Fox Fire Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 again you ignore evidence. you are no different to holocaust denies! more is here! http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/12/smuggled-syrian-documents-indict-assad-investigators Try making your own argument instead of copy/paste. Citations are nice, but don't let google make your argument for you. It's not an argument. I don't think there's an easy way for the Syrians out of the war, and I don't particularly support any of the sides. However I do think the two options I've heard you voice, namely: 1. A kurdish controlled syria 2. A Syria reunited under Assad or the Ba'ath party Are both very unlikely whatever happens. With that in mind, you have to look at the other options, all of which involve some sort of post-Assad government, either through political elections in the currently government controlled areas and an attempt at resolution that way, or by the ultimate military victory of the rebels, and then a mopping up operation. Right now I think the best and most likely outcome would be: 1. Assad retires from power and !@#$ off to Iran where he's given sanctuary or whatever. 2. Elections are held within the legitimate and functioning part of Syria where Assad currently holds sway 3. A national unity government is formed which makes concessions to the moderate rebels, assures Moscow that they will honour previous agreements, and makes concessions to the Turks re: Turkmen minorities. 4. Syrian Kurdistan is given autonomy. 5. ISIS are rolled back by a combination of Syrian ground forces and coalition air strikes Then about two decades of rebuilding and intermittent violence. The problem with elections is the sheer amount of people who won't be able to vote. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Try making your own argument instead of copy/paste. Citations are nice, but don't let google make your argument for you. It's not an argument. argue in paper. i speak truth on subject with infomation! but evil Rahl man deny the holocaust against the syrians by the assad and his genocide? is racist not is????!!! syrians die in war syrians even flee over to other countries and rahl says not happen is rahl islamic state or assed supporter on internet propaganda or on intoxicationtions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 argue in paper. i speak truth on subject with infomation! but evil Rahl man deny the holocaust against the syrians by the assad and his genocide? is racist not is????!!! syrians die in war syrians even flee over to other countries and rahl says not happen is rahl islamic state or assed supporter on internet propaganda or on intoxicationtions? All you do is copy paste. It's !@#$ing annoying and it's why nobody is taking you seriously. If you're going to post something, do it in your own words. And Assad is not committing genocide, nor is he the only one killing Syrians. Everyone involved is killing Syrians. War is hell. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 All you do is copy paste. It's !@#$ annoying and it's why nobody is taking you seriously. If you're going to post something, do it in your own words. And Assad is not committing genocide, nor is he the only one killing Syrians. Everyone involved is killing Syrians. War is hell. all talk now in own words. post is evidence i do to make topic intresting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 but evil Rahl man deny the holocaust against the syrians by the assad and his genocide? is racist not is????!!! New Sig block! 3 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppala Rao Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) I don't want to get involved in the debates here, but let's be honest. Everyone involved in the Syrian conflicts are dicks. The Assad government is a dictatorship, ISIS is scum, the moderates are really Salafists, Al Nusra is scum, Turkey is paranoid and a borderline dictatorship, and Czar Putin is suddenly interested in the whole situation. The Kurds are kinda O.K. though. Therefore, I would like to see the Assad Government hold elections and then see the newly elected government take out ISIS, Al Nusra, the "moderates", and give the Kurds autonomy. Edit I: As an undercover previous player, I'm quite happy to see the return of Fox Fire! Edit II: Captain Vietnam, please contribute with something other than one to two sentences of broken English or copy-paste. Thanks! Edited November 27, 2015 by Muppala Rao 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I don't want to get involved in the debates here, but let's be honest. Everyone involved in the Syrian conflicts are dicks. The Assad government is a dictatorship, ISIS is scum, the moderates are really Salafists, Al Nusra is scum, Turkey is paranoid and a borderline dictatorship, and Czar Putin is suddenly interested in the whole situation. The Kurds are kinda O.K. though. Therefore, I would like to see the Assad Government hold elections and then see the newly elected government take out ISIS, Al Nusra, the "moderates", and give the Kurds autonomy. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's plans unfold as they gain more control with each new non-Sunni death in Syria and the United States becomes more and more the Saudi Puppet of the world. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's plans unfold as they gain more control with each new non-Sunni death in Syria and the United States becomes more and more the Saudi Puppet of the world.saudi arabia like isis http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executions-kingdom-to-behead-50-men-convicted-of-terrorism-offences-despite-threat-of-a6750631.html not different much are they??? look at image the weak obama president of most powerful nation on earth. nation couldnt conquer iraq and brave people of vietnam!!! obama is forced to deal with saudi or he secretly islamic support them??? could be Edited November 28, 2015 by Jaehaerys Link the article, do not copy and paste the entire thing in large font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I don't want to get involved in the debates here, but let's be honest. Everyone involved in the Syrian conflicts are dicks. The Assad government is a dictatorship, ISIS is scum, the moderates are really Salafists, Al Nusra is scum, Turkey is paranoid and a borderline dictatorship, and Czar Putin is suddenly interested in the whole situation. The Kurds are kinda O.K. though. Therefore, I would like to see the Assad Government hold elections and then see the newly elected government take out ISIS, Al Nusra, the "moderates", and give the Kurds autonomy. Edit I: As an undercover previous player, I'm quite happy to see the return of Fox Fire! Edit II: Captain Vietnam, please contribute with something other than one to two sentences of broken English or copy-paste. Thanks! Kurds are no exception either. In the past, they did several terrorist attacks against civilians killing hundreds, intentionally killed some babies, murdered teachers just because they were government employees before their pregnant wives, and one of their prime sources of income is smuggling and selling drugs. ME is a cluster!@#$ through and through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) I don't want to get involved in the debates here, but let's be honest. Everyone involved in the Syrian conflicts are dicks. The Assad government is a dictatorship, ISIS is scum, the moderates are really Salafists, Al Nusra is scum, Turkey is paranoid and a borderline dictatorship, and Czar Putin is suddenly interested in the whole situation. The Kurds are kinda O.K. though. Therefore, I would like to see the Assad Government hold elections and then see the newly elected government take out ISIS, Al Nusra, the "moderates", and give the Kurds autonomy. Edit I: As an undercover previous player, I'm quite happy to see the return of Fox Fire! Edit II: Captain Vietnam, please contribute with something other than one to two sentences of broken English or copy-paste. Thanks! genocide of syrian by assad. not as many killed by americans though! i have opion america kill many people as well. wars are bad! http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm Edited November 28, 2015 by Jaehaerys Link the article, do not copy and paste the entire thing in large font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Jaehaerys Posted November 28, 2015 Moderators Share Posted November 28, 2015 If you have an article, please link it instead of copy/pasting the entire thing in large font. Further actions like that will result in a warn for spam. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted November 28, 2015 Author Share Posted November 28, 2015 genocide of syrian by assad. not as many killed by americans though! i have opion america kill many people as well. wars are bad! http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm I don't think you know what genocide means.... Hint: Assad is Syrian. 1 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Turkey has a long history of hating Russian involvement into Middle Eastern affairs dating back to the 17th century. Yeah, it's extreme that they shot down a Russian plane. But from the view of the Turks, Russia wanted to poke Turkey, and they responded in perhaps the most justifiably aggressive way possible. The way Turkey sees it, Russia shouldn't even be in the Middle East, much less in their own airspace. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I don't think there's an easy way for the Syrians out of the war, and I don't particularly support any of the sides. However I do think the two options I've heard you voice, namely: 1. A kurdish controlled syria 2. A Syria reunited under Assad or the Ba'ath party Are both very unlikely whatever happens. With that in mind, you have to look at the other options, all of which involve some sort of post-Assad government, either through political elections in the currently government controlled areas and an attempt at resolution that way, or by the ultimate military victory of the rebels, and then a mopping up operation. Right now I think the best and most likely outcome would be: 1. Assad retires from power and !@#$ off to Iran where he's given sanctuary or whatever. 2. Elections are held within the legitimate and functioning part of Syria where Assad currently holds sway 3. A national unity government is formed which makes concessions to the moderate rebels, assures Moscow that they will honour previous agreements, and makes concessions to the Turks re: Turkmen minorities. 4. Syrian Kurdistan is given autonomy. 5. ISIS are rolled back by a combination of Syrian ground forces and coalition air strikes Then about two decades of rebuilding and intermittent violence. 1: I actually said the exact opposite to that when musing about possible events after the war, though I can understand how you might have misunderstood that. I was talking about the Kurds after the war intensifying the struggle with Turkey which naturally means no western support so on those grounds getting the backing of Russia would be good for them. However such a thing might require them to cease their claim on Iran & Syria in return for this greater aid in taking the land in Turkey and holding their land in Iraq. 2: I don't see how this unlikely. The fanatics chances to win was early on and that time is past now so burying them should be just a matter of time. Couple of things. Assad recently (2014) won elections overwhelmingly. Granted no one from fanatic held territory voted but I doubt it'd change anything. Secondly peace deals should give something to both sides while what you're saying is giving America/the West everything it wants after having failed to achieve it militarily, and according to the link I gave not too long ago they had the chance to get such things years ago and didn't go for it because they thought their fanatic's victory was inevitable. What are these concessions really? Something Sunni related no doubt to make them dominate the country and be added to Gulf state's collection of puppets no doubt. Certainly isn't the mythical democracy the media went on about at the start. I promise that if I want to insult someone I will simply do so. I don't have an "Alawite" angle. The Regime is an Alawite one. This is a fact. As I said the alliances are very complex and generally balancing different factions at all levels is how the Alawites maintained control (which is how everyone maintained control in these regions). The presence of Sunnis does not really relate at all to the Alawite regime as a regime. In this case Alawite is functioning less as a religion and rather as a political unit. So, internet arguments flow better if you define what "it" it is you are speaking of. Are you talking about the Russian draft, the level of outside support to the Alawites, or other? And what are Turkey/GCC doing? I will, pending your clarification, disagree with you there though. Turkey and SA/GCC are not really acting in concert. They are, generally speaking, opposed to each other although both opposes Iran. The United States also had forces to deploy if it absolutely had to during the Iraq war. This does not mean that Washington was stretched thin - it was. Again, Russia's rapidly increasing force requirements are demonstrations of strength only in the literal definition of force=strength. It is actually a sign of real weakness that Moscow is unable to leverage any of its other forms of power to maintain its interests. Alright. Sounds how do I put it... very "THE JEWS!" to me if you will. It's true that the Alawites have a great deal of power but the angle I've heard before that they are out to oppressive and kill all the Sunnis (Ibrahim's angle if you hadn't guessed) just reeks of the "all Jews want to oppress and kill all Arabs" thing. I'll likely split up posts in future so its obvious what is being addressed. I said America doesn't have to do much in response to your talk of them not doing much, due to having Turkey/Gulf States doing it for them. The intricacy of if they are on the same side across everything is to me, simply irrelevant. They both support terrorists for very distasteful reasons. As far as I'm aware the airstrikes have proven effective, more so than western attempts. If they weren't they'd not be endlessly complaining about them helping Assad significantly. Never fear Roz, your future Russian overlords will care about your glaucoma. While the random posturing about Russian superiority to Turkish may give that indication he quite clearly is not a quote and quote "Putinbot" as I've heard people use. Talk of Assad carrying out genocide on Syrians wouldn't be mentioned which he did. Though I'm aware you're joshing with me yeah, no worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) 1: I actually said the exact opposite to that when musing about possible events after the war, though I can understand how you might have misunderstood that. I was talking about the Kurds after the war intensifying the struggle with Turkey which naturally means no western support so on those grounds getting the backing of Russia would be good for them. However such a thing might require them to cease their claim on Iran & Syria in return for this greater aid in taking the land in Turkey and holding their land in Iraq. 2: I don't see how this unlikely. The fanatics chances to win was early on and that time is past now so burying them should be just a matter of time. Couple of things. Assad recently (2014) won elections overwhelmingly. Granted no one from fanatic held territory voted but I doubt it'd change anything. Secondly peace deals should give something to both sides while what you're saying is giving America/the West everything it wants after having failed to achieve it militarily, and according to the link I gave not too long ago they had the chance to get such things years ago and didn't go for it because they thought their fanatic's victory was inevitable. What are these concessions really? Something Sunni related no doubt to make them dominate the country and be added to Gulf state's collection of puppets no doubt. Certainly isn't the mythical democracy the media went on about at the start. Alright. Sounds how do I put it... very "THE JEWS!" to me if you will. It's true that the Alawites have a great deal of power but the angle I've heard before that they are out to oppressive and kill all the Sunnis (Ibrahim's angle if you hadn't guessed) just reeks of the "all Jews want to oppress and kill all Arabs" thing. I'll likely split up posts in future so its obvious what is being addressed. I said America doesn't have to do much in response to your talk of them not doing much, due to having Turkey/Gulf States doing it for them. The intricacy of if they are on the same side across everything is to me, simply irrelevant. They both support terrorists for very distasteful reasons. As far as I'm aware the airstrikes have proven effective, more so than western attempts. If they weren't they'd not be endlessly complaining about them helping Assad significantly. The Alawites function as a tribe or Nation(in the human geography sense of the word). The religion part of it is not central to how they actually work. This tribe is the one that the Iranians and Russians used to control the State of Syria because they were located in the region that they cared about (access to the warm water port). If it was some randomly displaced group of Hindi it would have functioned the same. So they, the Alawites, were and are out to control Syria in order to ensure they are not controlled by another group/tribe/nation/religion. They have no specific designs on killing all the Sunnis. Washington is not controlling Turkey not the GCC's actions. Washington has interests in the region and exercises its power to the best of its ability. Turkey and SA/GCC do as well. Terrorism is a tactical activity which is hard to declare war on. Frankly, there are far more important things going on in the region that Washington needs to be concerned with. Those are complex and highly relevant to what Washington actually does - weather it matters to you or not. Washington does not, and imho should not, paint the world as black(terrorist) and white(not a terrorist) as you would like. As for Russian airstrikes being more effective? Maybe you have a good source that lays that out. Their airstrikes have served to prop up the Alawite regime which was collapsing. Both the American led strikes and the Russian ones are killing people and attriting the field force of ISIS. What Washington is "complaining" about is that the Russians are not out zapping terrorist backing ISIS mainly but are killing anti-Alawites. Frankly, you are arguing against yourself. The most effective terrorist killing leader at the moment is Obama and Putin is killing less terrorists by volume and by percentage. I do not think that is the correct way of looking at or phrasing the issue, however, it is how you seem to be coming at it. Edited November 28, 2015 by LordRahl2 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 If you have an article, please link it instead of copy/pasting the entire thing in large font. Further actions like that will result in a warn for spam. Could ya just cut out his stuff into a separate thread? I was enjoying my chat with Roz and Spite before he derailed the thread. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polymer Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) As always this situation has a lot of angles. Here is another one, less related to the populations in the area, more to the interests of the parts involved. Transnistria lesson applicated, version 3 (version 2 is Ukraine). Unstable zone in which a civil war is going and the rebel party controls part of the country. An outside party infiltrates the zone and claims parts of it for itself (except this time its not the russians themselves, but it doesn`t matter to them). Strategic part of the world for Russia: Transnistria as a method of keeping Moldova on their area of influence, Donbas & Crimeea in Ukraine as they`re right on their border and they don`t want NATO at borders etc etc. ; Syria, well, 2 military (semi)permanent bases to the Mediteranean Sea in exchange for helping Assad maintain power? What do you think, they`d pass such an opportunity? So russians send troops, arm the bases and go fight ISIS and the anti-Assad parties. Turkey suddenly has russian neighbours (again). The kind of neighbours that don`t go overboard on asking permissions to cross airspace and that assumingly bomb pro-turkish populations or in any case people that turkish have interests in (be it turkmen, anti-Allawits or not, or even ISIS and oil contrabandists). So the turks foolishly take down a russian airplane in order to: defend their airspace, defend friendly populations, defend economical interests in the area etc. The kind of incident the russians needed and probably counted on if not even forced it on. And now Putin can say that him, the great crusader of christianity was suddenly stabbed in the soft parts of his behind by those cruel muslim Turks allied with the foul americans. And claim concessions, upfront or behind closed doors or pure and simple just take them and don`t care. As before they were needed as 'peacekeepers' in TransNistria (and concessions were made there) and Donbas (concessions made there too), now they cannot leave the Syrian lands as they`re needed there to mantain peace of fight ISIS or whatever reason they can be bothered to find next (want to bet they`ll get what they want there too??). Cause on the geopolitical chess match they`re masters. And the rest of the world plays by rules the russians don`t feel they have to respect. Edited November 28, 2015 by polymer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) Analogies can be fun: As always this situation has a lot of angles. Here is another one, less related to the populations in the area, more to the interests of the parts involved. Transnistria <snip> Cause on the geopolitical chess match they`re masters. And the rest of the world plays by rules the russians don`t feel they have to respect. So lets think of this as a game of chess and see how Russia is doing. She does have troops in Georgia and Transnistria. These moves may have made sense earlier but now Transnistria is like an isolated pawn that was advanced too early. There are no defensive pieces backing it up and in fact the play has moved past her (nor can she queen up being blocked forward). Transnistria then is an isolated pawn. Georgia is less clear-. Here Russia has committed beyond her defensive line, the Caucus Mountains. However, this piece can be withdrawn but it does not appear to be threatening anything. Georgia then is like a bishop who has moved to begin an attack queen-side but has ended up out of place. Not a disaster but not doing anything productive for Russia. More troubling in the region are the forces in Armenia. Here we see the board building up pressure on one square, Nagorno-Karabakh. This pressure if it comes to a crisis brings the potential for Iran and Turkey to move against Russia's vulnerable pieces. Not ideal from a board management perspective. Russia also had to move a piece to back up its backwards pawn in Syria. Yet another piece now dedicated to defending something in a weak position. Also, Russia has no luft. In front of her King, Moscow, she used to have a formidable defense stretching all the way down the Great North European Plain terminating in Germany. Now she is backed up to the point where the Baltic States are in an opposing alliance, as is Poland. There was some good news that Russia had Ukraine as a buffer, at worst a neutral piece, that has now swung to potential become foe. To block this threat to the King Russia had to move even more pieces into what has become a quagmire for her. Ukraine, by the way, is central to the Russian Geopolitical chess match. Losing Ukraine to a hostile alliance or power is like having an enemy rook with an open file (remember Moscow already lacks luft). Operationally speaking advancing armies with the correct force ratio advance at about 1 km/h in the face of resistance. Kharkiv to Moscow is about 750 km or a month of hard fighting. On the board Moscow is in danger of a back rank check mate from this angle. So from a chess player sitting in Moscow the board looks pretty damn bad. Out of position pieces, committed pieces, potential opponent lines of attack, and a terrible defensive setup make the board almost untenable. For their sake they better be grand masters because they are one blunder away from disaster. /////////////// On Ukraine, not an analogy, Russia screwed up big time and shockingly. The elites to include Putin in Russia come largely from the FSB(old KGB). It is clearly the FSB's job to know about, block, or have plans for controlling Ukraine. They completely missed the boat and allowed a US backed revolution to kick their preferred government out. Although they held on to Crimea this was far from ideal. How the FSB group maintained its position after such a huge blunder is beyond me. However, it must have weakened their internal position making a shake up more likely (how likely I have no idea). Edited November 28, 2015 by LordRahl2 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I listened to a talk recently by a senior figure in Moscow, who had been an officer in the Soviet army and an instructor at the russian federation military academy. He said that the age of a Russian "empire" (ala USSR) was over and that was widely recognised by Moscow. I don't think their moves since have been focused on re-establishing that kind of position. I think it's a mix of internal nation building (Putin as saviour of the Russian people), external alliance building (Russia as a counterweight to 'the West', with some claim of seniority) and disrupting any attempts at hegemonic activity by the US. With specific focus on Syria, I think that the main goals were firstly to prop up their ally, Assad, for the reasons already mentioned; and secondly to target terrorism abroad, with the aim of reducing it's impact within Russia (partly for propaganda purposes, partially because there are genuinely many Russian jihadists in Syria). 1 Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 The Alawites function as a tribe or Nation(in the human geography sense of the word). The religion part of it is not central to how they actually work. This tribe is the one that the Iranians and Russians used to control the State of Syria because they were located in the region that they cared about (access to the warm water port). If it was some randomly displaced group of Hindi it would have functioned the same. So they, the Alawites, were and are out to control Syria in order to ensure they are not controlled by another group/tribe/nation/religion. They have no specific designs on killing all the Sunnis. Washington is not controlling Turkey not the GCC's actions. Washington has interests in the region and exercises its power to the best of its ability. Turkey and SA/GCC do as well. Terrorism is a tactical activity which is hard to declare war on. Frankly, there are far more important things going on in the region that Washington needs to be concerned with. Those are complex and highly relevant to what Washington actually does - weather it matters to you or not. Washington does not, and imho should not, paint the world as black(terrorist) and white(not a terrorist) as you would like. As for Russian airstrikes being more effective? Maybe you have a good source that lays that out. Their airstrikes have served to prop up the Alawite regime which was collapsing. Both the American led strikes and the Russian ones are killing people and attriting the field force of ISIS. What Washington is "complaining" about is that the Russians are not out zapping terrorist backing ISIS mainly but are killing anti-Alawites. Frankly, you are arguing against yourself. The most effective terrorist killing leader at the moment is Obama and Putin is killing less terrorists by volume and by percentage. I do not think that is the correct way of looking at or phrasing the issue, however, it is how you seem to be coming at it. I mean I don't disagree that they do control Syria but regardless how is that necessarily a bad thing? Rather them than another intolerant Sunni state surely. Would Israel be better if it was ruled by Sunni Arabs instead? Depends how you look at it really. America has not condemned those states how they should have and no real action has been taken in response. Every person on the street knows what is on the villain's minds (don't take this literally) and yet America seems to condone it just fine. As far as I'm concerned we're not dealing with a Hydra here in the sense that if you chop the head of the beast two more will regenerate, however if you chop off a limb then two more will certainly regenerate back and we only need to look at ISIS right now to see evidence of that. And that is why they have been more effective. You defeat ISIS with airpower by first destroying the "moderates" who when gone will leave no one for the west to push as the future of Syria and then finally there can be a fully unified effort against ISIS. As for "terrorist killing", all the rebels are fanatics in my book, I don't bother myself with the intricacies of the difference between an ISIS footsoldier and an al-Nusra one. I listened to a talk recently by a senior figure in Moscow, who had been an officer in the Soviet army and an instructor at the russian federation military academy. He said that the age of a Russian "empire" (ala USSR) was over and that was widely recognised by Moscow. I don't think their moves since have been focused on re-establishing that kind of position. I think it's a mix of internal nation building (Putin as saviour of the Russian people), external alliance building (Russia as a counterweight to 'the West', with some claim of seniority) and disrupting any attempts at hegemonic activity by the US. With specific focus on Syria, I think that the main goals were firstly to prop up their ally, Assad, for the reasons already mentioned; and secondly to target terrorism abroad, with the aim of reducing it's impact within Russia (partly for propaganda purposes, partially because there are genuinely many Russian jihadists in Syria). Sounds correct. I've learned from my people with the YPG that Putin is talking with them. And one or two of the S-400 anti-air missiles might "accidentally" end up with the Kurds.... who may in turn use it against the Turks bombing them. So yeah... PROXY WAR! COMMENCE! Greater Greece, Armenia, and Kurdistan in Anatolia here we come! The Turks can go back to Turkmenistan I suppose if the revenge genocides don't do them all in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I listened to a talk recently by a senior figure in Moscow, who had been an officer in the Soviet army and an instructor at the russian federation military academy. He said that the age of a Russian "empire" (ala USSR) was over and that was widely recognised by Moscow. I don't think their moves since have been focused on re-establishing that kind of position. I think it's a mix of internal nation building (Putin as saviour of the Russian people), external alliance building (Russia as a counterweight to 'the West', with some claim of seniority) and disrupting any attempts at hegemonic activity by the US. With specific focus on Syria, I think that the main goals were firstly to prop up their ally, Assad, for the reasons already mentioned; and secondly to target terrorism abroad, with the aim of reducing it's impact within Russia (partly for propaganda purposes, partially because there are genuinely many Russian jihadists in Syria). I am certain that the Russians realize their situation. They are also far more concerned about it than we think they should be. That they publicly state that they have no ambitions of empire is also unsurprising. They would build more buffer regions if they could. Here I disagree. Their moves are intended to shore up their defensive perimeter. Russia has been invaded or attacked by people its entire history, for example: Mongolia, Sweden, Germany, the Baltics, Austria, the United States, Japan, England, Canada, Australia, India, France, Poland, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Italy, !@#$ing Greece, and China. Many of those and the most dangerous came from their Western Border which, with the exception of the by-passable pripet marsh, lacks defensible terrain. The vaunted Russian winter is a thing but it is not really in your best interest to rely on an enemy getting tired of invading you because it is cold. Their foreign policy certainly appears aimed at pushing as far West as they can. What the man was really saying is that they lack the capacity to dominate as far West as they would like to. I am not saying that NATO is about to invade Russia. That is improbable. However, Russia has seen improbable things happen that resulted in dudes wearing funny hats attacking Moscow. Pretend it is 1932 and you are a Russian planner (terrible time to be Russian but whatever). To your west is a moderately strong buffer State (Poland) that is far stronger than Germany. Germany is in fact weak (militarily), democratic, and focused internally on an economic and political crisis. Amazingly today Germany is weak (militarily), democratic, and focused internally on an economic and political crisis(at least irt the EU). I am not predicting German tanks in Stalingrad/Volgograd in 2023. However, Russian planners have to and do think about such things. Their option is to have as much space along the plain. Securing that looks to them like a series of defensive moves. People to their west see it as aggressive. It is easy to attribute all of Russia's moves to an internal focus. I would not quibble that their is some of that but I ascribe bigger forces than just internal ones to their moves. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I think Turkey could probably quite easily beat all of its neighbours simultaneously if it came to that. Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I am certain that the Russians realize their situation. They are also far more concerned about it than we think they should be. That they publicly state that they have no ambitions of empire is also unsurprising. They would build more buffer regions if they could. Here I disagree. Their moves are intended to shore up their defensive perimeter. Russia has been invaded or attacked by people its entire history, for example: Mongolia, Sweden, Germany, the Baltics, Austria, the United States, Japan, England, Canada, Australia, India, France, Poland, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Italy, !@#$ Greece, and China. Many of those and the most dangerous came from their Western Border which, with the exception of the by-passable pripet marsh, lacks defensible terrain. The vaunted Russian winter is a thing but it is not really in your best interest to rely on an enemy getting tired of invading you because it is cold. Their foreign policy certainly appears aimed at pushing as far West as they can. What the man was really saying is that they lack the capacity to dominate as far West as they would like to. I am not saying that NATO is about to invade Russia. That is improbable. However, Russia has seen improbable things happen that resulted in dudes wearing funny hats attacking Moscow. Pretend it is 1932 and you are a Russian planner (terrible time to be Russian but whatever). To your west is a moderately strong buffer State (Poland) that is far stronger than Germany. Germany is in fact weak (militarily), democratic, and focused internally on an economic and political crisis. Amazingly today Germany is weak (militarily), democratic, and focused internally on an economic and political crisis(at least irt the EU). I am not predicting German tanks in Stalingrad/Volgograd in 2023. However, Russian planners have to and do think about such things. Their option is to have as much space along the plain. Securing that looks to them like a series of defensive moves. People to their west see it as aggressive. It is easy to attribute all of Russia's moves to an internal focus. I would not quibble that their is some of that but I ascribe bigger forces than just internal ones to their moves. RE: our disagreement: if you look at Russian behaviour since 1999, there's only the South Ossetia conflict which provides a blip in what was essentially an attempt by Russia to warm relations with the USA and the West more generally. It was only following protests in Russia in 2011/2012 and the suspicion of Western involvement that Russia began to spout anti-Western rhetoric. If Russia was truly attempting to build buffer zones, it's done an extraordinarily poor job of it. Crimea, Transnistria and Syria? The Georgian regions were pro-Russian anyway, so little or no gains there. Even Belarus is somewhat drifting and is hardly unified in their foreign policy with Russia (over Crimea for example). With regards to Germany invading Russia- actually though this is a far fetched scenario I find it interesting how few people seem to draw parallels between Germany today and Germany in 1933. I'd agree that it isn't purely an internal focus, though I do think it's a major factor. Putin is aware that despite overwhelming popularity his position is not secure and he has to always be seen as the man of action. Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) hhahahahahahahahahah turkeey strong???? weak! wow. look at baby army!!! can be stopped by people armed with sticks????!!?!?!! i who are silly little men!? i could beat them with my fists. weak weak weak!!! Edited November 28, 2015 by captain_vietnam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I think Turkey could probably quite easily beat all of its neighbours simultaneously if it came to that. haha. silly turkey! your support of the turkey is foolish! even north korea can beat the turkey! turkey are not the turkey they are the chicken!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.