Assuming Inutil isn't a dual, why is it that when we finally get someone new here this is the best we can do?
The fourth terrorist has also been identified as an Egyptian welfare migrant who came into Europe recently claiming to be a refugee.
One thing Russia could possibly bring to the table is an end game that would be the reverse of WW-II. This time we attack from the east and they attack from the west and we meet somewhere in the middle and draw a new line. The psychological advantage might be that a town could surrender to the Western forces, who are pretty nice but might send some of them to jail for two years, or to the Russian/Syrian army forces, who are going to torture prisoners just for fun before killing them.
Everything I've said is accurate. 800k troops who can't be deployed are irrelevant to a discussion about deployable strength. All that matters is the 70k that can be deployed, and as I said even that is more than Russia can actually field due to a) A significant portion are tied up in the Ukraine. Either currently deployed, just returned or about to deploy and b) The Russians won't fully commit all of their good troops. Even if they would, it could only be temporary, who would they rotate in for them. In reality Russia is only capable of deploying 10-20k troops, troops that as I say aren't that great when compared to most NATO forces.
Plus the point that the Sukhoi attacker jets (which are by the way still called "Sturmovik", fun fact, even if that simply means "stormer") are very capable aircraft and very well suited to provide close air support in a situation like Syria especially considering effective anti-air batteries are limited. The Russian army has always put a high priority on these types of attackers. And duh, of course if you use dumb bombs the accuracy of the strikes won't be as high, but I doubt we'd get a load of rebels complaining about the attacks' accuracy if that wasn't true.
And Soviet armor hasn't been fairing well against rebels with TOW missiles, so the Russian's can't as easily use heavy weapons to make up for less manpower.
I will give Russia this: They don't give a shit about collateral damage and they will use thermobaric weapons which take out half a village just to eliminate one enemy firing position.
I would like reliable sources for those statements. You are discussing old and poorly maintained Russian T-72 wagons operated by the Syrian army. But I am not interested in getting into a dick-measuring contest here. All that really matters is that the Russians and the Iranians are there and they're not leaving, so might as well make the best out of the situation.
Of course we could use the forces ISIS fears most. Is they're afraid to get killed by Kurdish women, how about wiping them out with nothing but hot Western babes? It would also be a horrendous insult to their manhood.
If NATO actually did invade in force, which may or may not happen depending upon how France wants to handle things, the Iranians and Russians would not be a problem nor would the SAA. They would be wise to seek a political accommodation prior to any invasion because the US mentality is usually to kick the shit out of 3rd party actors just to decrease the number of actors on the playing field. They don't represent a creditable force in the classic military sense (as in holding territory with frontlines) against a modern western force who will have complete control of the air and the sea. That is not dick waving, that is just reality from a guy who has served in two war zones. When you out spend the next 15 countries combined (4/5th of whom are allies) in terms of military spending then you truly can dominate as only a super power can.
Yeah, the Kurds are very aware of that. They're integrating women into most all their fighting forces for that reason. The Islamist cunts are shitting their pants at the mere thought of facing them. Oh and I am quite aware that the United States really is the only military superpower left standing, in fact I regularly make a point of that.
Earlier in this thread we had a poster ignorantly claiming ISIS did not represent Islam or that it's leaders were not genuinely religious. That person is completely wrong to the point of foolishness. ISIS is completely Islamic to the point of fanaticism and it's extreme teachings have an origin in the earliest days b of the Muslim death cult. It is as Islamic as it gets and it is Islam which is the problem. Liberals are in complete denial about that. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_source=SFFB
That's a very good article. Too many people think "understand your enemy" somehow means "realize your enemy is just like you." They're not. They have a very well old, well developed, coherent world view based on bullshit and apocalyptic prophesies. The closest we have to it is the televangelists talking about the four horsemen of the apocalypse and how the final battle will be fought on the plains of Armageddon, and all the bizarre beasts of the Book of Revelations. We use those stories to make bad Keanu Reeve's movies, not military policy.
You still are spouting the same bullshit. It is nice that you can order it differently, but you are spouting the same bullshit all the same. Let us say for a moment your simpleminded plan actually works out. You go in there and you somehow knock out all the ISIS people without making any new ones. I am going to give you a pass on that miracle for a moment. The next problem you have is a bunch of countries who will be coming to us every time there is a problem because we did it for them. They will have no fundamental understanding of why their country runs. They will have no pride or reason to learn about it. They are going to come to you to make things happen because they did not learn how to build a strong and effective government for the people. You do realize that all their infighting is the same sort of turmoil our countries went through with different tribes or nationalities. You are a fucking moron who has no understanding of the people he is talking about. You talk in simpleton absolutes and still cannot figure out the most simple absolute of them all. We are fucking foreigners to them and the locals always want control of their land by themselves. That is not because they are muslim, that is because they are human. The people of the US would never accept a foreign government coming in here and taking over our government because it has gone batshit insane. Half of the US government is completely insane as we speak right now. You are expecting these people to accept armed US soldiers on their streets as a good thing. That is not going to happen. Do not let their cheering fool you, they do it to anyone who has a big old armed force in their neighborhood and is not shooting them. You would do it too if it happened at your home. However, when they get behind closed doors we are the american invaders. So look here army light. we have done the bomb the fuck out of them thing, and we have done the takeover thing. It did not work. This is the aftermath of that plan. Look at how fucked up it is. Doing that bullshit again is not going to be any better for anyone but the MIC and the war contractors. You are a fucking tool with no brain. My bent screwdriver has more uses than you. If you really believe in what you are saying go fight that war, but do not do it with the US behind you. Oh, and take dayton and dinner with you. They could use a good wake up call.
The U.S. didn't use overwhelming force in Iraq, destroy entire chunks of the country or kill a few hundred thousand people. Most Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis.
@Tererun Syria did not create the ISIS problem on its own. It is the end result of, among other things, the ill-advised and poorly executed toppling of the Baathist regime in Iraq and the many mistakes in its aftermath, making it partly (please do notice the exact wording; while I was wording myself a bit poorly in some earlier posts, I am now taking great care in formulating myself) the responsibility of the Western nations involved in that operation in the first place. It's the result of massive destabilization of Syria both from internal and external sources. What you fail to understand is that ISIS does not have the support of the Syrian people. Neither does the Al-Nusra front and neither does Ahrar al-Sham. These people can be dealt with and their power base can be destroyed, just as many other political forces have been dealt with historically. Their presence is not limited to Syria and constitutes an international problem that can be dealt with by international forces. And of course I can word myself differently. Unlike you, my style of debate isn't limited to mind-numbing ad hominems, non sequiturs and circumstantials. That doesn't mean I'm uncomfortable calling you out for the intellectually limited... "person" that you are.
I'm not sure? I thought it was actually considered a disgrace to be killed by a woman? Is that bogus?
Apparently there's some fatwa somewhere that says if you get killed by a woman (perhaps in battle) you don't go to heaven. It certainly wouldn't be the dumbest thing in Islam.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL3N13903U20151114 A very, very promising event. The President of China has announced his country is willing to assist France in combating terrorism. The sudden 180 degree reversals on the Syrian Peace Talks might, just might, portend one of those rare alliances in world events where the west, Russia, and China all agree to work together to wipe out ISIS. Is an international military force possible? This would clear the way for a UN Security Council authorization to use force for only the third time in history (Korean War and Gulf War 1).
IIRC there is one about if your blood is mixed with that of a dog when you die you don't go to heaven either. To that end, IIRC Israel started tying dogs at outside diners to deter Palestinian suicide bombers from attacking them Personally I suspect Israel put more faith in the fence though
Bad idea. The Russians aren't going to focus on defeating ISIS no matter what they've done. The Russians will take any UN authorization to use force in Syria to justify whatever means they choose to prop up their decades old ally, the Assad regime (going back to his father).
You are still not getting the fundamental problem. You do not understand how they live. They are used to a powerful heavy handed leader. That is what saddam was. That is what Isis is. That is what they expect. That is what keeps them stable so that each time some other faction gets powerful there is not a regime change because the ones on top keep it down. If you want to stabalize them you either let them fight it out or you occupy and you become the iron fist that keeps them in line until you can raise some generations who can think differently. You think about them like they think like you do. What is worse is you seem to be pitching the sales pitch of the MIC. Don't get me wrong, I am 50 50 on whether or not to invade or leave them alone. Only when I think of an invasion I do not think of just marching in a few troops. I am talking full takeover and occupation. I would go so far as to say if we are going to treat them like children and do it for their own good we use their resources to invest in their infrastructure which we will protect and basically turn them into what we want them to be using their resources and integrate them into the industrial global market so that in a few generations we can leave them alone. But since no one really wants to do that i say we just leave them to figure things out for themselves because we tried to tell them how to do it and we got this.
Which ones? The fact that an object cannot be in two places at once (the same troops can't be in the Ukraine and Syria at the same time)? That's basic physics. I mean, it just is. What are you looking for here? Or is it that you can't just swish your ish wish dish and take garrison troops and put them in a war zone and then back again? Pre deployment, deployment, redeployment, de-mobilization all take time. Rest and Refit take time. I can't link you to it, it just is. Or is it that the vast majority of the Russian military is useless for expeditionary purposes? That is a bit more complicated, but I can walk you through it. The vast majority of Russian troops are conscripts. This is severely limiting. First off all, a term of enlistment is a year. That's a year from Hello to Goodbye. In between you have In Processing, Initial Entry Training, then Pre-deployment Training, Deployment, Redeployment, De-mobilization, and Final Clearance. Doing all that in a year gives you 4-5 months of actual time on the ground. Then you have the fact the training, moral and readiness for these units SUCKS. Want a link, google Russian Conscripts + moral or + suicide or + sexual assault (turns out Russian troops are a bit... goluboy). Not only that they are really shitty in terms of training. Before when I was talking about being Southern NATO standard I was talking about the 70k strong volunteer force. Those are decent. The conscripts suck. Then you have the political aspect. Yeah Putin is a bit of a strongman but he does rule under the nominal consent of the Russian people (it could be argued that this is due to regime manipulation of the media and political system). There is a big difference between professional soldiers coming home in body bags and draftees coming home in body bags. For all these reasons, the vast majority of Russian forces can't leave their borders. So that leaves you the 70k professional force. And for all the reasons I've talked about above: can't be two places at once, deployment cycles are cycles, can't commit all troops at once, that means that only about 10-20k decent troops are available. It is what it is.
Well, I would prefer if my blood was not mixed with that of the wagging stupid so i cannot blame them there.
