|
If Russia starts to conduct airstrikes in Syria I wonder where and who they will bomb? I wouldn't be surprised if they limited it to the southern areas where the FSA have made gains or as a way to protect the coastal Alawite stronghold areas like Latakia. They might leave the ISIS controlled areas alone since the Coalition is already bombing there even though Russia probably has some interest of their own in stopping ISIS. But if they do decide to bomb eastern Syria, well then Russian and coalition warplanes will be flying in the same area. That could get interesting....
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
Charliegrs posted:If Russia starts to conduct airstrikes in Syria I wonder where and who they will bomb? I wouldn't be surprised if they limited it to the southern areas where the FSA have made gains or as a way to protect the coastal Alawite stronghold areas like Latakia. They might leave the ISIS controlled areas alone since the Coalition is already bombing there even though Russia probably has some interest of their own in stopping ISIS. But if they do decide to bomb eastern Syria, well then Russian and coalition warplanes will be flying in the same area. That could get interesting.... The opposition (mostly Islamic Front and al Nusra) have made major gains in the north (primarily Idlib province) so they would probably bomb there too
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I'm going to bed, so I'll pick this up later, but since you're obviously so smart and knowledgable about why should or shouldn't people 'rationally' collaborate in the enslavelment of their country, by an aggressive invader, I'd like to let you know something:- Sorry, I came across as excessively confrontational. In particular, thanks for the falangist tidbit - it's a descriptor that makes sense and more or less answers my point 1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
The White House press secretary said the US welcomes constructive Russian intervention against ISIS. Lol. Could you cave any harder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The White House press secretary said the US welcomes constructive Russian intervention against ISIS. Lol. Could you cave any harder? Or they actually do, in fact, welcome Russia doing something constructive about a joint enemy. Because if Russia actually does bomb ISIS, that's a good thing, albeit done by a lovely country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Or they actually do, in fact, welcome Russia doing something constructive about a joint enemy. Because if Russia actually does bomb ISIS, that's a good thing, albeit done by a lovely country. Russia's role in Syria is about as constructive as their role in Ukraine. They're one and the same as Assad, and they will bomb the opposition the same way he does. By targeting everyone except ISIS first. Their number one priority will be keeping Assad on his feet, and it will be blatantly obvious in how strikes are conducted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Russia's role in Syria is about as constructive as their role in Ukraine. They're one and the same as Assad, and they will bomb the opposition the same way he does. By targeting everyone except ISIS first. Their number one priority will be keeping Assad on his feet, and it will be blatantly obvious in how strikes are conducted. I've been ready for World War 3 since Ghouta. Trump 2016 - so much winning you'll get sick of all the winning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Russia's role in Syria is about as constructive as their role in Ukraine. They're one and the same as Assad, and they will bomb the opposition the same way he does. By targeting everyone except ISIS first. Their number one priority will be keeping Assad on his feet, and it will be blatantly obvious in how strikes are conducted. You know that and I know that, but international diplomacy revolves around publicly denying the obvious and making empty statements of friendship and goodwill. Which is what the administration is doing by saying good poo poo about Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I'm going to bed, so I'll pick this up later, but since you're obviously so smart and knowledgable about why should or shouldn't people 'rationally' collaborate in the enslavelment of their country, by an aggressive invader Syria? The PLO? Iran? Oh wait, it's an Al-Saqr post so Hezbollah and Fatah and various Syrian agents in Lebanon are heroes striking against a tentacle of the evil Zionist Entity and their quislings in the SLA. Is that about the size of it? I mean, your post mentions the generous Hafez al-Assad's misguided mercy for filthy Zionist sympathizing phalangists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Russia's role in Syria is about as constructive as their role in Ukraine. They're one and the same as Assad, and they will bomb the opposition the same way he does. By targeting everyone except ISIS first. Their number one priority will be keeping Assad on his feet, and it will be blatantly obvious in how strikes are conducted. In fairness, by this point the opposition is comprised of groups the U.S. would likely be bombing anyway, all other things being equal
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FIo89Ll4E
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The White House press secretary said the US welcomes constructive Russian intervention against ISIS. Lol. Could you cave any harder? Putting "constructive" here sounds kinda passive aggressive. "Yeah, if you actually want to, and manage to, do something constructive against Daesh, that'll be welcome. Not holding my breath, though."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The White House press secretary said the US welcomes constructive Russian intervention against ISIS. Lol. Could you cave any harder? Hey lets face it, we would love to just indiscriminately drop bombs on ISIS controlled areas in Syria but you know, we don't want "collateral damage". Well its awfully convenient for us that Russia doesn't give a drat about killing innocent people and will happily carpet bomb Raqqa. Its really a lot easier to outsource your atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Hey lets face it, we would love to just indiscriminately drop bombs on ISIS controlled areas in Syria but you know, we don't want "collateral damage". Well its awfully convenient for us that Russia doesn't give a drat about killing innocent people and will happily carpet bomb Raqqa. Its really a lot easier to outsource your atrocities. Then when the Russians inevitably drop some bombs on the other rebels, we will waggle our finger a bit but not actually do anything about it because we didn't really have a workable plan to actually replace Assad first place. The Russians are our quiet plan B. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Hey lets face it, we would love to just indiscriminately drop bombs on ISIS controlled areas in Syria but you know, we don't want "collateral damage". Well its awfully convenient for us that Russia doesn't give a drat about killing innocent people and will happily carpet bomb Raqqa. Its really a lot easier to outsource your atrocities. I could see this. Basically, let Russia step on all the important land mines, while both get what they want out of it. Maybe Russia is the bad cop the US has been lusting for to turn Syrians away from organizations like JaN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
I expect that the rebels are suddenly getting their hands on a lot of captured anti air equipment. Totally not provided by another state to shot down russian planes. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
It's funny to me how any prospect of US intervention involving Assad in this forum has always been immediately compared to the Iraq War, but when Russia decides to do it, suddenly it doesn't seem so imperialist. Lets be clear. Assad has carpet bombed Syria for the last 4 years, and all it has done was create a sectarian, chaotic hellscape with an insurgency that would make the Americans in Iraq feel pretty lucky all in all. Doubling down and bombing harder to try and break the will to fight among Sunni's still living in Syria will do nothing but push more people to ISIS, increase the flow of refugees, and prolong the war. ISIS will hunker down for a decade if need be, while violence in Syria gets worse and worse. There is absolutely 0 scenario arising from this where ISIS is destroyed or even degraded, and that's secondary to the fact that Assad will be empowered to continue to rain death on his own people. This is absolutely the last thing the country needs, and it's horrible. The US saying "k putin  , is the perfect summation of this stupid rear end strategy Obama has had for Syria since it started.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's funny to me how any prospect of US intervention involving Assad in this forum has always been immediately compared to the Iraq War, but when Russia decides to do it, suddenly it doesn't seem so imperialist. Lets be clear. Assad has carpet bombed Syria for the last 4 years, and all it has done was create a sectarian, chaotic hellscape with an insurgency that would make the Americans in Iraq feel pretty lucky all in all. Doubling down and bombing harder to try and break the will to fight among Sunni's still living in Syria will do nothing but push more people to ISIS, increase the flow of refugees, and prolong the war. ISIS will hunker down for a decade if need be, while violence in Syria gets worse and worse. There is absolutely 0 scenario arising from this where ISIS is destroyed or even degraded, and that's secondary to the fact that Assad will be empowered to continue to rain death on his own people. This is absolutely the last thing the country needs, and it's horrible. The US saying "k putin I'd compare it more to Syrian/Israeli intervention in the Lebanese Civil War myself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's funny to me how any prospect of US intervention involving Assad in this forum has always been immediately compared to the Iraq War, but when Russia decides to do it, suddenly it doesn't seem so imperialist. I think the reason there hasn't been much vocal condemnation of it is that most people assume this is poo poo, that Russia has lovely reasons for doing it, and it will mostly just end up letting Assad bomb more civilians but calling out Russia for having lovely foreign policy is like calling out the sky for being blue. Its lovely but its expected, and as Russia is already in the dog house internationally over every thing they have been doing to the Ukraine so theres not really much more any one is likely to do about it so honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's funny to me how any prospect of US intervention involving Assad in this forum has always been immediately compared to the Iraq War, but when Russia decides to do it, suddenly it doesn't seem so imperialist. Lets be clear. Assad has carpet bombed Syria for the last 4 years, and all it has done was create a sectarian, chaotic hellscape with an insurgency that would make the Americans in Iraq feel pretty lucky all in all. Doubling down and bombing harder to try and break the will to fight among Sunni's still living in Syria will do nothing but push more people to ISIS, increase the flow of refugees, and prolong the war. ISIS will hunker down for a decade if need be, while violence in Syria gets worse and worse. There is absolutely 0 scenario arising from this where ISIS is destroyed or even degraded, and that's secondary to the fact that Assad will be empowered to continue to rain death on his own people. This is absolutely the last thing the country needs, and it's horrible. The US saying "k putin the russians are doing almost exactly what the us has already been doing except with a different proxy are you feeling ok volkerball
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The US saying "k putin Okay, you are now Barak Volkerball, President of the United States. Mr President, what is your official reaction to Russia's decision?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
"But I don't understand, Russia is dropping Good Bombs now."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the russians are doing almost exactly what the us has already been doing except with a different proxy They aren't even going that far yet, they're just spooling up their military options and we don't know what their actual intentions are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the russians are doing almost exactly what the us has already been doing except with a different proxy Not at all, actually. The US is doing token strikes on ISIS, and training like 50 fighters every two months to fight ISIS and ISIS only. Russia is going to war on Assad's behalf, and they're gearing up for a large operation. Not even close to comparable. Cat Mattress posted:Okay, you are now Barak Volkerball, President of the United States. Mr President, what is your official reaction to Russia's decision? Close to this, but probably not as kind. http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/09/11/obama-russias-involvement-in-syria-indic?videoId=365580868&videoChannel=117760 Not sure what the deal is with the press secretary's comments. Might be said in a passive aggressive way like you suggested before. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
It's amazing that Volkerball doesn't understand why stepping in to assist the De Jure government of a country might be less imperialist than invading a country, overthrowing its government, and then occupying it for almost a decade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Listen if Russia wants to engage in a proxy war with their lovely economy, I say let them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's amazing that Volkerball doesn't understand why stepping in to assist the De Jure government of a country might be less imperialist than invading a country, overthrowing its government, and then occupying it for almost a decade. I actually didn't say that. I said it is imperialist, and it's going to have about as positive an effect as US actions in the occupation did. But feel free to white-wash Russian actions here by appealing to Assad's "legitimacy" when he barely controls 1/5 of the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's funny to me how any prospect of US intervention involving Assad in this forum has always been immediately compared to the Iraq War, but when Russia decides to do it, suddenly it doesn't seem so imperialist. This is what you said verbatim. Do I have to explain why sending a military mission to support the De Jure government of a country is not "so imperialist" as invading a country, overthrowing its government, and occupying it for almost a decade? Imperialism is not a function of brutality, "constructivism," positivity, or whatever else you'd rather happen. You don't even have a substantial complaint about Obama's response. You're literally just whining over rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say everybody without exception who are involved in this are pure garbage at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This is what you said verbatim. Do I have to explain why sending a military mission to support the De Jure government of a country is not "so imperialist" as invading a country, overthrowing its government, and occupying it for almost a decade? "So imperialist" was a reference to proposed US intervention in Syria, not the Iraq War. I think that was pretty clear. And yes, a large military operation to boost your proxy dictator that has been slaughtering away its citizens to try and ignore the reality that Assad is done, is absolutely more imperialist than a no fly zone to prevent said dictator from being able to bomb neighborhoods, bakeries, and schools indiscriminately. To say nothing of how much support Assad has gotten from Russia prior to this. There's no argument to be had there. This is Cold War era poo poo. quote:Imperialism is not a function of brutality, "constructivism," positivity, or whatever else you'd rather happen. You don't even have a substantial complaint about Obama's response. You're literally just whining over rhetoric. I'm not even talking about Obama with this. I'm laughing at the thread. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:I expect that the rebels are suddenly getting their hands on a lot of captured anti air equipment. Totally not provided by another state to shot down russian planes. How'd that work out in Afghanistan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
ISIS has announced that it has a presence in Egypt's western desert, and has fought the army there. That doesn't bode well. Not only does it show they're not just in Sinai anymore, but it also puts the military in quite a bind, having to deal with two fronts at once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:ISIS has announced that it has a presence in Egypt's western desert, and has fought the army there. That doesn't bode well. Not only does it show they're not just in Sinai anymore, but it also puts the military in quite a bind, having to deal with two fronts at once. Not really, this is Sisi's wet dream come true. ISIS will never get enough actual strength to seriously threaten the regime, and the regime now has an internal enemy it can use to have an iron grip on society and get American cash and arms for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:ISIS has announced that it has a presence in Egypt's western desert, and has fought the army there. That doesn't bode well. Not only does it show they're not just in Sinai anymore, but it also puts the military in quite a bind, having to deal with two fronts at once. Haven't they been saying that for awhile though? Other groups have been swearing loyalty and ISIS changes their name to "Governate whatever." I've also seen similar claims from Libya and Afghanistan. A few weeks back, some reporter on NPR was discussing an ISIS operational plan she had gotten her hands on to provoke nuclear war between India and Pakistan. ISIS is getting a lot of converts, and not all of them are heading to Syria. E: ISIS in Egypt was previously the group Ansar Bayit al-Maqdes. Here's a link for the document about ISIS plans to provoke nuclear war: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/28/ami-isil-document-pakistan-threatens-india/30674099/ Bait and Swatch fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Listen if Russia wants to engage in a proxy war with their lovely economy, I say let them. Zbigniew is that you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
THIS IS NOT AN EXIT
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:"So imperialist" was a reference to proposed US intervention in Syria, not the Iraq War. I think that was pretty clear. And yes, a large military operation to boost your proxy dictator that has been slaughtering away its citizens to try and ignore the reality that Assad is done, is absolutely more imperialist than a no fly zone to prevent said dictator from being able to bomb neighborhoods, bakeries, and schools indiscriminately. To say nothing of how much support Assad has gotten from Russia prior to this. There's no argument to be had there. This is Cold War era poo poo. If what you want is a no-fly zone then that's what you need to say, instead of being intentionally vague and histrionic. You didn't even say that your alternative to Obama's reaction is substantially different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:How'd that work out in Afghanistan? Pretty good, although for a war whose icon is the Mi-24, in AARs like you find in The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan, there is a conspicuous lack of documented shoot-downs. The operational impact of the Redeye and the Stinger has likely been exaggerated over the years- it's real effect was probably more attriting helicopter patrols and supply routes than fighting off airborne assaults.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:How'd that work out in Afghanistan? Better than it worked out in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If what you want is a no-fly zone then that's what you need to say, instead of being intentionally vague and histrionic. You didn't even say that your alternative to Obama's reaction is substantially different. You'd never get an agreement with Russia for a no fly zone* anyway. Russia has seen in Libya what is meant by a  no fly zone *Which you would need, cos Russia ain't going to stop flying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 18:26
|
|
