Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
Can I just run this past you guys...
My understanding is that (simply put) there are 3 "sides" in Syria, Assad, Free Syrian Army and ISIS (the last two being disparate groups but an effactive fighting force).
Russian - are backing Assad by attacking Free Syrian Army
Iran - are backing Assad by attacking ISIS
Saudi and some other Gulf states are backing ISIS although they won't admit it publicly by attacking Assad and Free Syrian Army and anything else with a pulse.
The Allies (US and UK with Kurdish/Turk support and some euro support) are backing Free Syrian Army by attacking ISIS and Assad.
ISIS appear to be winning, at least they're capturing land at a faster rate than the others.
Is this a fair summary? What's Iraq's role if any?
My understanding is that (simply put) there are 3 "sides" in Syria, Assad, Free Syrian Army and ISIS (the last two being disparate groups but an effactive fighting force).
Russian - are backing Assad by attacking Free Syrian Army
Iran - are backing Assad by attacking ISIS
Saudi and some other Gulf states are backing ISIS although they won't admit it publicly by attacking Assad and Free Syrian Army and anything else with a pulse.
The Allies (US and UK with Kurdish/Turk support and some euro support) are backing Free Syrian Army by attacking ISIS and Assad.
ISIS appear to be winning, at least they're capturing land at a faster rate than the others.
Is this a fair summary? What's Iraq's role if any?
scherzkeks said:
Zod said:
hat is the point of using quotation marks on a comment from an anonymous article? To somehow lend it credibility?
It would appear they serve the devious purpose of indicating that said text was pulled from the article. Zod said:
scherzkeks said:
Zod said:
hat is the point of using quotation marks on a comment from an anonymous article? To somehow lend it credibility?
It would appear they serve the devious purpose of indicating that said text was pulled from the article. QuantumTokoloshi said:
Zod said:
scherzkeks said:
Zod said:
hat is the point of using quotation marks on a comment from an anonymous article? To somehow lend it credibility?
It would appear they serve the devious purpose of indicating that said text was pulled from the article. cirian75 said:
I'm dreading when the big cock up happens, and it will!
What it will be, I don't know, but it will happen, either Russia or the allies will kill someone on the others team.
This is the huge danger, the brinkmanship is getting crazy on both sides. You then have a complete bunch of nut jobs who really do not care about the consequences, virgins await in their world, and the West has chosen to align with, arm and train them. I do hope cool heads prevail but I see no evidence of it currently.What it will be, I don't know, but it will happen, either Russia or the allies will kill someone on the others team.
cirian75 said:
I'm dreading when the big cock up happens, and it will!
What it will be, I don't know, but it will happen, either Russia or the allies will kill someone on the others team.
Highly likely now Putin's mob are in the fight.What it will be, I don't know, but it will happen, either Russia or the allies will kill someone on the others team.
All countries make genuine mistakes in battle, but there's another dimension added into the mix when the Russian military show up - they are totally unprofessional and don't give a f*ck who gets hurt.
Take the two recent incursions into Turkish airspace. The first one they said was a mistake. Bullst, it's 2015 and unless the pilot had a dodgy tom-tom in his cockpit, there's no way you wouldn't know where you were.
They are still constructing the lie in response to the second one.
Also, Russian ground troops have arrived in Syria, under - guess what - the 'volunteer' banner.
Standby for some fireworks
FredClogs said:
Can I just run this past you guys...
My understanding is that (simply put) there are 3 "sides" in Syria, Assad, Free Syrian Army and ISIS (the last two being disparate groups but an effactive fighting force).
Russian - are backing Assad by attacking Free Syrian Army
Iran - are backing Assad by attacking ISIS
Saudi and some other Gulf states are backing ISIS although they won't admit it publicly by attacking Assad and Free Syrian Army and anything else with a pulse.
The Allies (US and UK with Kurdish/Turk support and some euro support) are backing Free Syrian Army by attacking ISIS and Assad.
ISIS appear to be winning, at least they're capturing land at a faster rate than the others.
Is this a fair summary? What's Iraq's role if any?
That probably sums it up.My understanding is that (simply put) there are 3 "sides" in Syria, Assad, Free Syrian Army and ISIS (the last two being disparate groups but an effactive fighting force).
Russian - are backing Assad by attacking Free Syrian Army
Iran - are backing Assad by attacking ISIS
Saudi and some other Gulf states are backing ISIS although they won't admit it publicly by attacking Assad and Free Syrian Army and anything else with a pulse.
The Allies (US and UK with Kurdish/Turk support and some euro support) are backing Free Syrian Army by attacking ISIS and Assad.
ISIS appear to be winning, at least they're capturing land at a faster rate than the others.
Is this a fair summary? What's Iraq's role if any?
Or you could put it another way:
The Saudi (Sunni) are backing the free Syrian rebels (Sunni) and ISIS as they want to get rid of Assad (Shi-ite).
Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon (Shi-ite) are supporting Assad. Iraq (Shi-ite) are sympathetic to Iran/Syria and allow Iran to use their territory to fight Free Syrian rebels. Iran also help Iraq fight Isis in Iraq.
The West are supporting Saudi/Free Syrian Army to get rid of Assad and instate a puppet/Sunni regime so Saudi can build a gas/oil pipeline to the Western Europe and cripple Russia financially.
Putin is having none of it (and returning the favour after Saudi financed the forces that fought Russia in Afghanistan in the 80's).
Iran is returning the favour after Saudi supported Saddam (Sunni) during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's.
If you listen to the western media the war is all about getting rid of evil Assad.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
There is no dealing with here, there is only pragmatism. Russia is not a weakened Iraq or Libya, or a failed state like Afghanistan, Somalia or Yemen. Russia provides a sizable proportion of the world oil and gas, and provides the bulk of western European gas. Russia also happens to have the world's largest nuclear arsenal and a fair size conventional military.
How do you propose to deal with Russia? Get into a shooting war? Economic warfare? Train and arm terrorist groups to destabilise the country? Assassinate Putin? The problem is Russia, can, has, and will respond in kind.
It is possible that the Neocon strategy of a new American century might have some downsides here.
Dealing with Russia is easy.How do you propose to deal with Russia? Get into a shooting war? Economic warfare? Train and arm terrorist groups to destabilise the country? Assassinate Putin? The problem is Russia, can, has, and will respond in kind.
It is possible that the Neocon strategy of a new American century might have some downsides here.
1. Ramp us the economic sanctions, and yes, they can be ramped up further.
2. Ask Salman to open the other oil tap and drive the price down even further.
How long do you think it would take, one, maybe two years?
Phil
QuantumTokoloshi said:
There is no dealing with here, there is only pragmatism. Russia is not a weakened Iraq or Libya, or a failed state like Afghanistan, Somalia or Yemen. Russia provides a sizable proportion of the world oil and gas, and provides the bulk of western European gas. Russia also happens to have the world's largest nuclear arsenal and a fair size conventional military.
How do you propose to deal with Russia? Get into a shooting war? Economic warfare? Train and arm terrorist groups to destabilise the country? Assassinate Putin? The problem is Russia, can, has, and will respond in kind.
It is possible that the Neocon strategy of a new American century might have some downsides here.
Well I'm well aware of who Russia are, I don't suggest anything as I'm not a military or political strategist How do you propose to deal with Russia? Get into a shooting war? Economic warfare? Train and arm terrorist groups to destabilise the country? Assassinate Putin? The problem is Russia, can, has, and will respond in kind.
It is possible that the Neocon strategy of a new American century might have some downsides here.
But what I do no is that if you let Russia keep on pushing the boundaries it will end in tears,the same as if the opposite occurs look at previous history and what does it tell you ? I always find it amusing that your point of view and insite is any more correct than anybody else's the fact is it's a build up to a stty situation.not doing anything is not an option but doing so might not be great either, personally I'd rather not have a war but I also don't want to live in a world controlled by Vladimir Putin thanks
loose cannon said:
Well I'm well aware of who Russia are, I don't suggest anything as I'm not a military or political strategist
But what I do no is that if you let Russia keep on pushing the boundaries it will end in tears,the same as if the opposite occurs look at previous history and what does it tell you ? I always find it amusing that your point of view and insite is any more correct than anybody else's the fact is it's a build up to a stty situation.not doing anything is not an option but doing so might not be great either, personally I'd rather not have a war but I also don't want to live in a world controlled by Vladimir Putin thanks
And many have no desire to live in a world owned by the American empire.But what I do no is that if you let Russia keep on pushing the boundaries it will end in tears,the same as if the opposite occurs look at previous history and what does it tell you ? I always find it amusing that your point of view and insite is any more correct than anybody else's the fact is it's a build up to a stty situation.not doing anything is not an option but doing so might not be great either, personally I'd rather not have a war but I also don't want to live in a world controlled by Vladimir Putin thanks
Under the neo-con philosophy driving these wars of conquest, we are guaranteed further conflict around the globe until the objective of total spectrum dominance is achieved. In other words, the people you support are every bit as insane as you think the Russians are. None of the adventures recently undertaken in the ME or Ukraine have anything to do with spreading democracy (which is ironically entirely absent in the US itself these days). As usual, it is the pursuit and control of natural and human resources that drives these actions.
Russia is one of several boogeymen to be invoked whenever specific foreign policy aims are to be achieved. The endgame is to neutralize them and solidify the empire's hold on states in the "enemy's" (take your pick of countries on the PNAC hitlist) sphere of influence. In terms of agitating Russia and China, you and I may be lucky to live through it all should things be allowed to escalate.
The point I'm trying to make is that superpowers like to push each other's buttons and push the boundaries sometimes pushing those buttons end in disaster.
I'm no USA fanboy or Russia fanboy but to simply roll over to the opposition is wrong and as I live in the uk
And the media portray them as wrong, what do you think I should do ? Emigrate to Russia and declare my allegiance
Or stay right were I am and support my country's take on it ? When push comes to shove I will support my country
Not run off to hide somewhere , the politics of the situation is that I have no idea of the full scale of what is happening
Neither do you or anybody else on this forum, all I can do is the only thing I no to do, and have been brought up to do by family and generally living in the west , who is right or wrong is generally irrelevant both are wrong and it's the little people who suffer but I will always support my country's right over any other
I'm no USA fanboy or Russia fanboy but to simply roll over to the opposition is wrong and as I live in the uk
And the media portray them as wrong, what do you think I should do ? Emigrate to Russia and declare my allegiance
Or stay right were I am and support my country's take on it ? When push comes to shove I will support my country
Not run off to hide somewhere , the politics of the situation is that I have no idea of the full scale of what is happening
Neither do you or anybody else on this forum, all I can do is the only thing I no to do, and have been brought up to do by family and generally living in the west , who is right or wrong is generally irrelevant both are wrong and it's the little people who suffer but I will always support my country's right over any other
Lol i don't support any war unless I really have to, do you not understand that, you don't decide when a war starts neither do I, let me repeat again I will ultimately stand up for my country the same as you would otherwise you would not be on here trying to convert everyone to believe Russia is not the bad man, all superpowers ruffle feathers for there own means to further the power and control of said country, it's never been any different in human history as far as I can tell, there is no bad man other than all of man, you believe what you like
scherzkeks said:
And many have no desire to live in a world owned by the American empire.
Under the neo-con philosophy driving these wars of conquest, we are guaranteed further conflict around the globe until the objective of total spectrum dominance is achieved. In other words, the people you support are every bit as insane as you think the Russians are. None of the adventures recently undertaken in the ME or Ukraine have anything to do with spreading democracy (which is ironically entirely absent in the US itself these days). As usual, it is the pursuit and control of natural and human resources that drives these actions.
Russia is one of several boogeymen to be invoked whenever specific foreign policy aims are to be achieved. The endgame is to neutralize them and solidify the empire's hold on states in the "enemy's" (take your pick of countries on the PNAC hitlist) sphere of influence. In terms of agitating Russia and China, you and I may be lucky to live through it all should things be allowed to escalate.
Wow. Before you turn this place into an even dumber version of zerohedge can you just confirm if you think Obama is a 'neo-con' or not?Under the neo-con philosophy driving these wars of conquest, we are guaranteed further conflict around the globe until the objective of total spectrum dominance is achieved. In other words, the people you support are every bit as insane as you think the Russians are. None of the adventures recently undertaken in the ME or Ukraine have anything to do with spreading democracy (which is ironically entirely absent in the US itself these days). As usual, it is the pursuit and control of natural and human resources that drives these actions.
Russia is one of several boogeymen to be invoked whenever specific foreign policy aims are to be achieved. The endgame is to neutralize them and solidify the empire's hold on states in the "enemy's" (take your pick of countries on the PNAC hitlist) sphere of influence. In terms of agitating Russia and China, you and I may be lucky to live through it all should things be allowed to escalate.
coetzeeh said:
FredClogs said:
Can I just run this past you guys...
My understanding is that (simply put) there are 3 "sides" in Syria, Assad, Free Syrian Army and ISIS (the last two being disparate groups but an effactive fighting force).
Russian - are backing Assad by attacking Free Syrian Army
Iran - are backing Assad by attacking ISIS
Saudi and some other Gulf states are backing ISIS although they won't admit it publicly by attacking Assad and Free Syrian Army and anything else with a pulse.
The Allies (US and UK with Kurdish/Turk support and some euro support) are backing Free Syrian Army by attacking ISIS and Assad.
ISIS appear to be winning, at least they're capturing land at a faster rate than the others.
Is this a fair summary? What's Iraq's role if any?
That probably sums it up.My understanding is that (simply put) there are 3 "sides" in Syria, Assad, Free Syrian Army and ISIS (the last two being disparate groups but an effactive fighting force).
Russian - are backing Assad by attacking Free Syrian Army
Iran - are backing Assad by attacking ISIS
Saudi and some other Gulf states are backing ISIS although they won't admit it publicly by attacking Assad and Free Syrian Army and anything else with a pulse.
The Allies (US and UK with Kurdish/Turk support and some euro support) are backing Free Syrian Army by attacking ISIS and Assad.
ISIS appear to be winning, at least they're capturing land at a faster rate than the others.
Is this a fair summary? What's Iraq's role if any?
Or you could put it another way:
The Saudi (Sunni) are backing the free Syrian rebels (Sunni) and ISIS as they want to get rid of Assad (Shi-ite).
Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon (Shi-ite) are supporting Assad. Iraq (Shi-ite) are sympathetic to Iran/Syria and allow Iran to use their territory to fight Free Syrian rebels. Iran also help Iraq fight Isis in Iraq.
The West are supporting Saudi/Free Syrian Army to get rid of Assad and instate a puppet/Sunni regime so Saudi can build a gas/oil pipeline to the Western Europe and cripple Russia financially.
Putin is having none of it (and returning the favour after Saudi financed the forces that fought Russia in Afghanistan in the 80's).
Iran is returning the favour after Saudi supported Saddam (Sunni) during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's.
If you listen to the western media the war is all about getting rid of evil Assad.
This is the one you want;
https://youtu.be/JaO9HKtnptk
Phil
https://youtu.be/JaO9HKtnptk
Phil
Edited by Transmitter Man on Tuesday 6th October 17:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff