Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
Difficult believing this line in the Spectator article;
"Far more important for Assad is that, in the eyes of most of the Syrian people, he is a hero"
...when circa 75% of the population is/was Sunni Arab.
Not sure the Sunni's (other than the handful on his payroll) see him as a hero.
Phil
"Far more important for Assad is that, in the eyes of most of the Syrian people, he is a hero"
...when circa 75% of the population is/was Sunni Arab.
Not sure the Sunni's (other than the handful on his payroll) see him as a hero.
Phil
Transmitter Man said:
Difficult believing this line in the Spectator article;
Why?https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/...
article said:
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has won a landslide victory in presidential poll securing 88.7 percent of the vote, parliament speaker Mohammad al-Laham has said.
Transmitter Man said:
Difficult believing this line in the Spectator article;
"Far more important for Assad is that, in the eyes of most of the Syrian people, he is a hero"
...when circa 75% of the population is/was Sunni Arab.
Not sure the Sunni's (other than the handful on his payroll) see him as a hero.
Phil
He's beaten the aggressors internally and externally."Far more important for Assad is that, in the eyes of most of the Syrian people, he is a hero"
...when circa 75% of the population is/was Sunni Arab.
Not sure the Sunni's (other than the handful on his payroll) see him as a hero.
Phil
He's beaten America.
The Christian community will be safe again in Syria again.
John Bolton talking about weapons of mass destruction again.
"Bolton warns Syria against use of chemical weapons"
“As we elaborate how the (U.S. troop) withdrawal is going to occur and the circumstances, we don’t want the Assad regime to see what we do as representing any diminution in our opposition to the use of weapons of mass destruction,” he said.
If chemical weapons were to be used, “a lot of options would be on the table ... if they don’t heed the lessons of those two strikes the next one will be more telling,” Bolton said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-...
"Bolton warns Syria against use of chemical weapons"
“As we elaborate how the (U.S. troop) withdrawal is going to occur and the circumstances, we don’t want the Assad regime to see what we do as representing any diminution in our opposition to the use of weapons of mass destruction,” he said.
If chemical weapons were to be used, “a lot of options would be on the table ... if they don’t heed the lessons of those two strikes the next one will be more telling,” Bolton said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-...
Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 6th January 15:19
LoonyTunes said:
Raygun said:
Sa Calobra said:
He's beaten America.
America could level the place within a week if it wanted to.Raygun said:
LoonyTunes said:
Raygun said:
Sa Calobra said:
He's beaten America.
America could level the place within a week if it wanted to.I suppose B-52 / B1 raids are preferable to a dose of canned sunshine, but I am not sure a US tank division has ever been accused of exhibiting "tact".
Raygun said:
LoonyTunes said:
Raygun said:
Sa Calobra said:
He's beaten America.
America could level the place within a week if it wanted to.You can't beat ideologies like IS in the same way you would traditional enemies. I think (hope) even the US have learnt that.
Raygun said:
If America used everything in it's arsenal how long do you think it would take America to win? Fortunately the beef is with these crazy arab dictators and not their people hence tact has to come into play.
The US carpet bombed Vietnam - how did that turn out?Once the body bags of your children start arriving home from some godforsaken land on the other side of the globe you soon lose the will to continue.
Raygun said:
captain_cynic said:
Raygun said:
If America used everything in it's arsenal how long do you think it would take America to win?
How long did it take them to win Vietnam or Korea? Clue by Four... They didn't.
On one point alone it's unthinkable - the ramifications of nuking a country with current Russian military personnel based in it.
Why didn't/doesn't the US nuke Vietnam or North Korea?
LoonyTunes said:
Raygun said:
captain_cynic said:
Raygun said:
If America used everything in it's arsenal how long do you think it would take America to win?
How long did it take them to win Vietnam or Korea? Clue by Four... They didn't.
On one point alone it's unthinkable - the ramifications of nuking a country with current Russian military personnel based in it.
Why didn't/doesn't the US nuke Vietnam or North Korea?
If America used everything in it's arsenal.
Also if Butcher Assad starts using chemical weapons again he will be punished by America whether Russian troops are there is irrelevant
I think some of you Arab boys and Russia Today brainwashed types forget who the worlds dominant military power is by a country mile.
Raygun said:
LoonyTunes said:
Raygun said:
captain_cynic said:
Raygun said:
If America used everything in it's arsenal how long do you think it would take America to win?
How long did it take them to win Vietnam or Korea? Clue by Four... They didn't.
On one point alone it's unthinkable - the ramifications of nuking a country with current Russian military personnel based in it.
Why didn't/doesn't the US nuke Vietnam or North Korea?
If America used everything in it's arsenal.
Also if Butcher Assad starts using chemical weapons again he will be punished by America whether Russian troops are there is irrelevant
I think some of you Arab boys and Russia Today brainwashed types forget who the worlds dominant military power is by a country mile.
Likewise I think some of you US lackeys forget that they couldn't beat Vietnam or North Korea and are still being picked off in places as remote as Afghanistan.
LoonyTunes said:
IT'S A RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT - AMERICA CAN'T USE EVERYTHING IN IT'S ARSENAL!
Likewise I think some of you US lackeys forget that they couldn't beat Vietnam or North Korea and are still being picked off in places as remote as Afghanistan.
US lackeys? Is that code for not supporting a load of backward terrorists? The Soviet Union backed onto Afghanistan and yet still got their arse kicked.Likewise I think some of you US lackeys forget that they couldn't beat Vietnam or North Korea and are still being picked off in places as remote as Afghanistan.
Raygun said:
LoonyTunes said:
IT'S A RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT - AMERICA CAN'T USE EVERYTHING IN IT'S ARSENAL!
Likewise I think some of you US lackeys forget that they couldn't beat Vietnam or North Korea and are still being picked off in places as remote as Afghanistan.
US lackeys? Is that code for not supporting a load of backward terrorists? The Soviet Union backed onto Afghanistan and yet still got their arse kicked.Likewise I think some of you US lackeys forget that they couldn't beat Vietnam or North Korea and are still being picked off in places as remote as Afghanistan.
It is hard to tell the "backward terrorists" from the "backward terrorists" sometimes. Can we use the number of homosexuals thrown off buildings or number of rapes and sexual slavery as the backward terrorists metric perhaps ? They both seem to be amply armed with TOW missiles, which they just happened to acquire from ?
Raygun said:
READ WHAT I SAID!!
If America used everything in it's arsenal.
Also if Butcher Assad starts using chemical weapons again he will be punished by America whether Russian troops are there is irrelevant
I think some of you Arab boys and Russia Today brainwashed types forget who the worlds dominant military power is by a country mile.
If the US used any of its nukes on a 3rd world country I think there’s a strong likelihood that the Us’s enemies would use terrirust groups to carry out nuclear attacks on the US (or one of its western allies). The risks of escalating to nukes by ANY country usually outweigh the rewards.If America used everything in it's arsenal.
Also if Butcher Assad starts using chemical weapons again he will be punished by America whether Russian troops are there is irrelevant
I think some of you Arab boys and Russia Today brainwashed types forget who the worlds dominant military power is by a country mile.
Despite the MSM hysteria, which would have us belive most of Syria is currently camped out in Calais, waiting to enter the UK - legally or otherwise - there are still thousands of innocent civilians living in Syria. How could the US, or anyone else for that matter, escalate war in the country without unacceptably huge collateral damage?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff