The war on ISIS.

[mister dog]

It's nice seeing the Russians going in full attack. I guess most people in Europe support them at the moment. Many are getting fed up with the EU's political correctness and indecisiveness which end up costing us normal folk dearly all the time.

 

[Rage Racer]

Nice birthday firework.

BTW, here's the action radius of the Caliber-NK cruise missiles (NATO name SS-N-27 "Sizzler") used by the Caspian Fleet.

You know, United States certainly have equipment like this, too, maybe even better. And something tells me that they could have crushed ISIS quickly if they really wanted to.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't want to call out our President for being a muslim, but I would dare say that he is sympathetic to their cause by doing virtually nothing to quell the situation on the ground there. Hundreds of people have been killed to their madness, and it shows by Putin taking control over the situation by sending Spetsnaz that we have no leader.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I don't want to call out our President for being a muslim, but I would dare say that he is sympathetic to their cause by doing virtually nothing to quell the situation on the ground there. Hundreds of people have been killed to their madness, and it shows by Putin taking control over the situation by sending Spetsnaz that we have no leader.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you seriously saying Obama is sympathetic to IS?

 

[Dotini]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you seriously saying Obama is sympathetic to IS?

I'd say Obama is sympathetic to the Sunnis, largely because they are the majority.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you seriously saying Obama is sympathetic to IS?

Not necessarily. I'm saying that he is sympathetic to the idea of a caliphate, just not one that isn't controlled by the US.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Nice birthday firework.

BTW, here's the action radius of the Caliber-NK cruise missiles (NATO name SS-N-27 "Sizzler") used by the Caspian Fleet.

You know, United States certainly have equipment like this, too, maybe even better. And something tells me that they could have crushed ISIS quickly if they really wanted to.

It's an interesting point but not sure it's one that holds any truth. Yes Russia has made plenty of strikes, but have we seen any sign that the overall picture is changing?

 

[niky]

Not necessarily. I'm saying that he is sympathetic to the idea of a caliphate, just not one that isn't controlled by the US.

So you're saying a liberal democrat is sympathetic to the idea of a fascist dictatorship under which liberalism is punishable by death?

There's a difference between an unwillingness to take rash action and a willingness to support IS. The US has been burned by the unforeseen (and sometimes foreseen but completely ignored) consequences of military intervention in hot spots around the world.

Any leader who's not recklessly hawkish will be hesitant at committing resources to a fight without a complete understanding of the situation... or without a clear "good guy" to back.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't want to call out our President for being a muslim, but I would dare say that he is sympathetic to their cause by doing virtually nothing to quell the situation on the ground there.

It's more likely that he doesn't want to get drawn into a protracted ground campaign with no end in sight and do nothing but set up the conditions for another extremist organisation to rise following the American withdrawal - in other words, he doesn't want to do exactly what they did last time.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's more likely that he doesn't want to get drawn into a protracted ground campaign with no end in sight and do nothing but set up the conditions for another extremist organisation to rise following the American withdrawal - in other words, he doesn't want to do exactly what they did last time.

Exactly.

Also, the US and others are probably asking themselves, what's the point? If anything they do is going to be counteracted anyway, and/or the end result is going to be the same no matter how much political and financial risks they take, then why bother? Militarily, it's not worth it - especially when now we are seeing military intervention from Russia, Iran and others.

There is a humanitarian justification for getting involved militarily, but I would argue that it's a wee bit late for that - the bulk of the humanitarian relief for the Syrian people lies elsewhere, in the countries where millions are fleeing to, including the whole continent of Europe.

The question is, will Russian military intervention make the humanitarian situation in Syrian better or worse? That remains to be seen - but I'm guessing it will probably get alot worse before it gets any better, and that is also a reason why Western powers are reluctant to get involved. Sadly, no matter what happens, the civilian population of Syria face many years of strife because, plain and simply, the combatants on all sides (with a few exceptions) don't give a rat's ass about human suffering, and those who do are largely powerless to help. In these circumstances, the only option is to try to bring the entire conflict to an end, but that will not be easy no matter who is doing the bombing. The Russians have (for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure not all of them are good) stepped up to the plate and committed itself to a war of attrition. The US has, for once rather wisely, only committed itself to marginal support for a small number of groups, but the rise of ISIS has thrown a spanner in the works for anyone with the aim of ousting Assad.

Perhaps the best the outside world can do is to offer refuge to those who need it and assist Syria in the task of rebuilding once the fighting has stopped, if the place isn't a deserted wasteland by then.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The US has, for once rather wisely, only committed itself to marginal support for a small number of groups, but the rise of ISIS has thrown a spanner in the works for anyone with the aim of ousting Assad.

There's also the additional moral quandary of where you draw the line in terms of supporting various factions. It's impossible to fight everyone, but by supporting some factions and not others, you may wind up doing a deal with the devil. In terms of long-term strategy, what is Syria going to look like when this is over? And how would that landscape change depending on which factions you back and which ones you oppose? It's not an easy question to answer even before you consider the shifting allegiances between the factions; supporting one might prompt another to move towards the extreme fringe.

The West's strategy at the moment seems to be one of support. It is probably important for the long-term stability of the region that the Syrians play a key role in retaking Syria. That was the problem in Iraq the first time around - it looked like the West moved in, dug out the regime and left with the expectation that Democracy! would take hold. But one of the idiosyncrasies of the Western model of democracy is that church and state are separate, which is not only incompatible with the function of religion in Islamic society, but also not a prerequisite of democracy.

 

[Dennisch]

I don't want to call out our President for being a muslim, but I would dare say that he is sympathetic to their cause by doing virtually nothing to quell the situation on the ground there. Hundreds of people have been killed to their madness, and it shows by Putin taking control over the situation by sending Spetsnaz that we have no leader.

It's as if you have already forgotten how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be after the USA left.

First people complain that the USA mingles too much in the Middle East and now Obama is reluctant to send troops and his decisions are questioned.

Make up your mind.

Edit.

NATO is saying that it will send troops to Turkey if Russia keeps on flying into Turkish airspace.
Absolutely ridiculous. Give the Russians the space to fly and bomb the crap out of Syria instead of turning this into a war against them. NATO's bombing didn't do **** so far, and the Russians will not send Assad on his way out.

 

[Sanji Himura]

First people complain that the USA mingles too much in the Middle East and now Obama is reluctant to send troops and his decisions are questioned.

I can't speak for the rest of America, but my opinion has been bloody well consistent. US Leaving Iraq + Power Vacuum + Weak foreign policy = Growth of ISIS. The failure of the Iraqi government that we set up not 10 years ago can be placed on the shoulders of one man, Obama. He saw the intelligence reports more in depth than we ever saw from the media, and when he had the troops to stage a flood at the Syrian border to stop it from spreading beyond Syria, he refused to make a stand at the border in favor of pulling what little troops that we still had in the country.

You see, Obama, the democrats and the media at large created the illusion that we grew tired of the fight in Iraq, calling it Bush's war. Here is a bit of a history lesson, 3,000+ people died on 9/11/01, and four more died on 9/11/12, including a US Ambassador. That is why we were in Iraq in the first place President Obama.

 

[Dennisch]

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty.
It doesn't matter who is running the show.

Edit.

he failure of the Iraqi government that we set up not 10 years ago can be placed on the shoulders of one man, Obama.

Nope. Bush and his henchmen tricked the world that Saddam was being naughty.

 

[niky]

I can't speak for the rest of America, but my opinion has been bloody well consistent. US Leaving Iraq + Power Vacuum + Weak foreign policy = Growth of ISIS. The failure of the Iraqi government that we set up not 10 years ago can be placed on the shoulders of one man, Obama. He saw the intelligence reports more in depth than we ever saw from the media, and when he had the troops to stage a flood at the Syrian border to stop it from spreading beyond Syria, he refused to make a stand at the border in favor of pulling what little troops that we still had in the country.

You see, Obama, the democrats and the media at large created the illusion that we grew tired of the fight in Iraq, calling it Bush's war. Here is a bit of a history lesson, 3,000+ people died on 9/11/01, and four more died on 9/11/12, including a US Ambassador. That is why we were in Iraq in the first place President Obama.

3,000 people died 9/11/01 due to the actions of a terrorist group that grew in the power vacuum left behind after the US and the USSR played chess in Afghanistan. A terrorist group whose support base includes CIA-trained fighters and insurgents.

This had nothing at all to do with Iraq.

The US invading Iraq created a power vacuum and sectarian violence, and laid the seeds for ISIS. This created the necessity of leaving US security forces in place to prevent another Afghanistan.

Well, guess what? That doesn't bloody work. No foreign force, after dismantling and destroying parts of a sovereign nation's infrastructure through invasion, will ever be welcome with completely open arms. Even before Obama's time, it was quite apparent that the number of boots on the ground wasn't enough, and probably would never be enough.

The only police force that can stabilize a country is its own citizens.

Imposing order from the outside leads to resentment, radicalization and revolt.

-

In Syria, the situation is even more complicated, because you already have the radical element in place, and in open revolt. So... do you deal with the Devil or the anti-Christ? Or do you bomb them all to hell and hope you don't kill off the entire civilian population with them?

What Russia is doing is supporting one bad egg on the premise the other eggs are worse. They really don't mind, because Russia is used to being the 'bad guy'.

The United States has, again, been burned badly in the past by supporting bad eggs. Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein. Vietnam. Ferdinand Marcos. etcetera. Support a fascist to squash communists/islamists/whatever and you only give them more incentive to hate you and sneak bombs onto your airliners.

The best way to fight a civil war is to arm the civilians. Coming in as a western cowboy is going to endear you to no one, and could aid the cause of the Islamic State as much as hurt it.

 

[Dennisch]

Coming in as a western cowboy

Yeeeehaaaaw vs Jihad.

 

[unit-one]

Fireworks on Putin's birthday, or Gift from the Caspian Sea.

That's some expensive fireworks. Though I wonder why they had to use this kind of weapon.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's some expensive fireworks. Though I wonder why they had to use this kind of weapon.

They didn't have to. Cruise missiles when you have complete air superiority and airfields in close proximity is purely a vanity project.

Everyone is guilty of it, but might as well get the training in.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nice birthday firework.

Why are they firing them at Iran? Russia's "battle plan" seems to make little sense. It certainly doesn't look like they're concentrating on ISIS.

Bombing Iran is just crazy, really. More showboating from Poot-poot?

 

[Rage Racer]

It's an interesting point but not sure it's one that holds any truth. Yes Russia has made plenty of strikes, but have we seen any sign that the overall picture is changing?

Well, Russian mainstream media yells that the islamists are deserting and running scared to Turkey, but I'm not sure, too. There is an article in English, the source is probably pro-Russian, but I think it's an opinion worth reading.

That's some expensive fireworks. Though I wonder why they had to use this kind of weapon.

1. Demonstration. To our Western parnters (that their Tomahawk is not a unique wunderwaffe anymore), and to potential buyers - India, Venezuela, Iran and others would like to have such toys in their arsenals. Iranians even saw them flying over their heads.

2. Possibly, there was some AA defence suspected in the target areas so the command didn't risk sending planes. But I find the first guess more likely. Plus training for the ship teams.

Why are they firing them at Iran?

To reach the targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea (thank you, Captain Obvious, you're always helpful).

It certainly doesn't look like they're concentrating on ISIS.

Jabhat al-Nusra is better than ISIS just like typhoid is better than cholera.
If there is any moderate opposistion, we're always ready to talk.

Bombing Iran is just crazy, really. More showboating from Poot-poot?

Tehran doesn't seem to be confirming any missiles crashed on Iran territory. US officials act like they now more than Iran itself, nothing surprising.

And you said this like the Evil Emperor bombed Iran on purpose.

Meanwhile: Syrian Armed Forces started major offensive in Hama province:

 

[TenEightyOne]

To reach the targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea (thank you, Captain Obvious, you're always helpful).
...
And you said this like the Evil Emperor bombed Iran on purpose.

It's hard to imagine where else cruise missiles came from into Iran... if you're suggesting that they were simply off-target then perhaps Russia's cruise effort is pretty irresponsible?

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's hard to imagine where else cruise missiles came from into Iran... if you're suggesting that they were simply off-target then perhaps Russia's cruise effort is pretty irresponsible?

Possibly drop tanks off something that's not a cruise missile.

 

[Rage Racer]

It's hard to imagine where else cruise missiles came from into Iran... if you're suggesting that they were simply off-target then perhaps Russia's cruise effort is pretty irresponsible?

Wait, wait... do you really suppose the missiles hit Iran on purpose? Seriously?

It is Iran's concern, who is responsible and for what. It will be funny if the West calls Russia to resbonsibility (how much damage to pay for, by the way?) while the "victim" doesn't even know what happened.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I can't speak for the rest of America, but my opinion has been bloody well consistent. US Leaving Iraq + Power Vacuum + Weak foreign policy = Growth of ISIS. The failure of the Iraqi government that we set up not 10 years ago can be placed on the shoulders of one man, Obama. He saw the intelligence reports more in depth than we ever saw from the media, and when he had the troops to stage a flood at the Syrian border to stop it from spreading beyond Syria, he refused to make a stand at the border in favor of pulling what little troops that we still had in the country.

You see, Obama, the democrats and the media at large created the illusion that we grew tired of the fight in Iraq, calling it Bush's war. Here is a bit of a history lesson, 3,000+ people died on 9/11/01, and four more died on 9/11/12, including a US Ambassador. That is why we were in Iraq in the first place President Obama.

@niky pretty much covered you're double dip analysis on the war on terror as internationally done by U.S. actions. Also to add, your triple dipping of 9/11/12 happened due to another bad choice in leadership after helping dismantle the powers in charge however under the Obama admin this time. Obama took actions in Libya without congressional approval and thus you see what happens, another intervention gone wrong, but instead of U.S. ground troops entrenched for years and dying, a simple attack on a secret CIA FOB took place instead killing a U.S. Ambassador.

Our better wisdom time and time again happens to not be better, but that doesn't stop a collective in the States believing it's okay to irrationally try and try again.

 

[Dennisch]

It's hard to imagine where else cruise missiles came from into Iran... if you're suggesting that they were simply off-target then perhaps Russia's cruise effort is pretty irresponsible?

For now we only have the Americans claiming it, why haven't we seen an angry Ayatollah screaming Death to America Russia yet?

 

[Rage Racer]

Cool stories time:

Find anything suspicious?

 

[TenEightyOne]

His account's been suspended for starters...

 

[unit-one]

Cool stories time:

Find anything suspicious?

I'm pretty sure I saw some of those pictures long time ago. What have you found suspicious?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm pretty sure I saw some of those pictures long time ago. What have you found suspicious?

The inverted one is an Apache which crashed in Iraq some years ago, the one on the left is also an Apache, not sure if they're even operating in Hama.

 

[unit-one]

The inverted one is an Apache which crashed in Iraq some years ago, the one on the left is also an Apache, not sure if they're even operating in Hama.

Yeah, no reports of any helicopters operating over there. At least I didn't hear anything.