Meanwhile, In Syria

[bobbylondonuk]

Zod said:

bobbylondonuk said:

Cobnapint said:

Langweilig said:

Putin has vowed to wipe out IS. 150,000 Russian troops are to take Raqqa by force.

And I don't think Putin is joking.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-I...

150,000 - that's the way to do it, en-masse, outnumber the enemy and sweep through.

Not like our lot, we couldn't provide two thirds of that number.

Never mind though, if the Russkis turn towards the Baltics, we've got 100 waiting to ward them off.

If you go to war, go to win. The ruskis have balls. We in the west are pussies. Fact. Our history in military conflict and political games over the last 15-20 years is proof enough.

all we do is stir up st and talk. If we do need to muck in, we send our boys and girls in low numbers to fight 3 times harder when we should be landing huge volumes and making strategic and forceful moves to finish the objective come hell or high water.


We lose our armed forces without even giving them a show of undisputed victory in war. Shame on us.

This is why Putin is superman out there in the real world. he doesnt care about anything but the victory at the end. All his moves so far for many years has been to build, strengthen and now demonstrate Russian power. And that too on the cheap by using old tech and past shelf life ammo! Brilliant!

We did all this in Iraq. Look what happened after that. It is odd that the Putin fanboys think that overwhelming force against Raqqa will have a different effect from the overwhelming force used by the US in Iraq a decade ago. Yes, if Russia uses overwhelming force, it will clear ISIS out of Raqqa, but that won't stop bombings, raids on easier targets and continued killings by ISIS.

Putins objective is not to save the world. His objective is to restore Assad and Syrian govt institutions so that Russian influence is stabilised in the long term. He will wipe out anyone with a gun ISIS or otherwise. That is what he has stated. He is not in there for moral reasons or to restore all of Syrian land back to Assad. He has a limited list of targets to achieve.

We went into Iraq telling everyone we will save the world. A lot of us openly said to leave Saddam alone as he can manage all the crazy people, we just need to push him to a corner and get him to play our games. We screwed him over and look what we got? We screwed Gaddafi over and look what we got? Now we are trying to screw Assad over....this time Putin turned around and said no way Jose! That pipeline aint being built!

[The Don of Croy]

Zod said:

We did all this in Iraq. Look what happened after that. It is odd that the Putin fanboys think that overwhelming force against Raqqa will have a different effect from the overwhelming force used by the US in Iraq a decade ago. Yes, if Russia uses overwhelming force, it will clear ISIS out of Raqqa, but that won't stop bombings, raids on easier targets and continued killings by ISIS.

If Putin is backing Assad, then presumably Assad gets to continue in control (putitively) after the conflict is over. In Iraq the ruling Ba'athist regime was dismantled = no national control.

I'm not excessively keen on Putin, but IF he is to rout ISIS/Daesh and return Syria to it's former mildly demonic leader in a stable fashion, then that may be the best we can expect.

The ME really doesn't need another failed state.

[Four Litre]

bobbylondonuk said:

Cobnapint said:

Langweilig said:

Putin has vowed to wipe out IS. 150,000 Russian troops are to take Raqqa by force.

And I don't think Putin is joking.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-I...

150,000 - that's the way to do it, en-masse, outnumber the enemy and sweep through.

Not like our lot, we couldn't provide two thirds of that number.

Never mind though, if the Russkis turn towards the Baltics, we've got 100 waiting to ward them off.

If you go to war, go to win. The ruskis have balls. We in the west are pussies. Fact. Our history in military conflict and political games over the last 15-20 years is proof enough.

all we do is stir up st and talk. If we do need to muck in, we send our boys and girls in low numbers to fight 3 times harder when we should be landing huge volumes and making strategic and forceful moves to finish the objective come hell or high water.


We lose our armed forces without even giving them a show of undisputed victory in war. Shame on us.

This is why Putin is superman out there in the real world. he doesnt care about anything but the victory at the end. All his moves so far for many years has been to build, strengthen and now demonstrate Russian power. And that too on the cheap by using old tech and past shelf life ammo! Brilliant!

I feel that in the west we try to win the media war instead of the actual war. We're more worried about what to wear appearing on Loose Women than what were actually going to in the battle.

Obviously war should always without fail be the last option, but all this trying to look squeakly clean and trying to kill the enemy with strong words doesnt work very well.

[Zod]

The Don of Croy said:

Zod said:

We did all this in Iraq. Look what happened after that. It is odd that the Putin fanboys think that overwhelming force against Raqqa will have a different effect from the overwhelming force used by the US in Iraq a decade ago. Yes, if Russia uses overwhelming force, it will clear ISIS out of Raqqa, but that won't stop bombings, raids on easier targets and continued killings by ISIS.

If Putin is backing Assad, then presumably Assad gets to continue in control (putitively) after the conflict is over. In Iraq the ruling Ba'athist regime was dismantled = no national control.

I'm not excessively keen on Putin, but IF he is to rout ISIS/Daesh and return Syria to it's former mildly demonic leader in a stable fashion, then that may be the best we can expect.

The ME really doesn't need another failed state.

Without a massive, inevitably unpopular Russian garrison, there is not a hope of restoring Assad's power over the whole of Syria.

[aeropilot]

bobbylondonuk said:

Zod said:

bobbylondonuk said:

Cobnapint said:

Langweilig said:

Putin has vowed to wipe out IS. 150,000 Russian troops are to take Raqqa by force.

And I don't think Putin is joking.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-I...

150,000 - that's the way to do it, en-masse, outnumber the enemy and sweep through.

Not like our lot, we couldn't provide two thirds of that number.

Never mind though, if the Russkis turn towards the Baltics, we've got 100 waiting to ward them off.

If you go to war, go to win. The ruskis have balls. We in the west are pussies. Fact. Our history in military conflict and political games over the last 15-20 years is proof enough.

all we do is stir up st and talk. If we do need to muck in, we send our boys and girls in low numbers to fight 3 times harder when we should be landing huge volumes and making strategic and forceful moves to finish the objective come hell or high water.


We lose our armed forces without even giving them a show of undisputed victory in war. Shame on us.

This is why Putin is superman out there in the real world. he doesnt care about anything but the victory at the end. All his moves so far for many years has been to build, strengthen and now demonstrate Russian power. And that too on the cheap by using old tech and past shelf life ammo! Brilliant!

We did all this in Iraq. Look what happened after that. It is odd that the Putin fanboys think that overwhelming force against Raqqa will have a different effect from the overwhelming force used by the US in Iraq a decade ago. Yes, if Russia uses overwhelming force, it will clear ISIS out of Raqqa, but that won't stop bombings, raids on easier targets and continued killings by ISIS.

Putins objective is not to save the world. His objective is to restore Assad and Syrian govt institutions so that Russian influence is stabilised in the long term. He will wipe out anyone with a gun ISIS or otherwise. That is what he has stated. He is not in there for moral reasons or to restore all of Syrian land back to Assad. He has a limited list of targets to achieve.

We went into Iraq telling everyone we will save the world. A lot of us openly said to leave Saddam alone as he can manage all the crazy people, we just need to push him to a corner and get him to play our games. We screwed him over and look what we got? We screwed Gaddafi over and look what we got? Now we are trying to screw Assad over....this time Putin turned around and said no way Jose! That pipeline aint being built!

Exactly.

And he'll do that without the kid-gloves ROE that our forces were tied up with having to adopt for political reasons, and he hasn't got a coalition of countries with differing agendas to create a mess in the background.

The only fly in his ointment is Israel, and what they will perceive as his long term aims in the region. That could be the interesting aspect further down the road.

[bobbylondonuk]

Zod said:

The Don of Croy said:

Zod said:

We did all this in Iraq. Look what happened after that. It is odd that the Putin fanboys think that overwhelming force against Raqqa will have a different effect from the overwhelming force used by the US in Iraq a decade ago. Yes, if Russia uses overwhelming force, it will clear ISIS out of Raqqa, but that won't stop bombings, raids on easier targets and continued killings by ISIS.

If Putin is backing Assad, then presumably Assad gets to continue in control (putitively) after the conflict is over. In Iraq the ruling Ba'athist regime was dismantled = no national control.

I'm not excessively keen on Putin, but IF he is to rout ISIS/Daesh and return Syria to it's former mildly demonic leader in a stable fashion, then that may be the best we can expect.

The ME really doesn't need another failed state.

Without a massive, inevitably unpopular Russian garrison, there is not a hope of restoring Assad's power over the whole of Syria.

That is the challege! let see what happens. it cant get any worse anyway.

[chris watton]

I do wonder that, if Saddam had not been toppled, would the casualty rate be a lot lower now, and would we now have this ISIS problem?

Are these dictators in such countries sometimes the lesser of two evils?

[IroningMan]

chris watton said:

I do wonder that, if Saddam had not been toppled, would the casualty rate be a lot lower now, and would we now have this ISIS problem?

Are these dictators in such countries sometimes the lesser of two evils?

Er, that's exactly the realpolitik that was played to throughout the 20th century - and that garners so much criticism in retrospect and when it continues to be applied to Saudi, Bahrain and any number of other regimes.

[dudleybloke]

Its all about the oil.

[Transmitter Man]

dudleybloke said:

Its all about the oil.

I don't think so.

Syria is way down the list of oil producing countries and the quality of which is not in the same league as say Libya.

Phil

[Zod]

Transmitter Man said:

dudleybloke said:

Its all about the oil.

I don't think so.

Syria is way down the list of oil producing countries and the quality of which is not in the same league as say Libya.

Phil

Gas pipeline perhaps.

[Lucas Ayde]

chris watton said:

I do wonder that, if Saddam had not been toppled, would the casualty rate be a lot lower now, and would we now have this ISIS problem?

Are these dictators in such countries sometimes the lesser of two evils?

Just look at Libya before and after the 'revolution' to see what Western-backed overthrow of dictators results in for the people of the lucky country on the hitlist. Things aren't working out so well for the population of Ukraine either.

[rich85uk]

Zod said:

Transmitter Man said:

dudleybloke said:

Its all about the oil.

I don't think so.

Syria is way down the list of oil producing countries and the quality of which is not in the same league as say Libya.

Phil

Gas pipeline perhaps.

Correct, remove Assad and the Saudis get to go through Syria and supply Europe. Keep him in and Russia is still the main supplier by sticking to the agreement that a Saudi pipeline will never be built through Syria

[Cobnapint]

bobbylondonuk said:

If you go to war, go to win. The ruskis have balls. We in the west are pussies. Fact. Our history in military conflict and political games over the last 15-20 years is proof enough.

All we do is stir up st and talk. If we do need to muck in, we send our boys and girls in low numbers to fight 3 times harder when we should be landing huge volumes and making strategic and forceful moves to finish the objective come hell or high water.


We lose our armed forces without even giving them a show of undisputed victory in war. Shame on us.

This is why Putin is superman out there in the real world. he doesnt care about anything but the victory at the end. All his moves so far for many years has been to build, strengthen and now demonstrate Russian power.

Even Sam Kiley on Sky news said the west had gone soft some time ago, and we have. But the reason is simple, after GW2 we are now far too worried about playing by the rules, being respected by the US/EU, and fear having to answer all the time to the ECHR and UN international war crimes tribunals.

Putin doesn't appear to be answerable to no f*cker. He can arrange fatal 'accidents' for his political opponents at will and invade the likes of Crimea and E Ukraine without a western bullet coming anywhere near him. He's more than prepared to stand the cost of a few sanctions and condemnation speeches to get anything he wants.

And when he does it, there's no prior TV debate, discussion in the press or searching questions on the Marr show - he just does it!

The last time we properly slapped a enemy in the face was in 1982 when the Belgrano was sunk.

Edited by Cobnapint on Friday 9th October 18:10

[Scuffers]

the sooner we get on with fracking the better.....

in the mean time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-344865...

[aeropilot]

dudleybloke said:

Its all about the oil.

Not for Russia it isn't.......

It is about a warm water port/base in the eastern med for it's Naval forces...and to an extent he see's a void left by the western incompetence of the past 15 years in the ME.... and see an opportunity to fill that void. Returning Syria to it's more stable previous state is in his best interests (it's in ours as well tbh, it's just that the EU/UK/USA poititians are just too stupid to understand it)

[Gandahar]

bobbylondonuk said:

Cobnapint said:

Langweilig said:

Putin has vowed to wipe out IS. 150,000 Russian troops are to take Raqqa by force.

And I don't think Putin is joking.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-I...

150,000 - that's the way to do it, en-masse, outnumber the enemy and sweep through.

Not like our lot, we couldn't provide two thirds of that number.

Never mind though, if the Russkis turn towards the Baltics, we've got 100 waiting to ward them off.

If you go to war, go to win. The ruskis have balls. We in the west are pussies. Fact. Our history in military conflict and political games over the last 15-20 years is proof enough.

all we do is stir up st and talk. If we do need to muck in, we send our boys and girls in low numbers to fight 3 times harder when we should be landing huge volumes and making strategic and forceful moves to finish the objective come hell or high water.


We lose our armed forces without even giving them a show of undisputed victory in war. Shame on us.

This is why Putin is superman out there in the real world. he doesnt care about anything but the victory at the end. All his moves so far for many years has been to build, strengthen and now demonstrate Russian power. And that too on the cheap by using old tech and past shelf life ammo! Brilliant!

So you think Russia will win in Syria then?

[Gandahar]

Lucas Ayde said:

chris watton said:

I do wonder that, if Saddam had not been toppled, would the casualty rate be a lot lower now, and would we now have this ISIS problem?

Are these dictators in such countries sometimes the lesser of two evils?

Just look at Libya before and after the 'revolution' to see what Western-backed overthrow of dictators results in for the people of the lucky country on the hitlist. Things aren't working out so well for the population of Ukraine either.

Yes indeed. The only Arabs who are now living in a peaceful democracy are ones who have migrated to Europe rather than stay in the hell hole.

[Gandahar]

Cobnapint said:

bobbylondonuk said:

If you go to war, go to win. The ruskis have balls. We in the west are pussies. Fact. Our history in military conflict and political games over the last 15-20 years is proof enough.

All we do is stir up st and talk. If we do need to muck in, we send our boys and girls in low numbers to fight 3 times harder when we should be landing huge volumes and making strategic and forceful moves to finish the objective come hell or high water.


We lose our armed forces without even giving them a show of undisputed victory in war. Shame on us.

This is why Putin is superman out there in the real world. he doesnt care about anything but the victory at the end. All his moves so far for many years has been to build, strengthen and now demonstrate Russian power.

Even Sam Kiley on Sky news said the west had gone soft some time ago, and we have. But the reason is simple, after GW2 we are now far too worried about playing by the rules, being respected by the US/EU, and fear having to answer all the time to the ECHR and UN international war crimes tribunals.

Putin doesn't appear to be answerable to no f*cker. He can arrange fatal 'accidents' for his political opponents at will and invade the likes of Crimea and E Ukraine without a western bullet coming anywhere near him. He's more than prepared to stand the cost of a few sanctions and condemnation speeches to get anything he wants.

And when he does it, there's no prior TV debate, discussion in the press or searching questions on the Marr show - he just does it!

The last time we properly slapped a enemy in the face was in 1982 when the Belgrano was sunk.

Edited by Cobnapint on Friday 9th October 18:10

Yeah but the Russians got bh slapped when they went in balls deep in Afghanistan.. The US and France got same in Indochina. Never a good outcome if you go in hard and do not have the popular support.

[Transmitter Man]

Tunisia just won the 2015 Nobel prize: http://www.nobelprize.org/

Did not see a mention of this on RT, or here on PH for that matter so thought I'd help our well balanced reporting just a shade.

Read why they received this award.

Phil