who is being bombed and taking Russian markings off of planes is mostly for domestic consumption. Putin can tell Russians they're taking it to all of the "bad guys", and if/when his planes get shot down he can claim they were actually Syrian planes and Russian planes haven't been hit. I feel like maybe the unmarked planes are the Russian version of our drone bombings. It's an easy way to avoid having to see piloted planes being shot down for the domestic audience.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Thinking along those lines makes me wonder if the ejection seats have been removed as well. Well you kind of have to wonder if the unmarked planes represent deniability what's going to happen when a Russia pilot is shot down and captured. But I do agree that Russia cannot pacify all of Syria... it's just not going to happen. At best they are going to have a stalemate that they have to prop up indefinitely or its going to turn into a meat grinder for them. But I have to say their methods while unconventional are more clever than what the U.S. is capable of in similar situations. This use of unmarked planes and 'volunteers' may allow them to quietly withdraw without losing too much political capital.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:I feel like the volunteer solution won't work nearly as well when the local population doesn't speak Russian, doesn't identify culturally as Russian, isn't the same religion, and the volunteers are on the offense instead of being a simmering insurgency. Also how the gently caress did all the volunteers transport themselves to Syria with weapons or whatever. For Ukraine it was right across the border so you can make some sort of argument that it was all volunteers doing their own thing. But here it's like large masses of volunteers along with equipment and weapons decided to take a plane to Syria?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Russia has asked the U.S. to identify non ISIS rebels and to point out their locations so that those areas can be excluded from bombing. The U.S. has refused. So hilarious Russia. I don't think the U.S. could have trolled so hard in our situations. We're just too serious for that. Edit: "“If there are some forces that also have weapons in their hands and are on the ground fighting, as the coalition says, with the Islamic State, and they should not be touched, then wonderful,” Ms. Zakharova said. “Give the list, give the call signs of these people. Tell us where are they located, explain why we shouldn’t be touched. Indeed, this information is not provided.” Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
If my army destroys 10-12 tanks/armored vehicles per day using ATGM, then I'm going to be happy. This isn't WWII/III with massive tank battles. 10-12 a day is going to take its toll.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
I think it's time for the U.S. to launch its own cruise missiles at ISIS and have competing press conferences and competing videos. I also want to see videos of stealth bombers. Let's see Russia match that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:The problem is that we don't know what metrics the Russians and Syrians had for the push, they HAD to have known that the rebels were armed with TOW's, whether this will actually stall them or if they had planned accordingly needs to be seen in the coming ten days or so, until then I wouldn't pay any attention to twitter or youtube videos, because this is such a massively propagandized thing on both sides, the results in the end will speak louder than minute by minute updates from both sides sources. There's no way the Russians would walk into this kind of situation without having made some form of intelligence work on their enemies capabilities. You don't think that the Russians are going to counter the ATGMs successfully. You have to go fully integrated infantry/armor tactics and I don't see them having the manpower in Syria to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
I wonder why anybody uses attack helicopters anymore. They can be brought down with an RPG or just well placed small arms fire.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Reading reports that U.S. aircraft over Syria had to divert to avoid Russian aircraft. Getting crowded over there I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 15:22
|
|