Germany, Italy, Japan, France
one of the differences with that lot is they were the aggressors. Perhaps if we'd kick out saddam after the invasion of Kuwait, and not waited 10 years things might not have gone so badly.
Spain under Franco
one of the differences with that lot is they were the aggressors. Perhaps if we'd kick out saddam after the invasion of Kuwait, and not waited 10 years things might not have gone so badly.
They were proper countries. The ones in the middle east are arbitrary boxes drawn on a map by the French and British, whose inhabitants have only one thing in common: they want to kill each other.
I totally support Russian intervention. Putin has done the right thing. Now let's kick ass! (strong Merican accent 😆 )
In the meantime let's see if F35 will be starting a dogfight with with Suhkoi etc ... that should be interesting.
Luckily we have Trident, which will keep the Russians in line and stop them doing things we don't like, like bombing people and annexing chunks of countries. This is why we have to renew it- to make sure they don't start any of that shenanigans
Perhaps if we'd kick out saddam after the invasion of Kuwait, and not waited 10 years things might not have gone so badly.
There's plenty of evidence that George Bush Senior for all his rhetoric was opposed to the overthrow of Saddam.
During the final stages of the First Gulf War as the Iraqi regime quickly buckled under the overwhelming power of the coalition forces the panic in the White House was palpable. IIRC the French Foreign Legion were the most advanced approaching Baghdad when George Bush Senior ordered an immediate cessation of military action.
George Bush Senior then went on to encourage an insurrection against Saddam, and while people throughout Iraq responded he then just simply sat back and let Saddam slaughter them.
As Colin Powell Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in his book My American Journey :
[i]"our practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to Iran that remained bitterly hostile toward the United States."[/i]
The No-Fly Zone helped to achieve that aim of Saddam being in power but under control until they decided to dispose of him 12 years later under the pretext of WMDs.
Northwind - MemberLuckily we have nuclear weapons which will prevent Russia from doing things we don't like. If we don't renew trident, they'll probably do stuff like bombing syria.
In the nuke war UK will suffer most because of the population concentration while other larger country like Russia have plenty of space to hide.
whose inhabitants have only one thing in common: they want to kill each other.
What a crass comment. Every war in the region, such as the Iraq Iran War, has been encouraged by the West.
Before Europeans came along meddling the Middle East had experienced something like 600 years of peace. Quite unlike Europe of course.
The Russian way is to have/support a strong leader who can keep a lid on factional in-fighting. Even if they are an utter ba***** their own people.
In the nuke war UK will suffer most because of the population concentration while other larger country like Russia have plenty of space to hide
Nonsense, in a nuclear war the cities of the north will be safe because they clubbed together to call themself 'nuclear free zones'
If that doesn't keep them safe, what will?
Always amused me that nuclear free zone that is Manchester, while all the nuclear work goes on just outside in Warrington.
The Russian way is to have/support a strong leader who can keep a lid on factional in-fighting. Even if they are an utter ba***** their own people.
That's been the US doctrine to until the dictators they were propping up ended up being more of a problem than creating a failed state.
Looks a bit shit doesn't it - Russia says it's bombing IS positions, it's not - mistakes get made all the time in war of course, we've bombed the wrong people in the past - but this seems deliberate.
The shit will hit the fan if a Western Training Advisor (or whatever they call Special Forces / Intelligence Services these days) gets killed, the Americans have little tolerance for 'one of there's' getting killed.
They may try for a UN enforced no-fly zone which will pretty much nullify outside intervention from either side.
In the meantime let's see if F35 will be starting a dogfight with with Suhkoi etc ... that should be interesting.
I reckon the F-35 pilot would rather stay at home that day
ninfan - Member
In the nuke war UK will suffer most because of the population concentration while other larger country like Russia have plenty of space to hide
Nonsense, in a nuclear war the cities of the north will be safe because they clubbed together to call themself 'nuclear free zones'If that doesn't keep them safe, what will?
😆 Or they can simply bow down to be ruled. i.e. surrender. The politicians will still stay in power but they just report to the Politburo.
dragon - Member
Always amused me that nuclear free zone that is Manchester, while all the nuclear work goes on just outside in Warrington.
The radiation will have to obey the nuclear free zone boundaries ... 😛
legend - Member
In the meantime let's see if F35 will be starting a dogfight with with Suhkoi etc ... that should be interesting.I reckon the F-35 pilot would rather stay at home that day
Unless the dogfight is purely based on speed.
Depends what you mean by dogfight to, if close in with guns then OK but in a modern jet engagement (often BVR) I'd rather be in the F-35, at least the Russians have decent ejector seats.
FuzzyWuzzy - MemberDepends what you mean by dogfight to, if close in with guns then OK but in a modern jet engagement (often BVR) I'd rather be in the F-35, at least the Russians have decent ejector seats.
F-35 is like a rocket that's good at speed but I am not sure about the rest of its capabilities. 😆 I just know that F16 designers and others said that it's a sitting duck.
Always amused me that nuclear free zone that is Manchester, while all the nuclear work goes on just outside in Warrington.
Well, the office is there.
Reuters are reporting a build up of Iranian troops (and not military advisors) in Syria. Add in a sizeable Hezbollah force with numerous Irag/Afghan/Syrian Shi'ite militia, all being supported by Russian air power and the potential for a massive escalation in hostilities is inevitable.
And hopefully a rapid end to a war which has been fanned, stoked, and had petrol poured on it, by Western self-interests.
Europeans only seemed have taken it as a more serious problem since desperate war refugees made the perilous journey and landed on their beaches. Out of sight out of mind seemed to be the previous prevailing attitude.
The role of the Western powers has been shameful. The UK only declared ISIS a terrorist organisation last June, when they started threatening Western interests in Iraq.
Reutuers Headline: Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA
Americans training local "rebels" to fight, are perms in fashion again is it the 1980's? Didn't that sort of thing happened in Afganistan? That ended well didn't it... with the taliban...
I may be wrong since I don't pay too much attention to these things but just a thought.
Always stuns/amazes me the majority of the the plebs take these things on face value alone! It's about democracy, preventing rape, saving children from dying, preventing genocide and creating regional stability. When as has been pointed out in this thread, those objectives have nothing to do with this power play and never have, they are just used to garner public support.
Still could make for interesting reading now Russia has thrown it's hat into the ring, not so fun for those caught in the sh!tstorm.
No we are not fortunately.
Syria is part of a new world order - new players driving current events and they exclude the US and the UK, although the Iran-US relationship is now interesting.
I welcome the fact that we are not at the centre of this, especially as we lack clarity of objective.
chewkw - MemberFuzzyWuzzy - Member
Depends what you mean by dogfight to, if close in with guns then OK but in a modern jet engagement (often BVR) I'd rather be in the F-35, at least the Russians have decent ejector seats.
F-35 is like a rocket that's good at speed but I am not sure about the rest of its capabilities. I just know that F16 designers and others said that it's a sitting duck.
Is the F35 even combat ready yet? I seem to recall it didn't like rain, heat, dust, flying generally......
Only the -B model. I think the normal one (i.e. the one we are not buying) is fine.
On a side note, now that Russia is getting frisky in Syria, the Ukraine fighting appears to have died down. Coincidence shirley...
I have to confess to being a little at a loss as to what's going on in Syria. In a nutshell, I understand that Assad is president, that IS control half the country and that Turkey are indirectly supporting IS by fighting the Kurds who are directly fighting IS.
Now my understanding is that Russia is hitting Assad - which leads to the assumption he's also indirectly supporting IS - which could cause issues because the US have advisors on the ground training Assad's troops.
My guess is that he seeks to influence the power vacuum that will happen once Assad is deposed, not to mention gain more influence in the middle east and a direct path to the Med.
Or is this a slightly naive overview, conveniently bypassing some of the more important subtleties of the situation?
Now my understanding is that Russia is hitting Assad - which leads to the assumption he's also indirectly supporting IS - which could cause issues because the US have advisors on the ground training Assad's troops.
No, Russia is bombing the Free Syrian Army on behalf of Assad.
The US back the FSA against Assad, and fight IS who also fight Assad and the FSA.
Turkey have declared war on IS and attacked the Kurds. So that bits right.
I think you'll find that the proper way to describe the current situation is "Nause Up".
Swift V.A.T, Dave, thanks.
I believe that the forces opposed to Assad have not had any anti aircraft missiles supplied to them yet (mainly due to concerns of the missiles falling into the wrong hands) but with Russia bombing the anti-Assad forces (if we believe the press) I think that might change.
The impact of more sophisticated weapons flooding into Syria on the remaining population will be terrible. I would guess that those wealthy or healthy enough have left already so it will be those most vulnerable that will suffer the most.
I remember an article from years ago that suggested that any major conflict in Syria would draw in the entire region and this seems to be happening now, with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and all having interests in the Syrian conflict you have to fear the worse.
Sometimes you have to despair of mankind and our ability to **** things up....
I believe that the forces opposed to Assad have not had any anti aircraft missiles supplied to them yet (mainly due to concerns of the missiles falling into the wrong hands)
Since arming the mujahideen 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan against the Russians, the principle of my enemies enemy is my friend will never ever again extend to supplying surface to air missiles. As we all know what became of those brave 'freedom fighters'.
Syria is now the main venue for all manner of proxy wars being fought by a variety of militias armed by competing regional powers. For a concise summing up of who's who, think....
No, Russia is bombing the Free Syrian Army on behalf of Assad.The US back the FSA against Assad, and fight IS who also fight Assad and the FSA.
Turkey have declared war on IS and attacked the Kurds. So that bits right.
Thanks.
What a fing clusterf.
Since arming the mujahideen 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan against the Russians, the principle of my enemies enemy is my friend will never ever again extend to supplying surface to air missiles. As we all know what became of those brave 'freedom fighters'.
I believe a lot of those Stingers are still unaccounted for. It's also not to be underestimated how much they altered the Russian Afghan conflict.
Thanks.What a fing clusterf.
You were given a very simplified version. Here's a fuller version which might bring greater clarity to the situation :
[i]"We support the Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS.
We don't like ISIS, but ISIS has been supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like, and Saudi Arabia is now supporting us in bombing ISIS.
We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not ISIS, which is also fighting against him.
We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against ISIS.
So some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.
And all this was started by us invading Iraq to drive out terrorists who weren't there until we went to drive them out. "[/i]
Although recent developments have made things slightly more complicated.
SNAFU - seems a very appropriate phrase here.
It strikes me that a lot refugees are young males. I give them the benefit of doubt as needing to get out BUT also think why aren't they staying to sort it out. I know that's a blanket statement but if one of these smaller local groups got behind a democratic ethos then the chances are it would be backed by many foreign sides and then supported. They run to our democracies when surely they should be appealing to help in creating it. what am I missing?
BUT also think why aren't they staying to sort it out......... what am I missing?
Probably the fact that the Syrian government is losing more and more ground thanks to this Western inspired war and that there is a high risk of either getting killed or else worse, being captured and then being paraded in public with your mates before being beheaded.
Given the choices available traveling to Germany doesn't seem such a bad option.
It strikes me that a lot refugees are young males. I give them the benefit of doubt as needing to get out BUT also think why aren't they staying to sort it out.
Trouble is there aren't two sides. Not even three.
Have a look at this: [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War[/url]
Which 'side' do you pick? Pick the wrong one and you'll get a foot and hand lopped off for your trouble (like the kid Channel4 News last night).
Not sure I'd be too enthusiastic to stay and fight.
Here's a fuller version which might bring greater clarity to the situation :
😆
Now I feel truly enlightened.
ti_pin_man - Memberwhat am I missing?
The bit where they get shot in the face? The bit where tons of people in ISIS and in the rebels and in Assad's army and in western governments think they're doing the right thing to "sort it out"?
aha, so in the end 'we' have to go in to sort it out, yay (sarcasm)another Afghanistan.
ti_pin_man - Memberaha, so in the end 'we' have to go in to sort it out, yay (sarcasm)another Afghanistan.
There's a theory in Economics which I believe has some merits in International Politics.
The short version is that trying to externally influence a situation invariably makes things worse in the long-run unless you can address the root cause.
So post 9/11 we 'liberated' Afghanistan from the Taliban - 32k deaths on our side (Western Military, Afghan Security Forces and 'Private Contractors') 25k-40k deaths from their side - Taliban and al-Qaeda and about 26k civilians killed - that's 80k to 100k people dead as a direct result of the War - are we any safer in the West? I don't think so, not because of the War anyway, are the normal people of Afghanistan free? No, the in the midst of another Civil war.
2 years later we 'liberated' Iraq - 30k killed on our side, (including post Saddam Iraq army and contractors) 35k killed on their side (including Saddam era Iraqi army and insurgents) and a estimated and quite staggering 600k+ violent deaths of Civilians as a result of the War. Is Iraq safe for the Iraqi people? No, are we any safer in the west? No, it's a pot house of hate and violence that's now spread to Syria.
So why are 'we' involved? There are other horrible wars being fought around the world you don't hear about on TV and I believe that in the long run Western involvement (and Russia) will simply make for a longer, bloodier war which won't end the troubles in the Middle East.
The root cause I believe is that post WW2 when we were carving up the world, we installed the 'right' Dictator in whatever middle eastern country we could - we didn't care if he cut off peoples heads for fun or let his people starve so he could take a dump on a solid gold toilet as long as he didn't **** about with the oil supply.
^like I said, we've done it before so will repeat it. Its the end game. Sadly.
So the USA has decided that the Iranians are OK now they've promised not to build any nuclear bombs but they're backed by the Russians and so...
... with impunity because the USA wants to trade for oil.
I thought big governments were supposed to run all these scenarios through a War Games computer to keep one step ahead of the situation? Seems the Russians either have the best version, or Putin turns out to be a supreme strategic master after all.
Mr Woppit....or Putin turns out to be a supreme strategic master after all.
His strategy certainly makes sense. He's supporting Assad who has always been his mate. The west was trying to get rid of Assad by supporting people who hate us even more than Assad.
believe is that post WW2 when we were carving up the world, we installed the 'right' Dictator in whatever middle eastern country we could - we didn't care if he cut off peoples heads for fun or let his people starve so he could take a dump on a solid gold toilet as long as he didn't **** about with the oil supply.
Surely it goes back well before that to the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Which itself ties in a rmarkably complex interplay of various issues from the end of the Napoleonic and Crimean wars,
ninfan - Memberbelieve is that post WW2 when we were carving up the world, we installed the 'right' Dictator in whatever middle eastern country we could - we didn't care if he cut off peoples heads for fun or let his people starve so he could take a dump on a solid gold toilet as long as he didn't **** about with the oil supply.
Surely it goes back well before that to the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Which itself ties in a rmarkably complex interplay of various issues from the end of the Napoleonic and Crimean wars,
You could argue we've been cocking about in the middle east sticking our noses where they weren't wanted since 1096.
