Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
Russian Warships: Spain Says Refuelling Request Withdrawn
Answers
I'll offer my view on gromit's 9.26 comment: predictable and utterly misinformed/
10:05 Thu 27th Oct 2016
I just hope they bought it in the right part of Wales, DTC, or someone will be rolling in roubles
https:/
https:/
2ichkeria, but as has been said before the situation in Syria involves many factions. If Russia restricts its efforts to assisting in the war on IS, what about the rest? "
I can only repeat what I said earlier.
When Putin upped his involvement in Syria, it was under the pretext of launching a campaign against the Islamic State, something I rubbished at the time and was criticised for, but of course I was right (I don't claim any great credit for that: it just seemed by far the likeliest scenario). But regardless of whether he should be helping Assad or not, the fact is that he is participating in war crimes of the grossest kind. And many people, myself included, think that that is wrong. What Assad and Putin are doing is not helping anyone. There may be some idea residing in some people's brains that Assad, if he is somehow helped back to a stronger position, can defeat IS, but that is impossible. There's no going back to Syria as it was before, and even Putin knows this.
I can only repeat what I said earlier.
When Putin upped his involvement in Syria, it was under the pretext of launching a campaign against the Islamic State, something I rubbished at the time and was criticised for, but of course I was right (I don't claim any great credit for that: it just seemed by far the likeliest scenario). But regardless of whether he should be helping Assad or not, the fact is that he is participating in war crimes of the grossest kind. And many people, myself included, think that that is wrong. What Assad and Putin are doing is not helping anyone. There may be some idea residing in some people's brains that Assad, if he is somehow helped back to a stronger position, can defeat IS, but that is impossible. There's no going back to Syria as it was before, and even Putin knows this.
-- answer removed --
In what respect are the Russians "waging war" on Daesh divebuddy?
In Iraq just now, a coalition of forces are battling for the recapture of Mosul.
Number of Russian personnel involved in that, I believe, = 0
In October alone there have been coalition 262 airstrikes against IS targets.
So, you know ... I think actually the moondust is someway off :-)
In Iraq just now, a coalition of forces are battling for the recapture of Mosul.
Number of Russian personnel involved in that, I believe, = 0
In October alone there have been coalition 262 airstrikes against IS targets.
So, you know ... I think actually the moondust is someway off :-)
I think you are right Divebuddy, although we should remember (much as some on here would like to think they do) we do not know exactly what is going on and who is doing what. As is the need with military exercises. Usually what is fed out (on both sides) is to meet propaganda requirements so quoting 'x' number of air strikes is pointless.
-- answer removed --
The US and its allies initiated this civil war by arming a small anti Assad faction in Syria. The rebels could not have survived 5 minutes, let alone 6 years without our bombs and bullets (which kill indiscriminately).
Once the country was destablised, our actions let in hundreds of thousands of murderous Islamic estremists determined on holy war.
Islamic State alone have killed many thousands of women and children, and they are there because of us. Al Qaeda and Al Nusra are also there, and are no better.
The Russians have been actively involved for just over a year.
The reason we are seeing all this anti Russian propaganda is because they have won. They are retaking Syria for Assad and driving the Islamic Terrorists out. So all this cold war rhetoric and world war III nonsense is cranked up.
Russia has won, we have lost, and all we are able yo do about it is cry.
Once the country was destablised, our actions let in hundreds of thousands of murderous Islamic estremists determined on holy war.
Islamic State alone have killed many thousands of women and children, and they are there because of us. Al Qaeda and Al Nusra are also there, and are no better.
The Russians have been actively involved for just over a year.
The reason we are seeing all this anti Russian propaganda is because they have won. They are retaking Syria for Assad and driving the Islamic Terrorists out. So all this cold war rhetoric and world war III nonsense is cranked up.
Russia has won, we have lost, and all we are able yo do about it is cry.
Gromit, Of course people are apologising for Putin.
I don't understand your point of view really: on the one hand you condemn what you see as western interference and on the other bemoan the fact that we can't do anything more.
Why do you think Putin has 'won' exactly? Putin will have won if he manages to instal a reluctant Assad as head of a compliant E Med puppet state, but he needs to act quickly not just because of the US election, but the worsening economic situation at home. He's gambling that aggressive posturing abroad will keep his popularity up in time for the next election in 2018.
What beats me is why he didn't act in a more proactive way before: he could have kept Assad in power over the whole whole of Syria and continued to enjoy some influence in the region if he'd reined Assad in more at an earlier stage. We would not have had a war and everything that had gone on since. Mind you, it still might work out ok: he gets a war to play with his weapons, look strong, and maybe a united Syria is not so good for him. But I'd be amazed if he planned it like that. He couldn't even invade Ukraine properly :-)
I don't understand your point of view really: on the one hand you condemn what you see as western interference and on the other bemoan the fact that we can't do anything more.
Why do you think Putin has 'won' exactly? Putin will have won if he manages to instal a reluctant Assad as head of a compliant E Med puppet state, but he needs to act quickly not just because of the US election, but the worsening economic situation at home. He's gambling that aggressive posturing abroad will keep his popularity up in time for the next election in 2018.
What beats me is why he didn't act in a more proactive way before: he could have kept Assad in power over the whole whole of Syria and continued to enjoy some influence in the region if he'd reined Assad in more at an earlier stage. We would not have had a war and everything that had gone on since. Mind you, it still might work out ok: he gets a war to play with his weapons, look strong, and maybe a united Syria is not so good for him. But I'd be amazed if he planned it like that. He couldn't even invade Ukraine properly :-)
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
// Gromit, Of course people are apologising for Putin. //
I am not. I do not see others apologising.
// on the one hand you condemn what you see as western interference and on the other bemoan the fact that we can't do anything more. //
It is not about doing anything more, it is about doing it right. The West's strategy is confused. We are supporting Islamic extremists and that cannot be right. The West wan to remove Assad at all costs, even if that is handing Syria over to Islamic State. That is the part I bemoan.
// Why do you think Putin has 'won' exactly? //
He waited for the best strategic time to join the war. He had one strategy, and he saw it through.
// Putin will have won if he manages to instal a reluctant Assad as head of a compliant E Med puppet state, but he needs to act quickly not just because of the US election, but the worsening economic situation at home. //
He already had Assad as his puppet, this is about maintaining the status quo. The US election is irrelevent to this. The economy at home may have some bearing on his foreign policy.
// He's gambling that aggressive posturing abroad will keep his popularity up in time for the next election in 2018. //
This wasn't a war of his choosing. The Arab Spring, and the US bankrolling the Syrian rebels was out of his control. Putin is not involved in aggressive pisturing, he is fighting to keep his bases in Syria, and an influence in the Mediterranean. Losing that, would not be good for votes at home.
// he could have kept Assad in power over the whole whole of Syria and continued to enjoy some influence in the region if he'd reined Assad in more at an earlier stage. //
Rein in? You mean let the rebels win. That would have avoided the war, but it would not have been good for Russia. Handing power to any Islamists in Syria is not an option for Russia.
// We would not have had a war and everything that had gone on since. Mind you, it still might work out ok: he gets a war to play with his weapons, look strong, and maybe a united Syria is not so good for him. //
I can't even make sense of that jumble of thoughts. Russia and Putin have won, so he will be happy with this outcome.
// But I'd be amazed if he planned it like that. He couldn't even invade Ukraine properly. //
I wasn't going to mention Ukraine, but since you have. Another place where he has outwitted the West. Putin has got every thing he wanted out of the invasion of Crimea, and the EU did nothing but stand by and watch. Of course the CIA are aiding the Ukrainians, but that is too little, too late.
I am not. I do not see others apologising.
// on the one hand you condemn what you see as western interference and on the other bemoan the fact that we can't do anything more. //
It is not about doing anything more, it is about doing it right. The West's strategy is confused. We are supporting Islamic extremists and that cannot be right. The West wan to remove Assad at all costs, even if that is handing Syria over to Islamic State. That is the part I bemoan.
// Why do you think Putin has 'won' exactly? //
He waited for the best strategic time to join the war. He had one strategy, and he saw it through.
// Putin will have won if he manages to instal a reluctant Assad as head of a compliant E Med puppet state, but he needs to act quickly not just because of the US election, but the worsening economic situation at home. //
He already had Assad as his puppet, this is about maintaining the status quo. The US election is irrelevent to this. The economy at home may have some bearing on his foreign policy.
// He's gambling that aggressive posturing abroad will keep his popularity up in time for the next election in 2018. //
This wasn't a war of his choosing. The Arab Spring, and the US bankrolling the Syrian rebels was out of his control. Putin is not involved in aggressive pisturing, he is fighting to keep his bases in Syria, and an influence in the Mediterranean. Losing that, would not be good for votes at home.
// he could have kept Assad in power over the whole whole of Syria and continued to enjoy some influence in the region if he'd reined Assad in more at an earlier stage. //
Rein in? You mean let the rebels win. That would have avoided the war, but it would not have been good for Russia. Handing power to any Islamists in Syria is not an option for Russia.
// We would not have had a war and everything that had gone on since. Mind you, it still might work out ok: he gets a war to play with his weapons, look strong, and maybe a united Syria is not so good for him. //
I can't even make sense of that jumble of thoughts. Russia and Putin have won, so he will be happy with this outcome.
// But I'd be amazed if he planned it like that. He couldn't even invade Ukraine properly. //
I wasn't going to mention Ukraine, but since you have. Another place where he has outwitted the West. Putin has got every thing he wanted out of the invasion of Crimea, and the EU did nothing but stand by and watch. Of course the CIA are aiding the Ukrainians, but that is too little, too late.
Oh dear Gromit. We'all just have to agree to differ. If I even begin to pick your latest post apart it'll just get too complicated and boring for everyone.
If it isn't already.
Where you get some if your ideas from though I simply do not know. In particular the idea that the west wants to remove Assad at all costs even if it lets IS win. It's plain a lot of people here think I that but my friend Boris would have a good word for it:
Piffle :-)
If it isn't already.
Where you get some if your ideas from though I simply do not know. In particular the idea that the west wants to remove Assad at all costs even if it lets IS win. It's plain a lot of people here think I that but my friend Boris would have a good word for it:
Piffle :-)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles140 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles167 mins ago
Strands #262 “For Our Furry...
Quizzes & Puzzles247 mins ago
Is There An Option To Turn Of Reader
TV280 mins ago
ChatterBank289 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.