• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syrian army says it has regained control over most of eastern Ghouta

TU Curmudgeon said:
Why wouldn't he?

Admittedly a rational person wouldn't, but to have the US "defeated" by the Syrians and the Russians means that the war would have been lost "on his watch" and the only way to prevent that is to stop the war from ending before he leaves office.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the Obama Administration's actions in Syria were peaceful or humanitarian or otherwise "good"?
 
Perotista said:
We had our own little proxy army whose goal according to our own government was to defeat ISIS and oust Assad. One or the other was probably possible, not both.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the fastest (and cheapest) way to "defeatISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER" (at least in Syria) would have been to support Mr. al-Assad.

Winston Churchill's "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." is a thought that should have occurred to someone in the US government.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Do you believe the Obama Administration's actions in Syria were peaceful or humanitarian or otherwise "good"?
Click to expand...


I believe that Mr. Obama's intentions were good, but you know what part "good intentions" play in the construction of roads.

Invading France in 1944 was not "peaceful" and it resulted in a lot of dead civilians as well as a lot of wrecked infrastructure - neither of which is "good".

But the alternative was "less good".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I believe that Mr. Obama's intentions were good, but you know what part "good intentions" play in the construction of roads.

Invading France in 1944 was not "peaceful" and it resulted in a lot of dead civilians as well as a lot of wrecked infrastructure - neither of which is "good".

But the alternative was "less good".
Click to expand...

So, contributing to the dealths of over 200,000 people by propping up and materially supporting extremists through direct support of their close allies is the mark of "good intentions" and led to a better outcome than Asad staying in power under the Russian sphere of influence?

Tell me, how do you feel about the invasion of Iraq?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, the fastest (and cheapest) way to "defeatISISISISILDAESHWHATEVER" (at least in Syria) would have been to support Mr. al-Assad.

Winston Churchill's "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." is a thought that should have occurred to someone in the US government.
Click to expand...

I totally agree and have stated exactly position.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the CBC

[h=1]Syrian army says it has regained control over most of eastern Ghouta[/h]
The Syrian army command said on Saturday it had regained most of the towns and villages in eastern Ghouta and was pressing its military operations in the last rebel bastion of Douma.


In a televised statement, the Syrian army spokesman said the weeks-long military campaign had now brought security to the Syrian capital, Damascus, and also secured its main links to other parts of the country, stretching north and all the way to the Iraqi border to the east.


A last group of fighters and families had earlier left the main towns of Jobar, Zamalka, Arbeen and Ain Tarma. Footage on state television showed top army commanders entering by the same route the rebel convoys had used to leave.

[COMMENT]

Once the rebel forces have been rendered ineffectual and Mr. al-Assad has regained control over Syria, Mr. Trump is going to have a very difficult decision to make - does he invade Syria and face the forces of Syria, Russia, and Iran (and possibly Turkey and Iraq as well), or does he declare victory and go home.

I'd bet 10 Cyberbucks on "Make Assad Great Again".
Click to expand...

Im not sure what your beef is here. Do you want us to go to war against Assad and Russia? Let the Russians and Assad have Syria. Its a kingdom of rubble.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Only diplomatically.



The "shame" if "shame" there is, in the fact that the US government simply didn't understand the rules of the game (or even what the game was).

The "side" that the US government was supporting had neither cohesion nor common goals and its components were as likely as not to support EITHER of the two sides that the US government wasn't supporting. This fact was obvious to anyone who wasn't wedded to the "They are 'The Good Guys' because we are supporting them." philosophy.
Click to expand...

The problem was not that the side had no cohesion, it was that our so-called plan had no intellectual cohesion. Putin understood that and he swooped in and took over, embarrassing us in the process, which after the Iraq debacle is pretty much game over for us in the ME.
 
Thoreau72 said:
At least Russia had the law on their side, having been invited by the legitimate government. The US/Israeli effort is mere military aggression.

And as VT shows, in Eastern Ghouta they discovered US/Israeli chemical facilities. They were the ones doing the gassing and barrel-bombing, NOT the Syrians.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/...sraeli-underground-terror-base-deep-in-syria/
Click to expand...

You know what, that actually still matters. The American insistence that Syria is a failed state and should be treated like a failed state and that Bashar has no legitimacy based upon the fact that the American Brain Trust does not like him is at the root of the Syrian disaster in so many ways.

#HUBRIS
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'd buy "had the potential for" but not "on the brink of".



I missed that one, do you have a link. I mean the people that the US is supporting are "The Good Guys" and they couldn't possibly be making chemical weapons - could they?

And even if they were making chemical weapons, they couldn't possibly have been using chemical weapons like the Syrian government has been saying they were - could they?

And even if they were using chemical weapons, they couldn't possibly have been using them against their own supporters so that they could blame the Syrian government for using chemical weapons - could they?



It's always somewhat difficult to determine if something that didn't happen was supposed to happen.



True, but just because something "makes sense" that doesn't mean that it is correct.



It's rather difficult to work out which way Turkey would jump (except "on the Kurds" - which is a given).



But, but but - that would mean "losing". I mean, where would the US be if the US government had listened to its intelligence agencies when they were unanimous in telling the US government that Ho Chi Minh was probably the best friend that the US government had in SE Asia? The US government would have had to "abandon Vietnam to Communism" - and that was totally unthinkable.
Click to expand...

I would argue on the brink of ww3, russia and america have come too close too many times in that country to say otherwise,where a simple slipup can cause all out war.

on eastern ghouta just 3 links pulled in a few seconds, keep in mind there are hundreds to thousands of those links from russian to middle eastern media, but absent in any western media
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201803121062431574-syrian-army-chemical-weapons/
PressTV-Syria finds chemical weapons workshop in Ghouta
https://www.rt.com/news/421919-chemical-weapons-militants-syria/

on russias intel, it was based on intel from rebels captured combined with the odd coincidence of us warships building up. Whether true or not russia took the intel very seriously, this has led to russia sending jets ships tanks etc to syria in anticipation of a strike, keep in mind prior to their intel france threatened to attack damascus, and france has also been the biggest supplier of arms to the rebels as well, something they have never once denied, so even if not confirmable the russians seem to have logic to assume the intel was atleast close to the mark.
 
beerftw said:
I would argue on the brink of ww3, russia and america have come too close too many times in that country to say otherwise,where a simple slipup can cause all out war.

on eastern ghouta just 3 links pulled in a few seconds, keep in mind there are hundreds to thousands of those links from russian to middle eastern media, but absent in any western media
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201803121062431574-syrian-army-chemical-weapons/
PressTV-Syria finds chemical weapons workshop in Ghouta
https://www.rt.com/news/421919-chemical-weapons-militants-syria/

on russias intel, it was based on intel from rebels captured combined with the odd coincidence of us warships building up. Whether true or not russia took the intel very seriously, this has led to russia sending jets ships tanks etc to syria in anticipation of a strike, keep in mind prior to their intel france threatened to attack damascus, and france has also been the biggest supplier of arms to the rebels as well, something they have never once denied, so even if not confirmable the russians seem to have logic to assume the intel was atleast close to the mark.
Click to expand...

"Sphere of influence reports common narrative; other sphere silent."

Color me surprised.
 
Thoreau72 said:
At least Russia had the law on their side, having been invited by the legitimate government. The US/Israeli effort is mere military aggression.

And as VT shows, in Eastern Ghouta they discovered US/Israeli chemical facilities. They were the ones doing the gassing and barrel-bombing, NOT the Syrians.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/...sraeli-underground-terror-base-deep-in-syria/
Click to expand...

:lamo

Holy ****, the level of stupidity here is truly amazing.

No, neither the US nor the Israelis have used chemical weapons in Syria. And no, the Syrian Air Force was dropping barrel bombs long before the US became involved, so unless there is a secret Zionist plot which controls the entire Syrian Air Force.....you are wrong. As usual.
 
beerftw said:
Those mercs were geared for ground war and under equipped to fight an air attack, the russian military would have su 27 and 35 fighters as well as su 25 frogfoots as a counter to an ac-130, something the merc never had. In terms of a blowout, you are out of your freaking mind, the russian military is no joke, and even post soviet union is the only military that can fight head on against the entire might of the us military, any win by us troops would be bloodier and more costly than ww2, and many nato simulations show russia winning.

And despite that if america managed to destroy the russian military, russia would just launch it's nukes per their doctrine in which all other countries would, in which case life on earth would be all but erradicated in minutes. You must have a very poor knowledge of warfare to think we could just roll over them, or must be so adamant america will that you ignore all logic and reason and instead cling to your thoughts. A war between russia and america even without nukes would be bloody and extremely costly at worst.
Click to expand...

Frogfoots are ground attack aircraft. Their role against an AC-130 is questionable at best. Even if the mercs did have fighters, all that would lead to is a dogfight and the Russians getting shot down.

The Russian Army is infinitely weaker than it once was. It no longer has the numbers, tech, resources or puppet state reinforcements to match NATO. Without the US, the Russians might pull out a conventional win. With it....well.....they don't have much in the way of a chance. The fantasies of the Red Army pissing in the Seine are long over.

I get you have a crush on Putin, but Chechnya showed that the Russians are nowhere near as strong as you fantasize.
 
US should have declared a No Fly zone over civilian areas...And Blasted any Syrian or Russian jet out of the sky.....Instead trump allows Putin's thugs to practice their Bombing runs on civilians
 
Tigerace117 said:
Frogfoots are ground attack aircraft. Their role against an AC-130 is questionable at best. Even if the mercs did have fighters, all that would lead to is a dogfight and the Russians getting shot down.

The Russian Army is infinitely weaker than it once was. It no longer has the numbers, tech, resources or puppet state reinforcements to match NATO. Without the US, the Russians might pull out a conventional win. With it....well.....they don't have much in the way of a chance. The fantasies of the Red Army pissing in the Seine are long over.

I get you have a crush on Putin, but Chechnya showed that the Russians are nowhere near as strong as you fantasize.
Click to expand...

A frogfoot would not fight the ac-130, it would target ground troops, while the su-27 and su-35 would fight the ac-130. an ac-130 literally stands no chance against a su-27 or even russias most antique fighter jets, hence f-16s would escort them or another comparible aor superiority fighter if they expected air hostility. The su-27 is a dead match for the f-16 and fa-18 fighters, while the su-35 actually has an advantage in a dogfight over the f-22 americas most advanced fighter, but at the same time has a disadvantage at longer ranges over the f-22, the superior fighter between the f-22 and the su-35 would depend on whether the f-22 could take out the other jet before it came to a dogfight.

That is not counting their s-300 and s-400 systems which are more advanced than american ainti aircraft systems, atleast the 400 is,their kh-15s missile, their still massive supply of tanks etc. You just seem to be full of hubris if you think they will be a cakewalk, They spent decades developing weapons and strategies to counter nato and american forces, and those did not just fly out the window because the soviet union fell, and in recent years russia has been modernizing their fleets rapidly.
 
beerftw said:
A frogfoot would not fight the ac-130, it would target ground troops, while the su-27 and su-35 would fight the ac-130. an ac-130 literally stands no chance against a su-27 or even russias most antique fighter jets, hence f-16s would escort them or another comparible aor superiority fighter if they expected air hostility. The su-27 is a dead match for the f-16 and fa-18 fighters, while the su-35 actually has an advantage in a dogfight over the f-22 americas most advanced fighter, but at the same time has a disadvantage at longer ranges over the f-22, the superior fighter between the f-22 and the su-35 would depend on whether the f-22 could take out the other jet before it came to a dogfight.

That is not counting their s-300 and s-400 systems which are more advanced than american ainti aircraft systems, atleast the 400 is,their kh-15s missile, their still massive supply of tanks etc. You just seem to be full of hubris if you think they will be a cakewalk, They spent decades developing weapons and strategies to counter nato and american forces, and those did not just fly out the window because the soviet union fell, and in recent years russia has been modernizing their fleets rapidly.
Click to expand...

Is that the Military analysis in Kekistan?......Russia is a joke....they would stand down.....or die
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
So, contributing to the dealths of over 200,000 people by propping up and materially supporting extremists through direct support of their close allies is the mark of "good intentions"
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, and you know it.

Gonzo Rodeo said:
and led to a better outcome than Asad staying in power under the Russian sphere of influence?
Click to expand...

That's also not what I said, and you know it.

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Tell me, how do you feel about the invasion of Iraq?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see:

  1. crappy intelligence analysis, followed by
  2. crappy decision, followed by
  3. crappy planning, followed by
  4. excellent military results, followed by
  5. crappy follow up, followed by
  6. even crappier follow up, followed by
  7. even crappier self-justification, finger pointing, and deflection.

One out of seven is around 14.29% so it's obvious that I think that the invasion of Iraq was the best thing since sliced beer.

Right?
 
Fletch said:
Im not sure what your beef is here. Do you want us to go to war against Assad and Russia? Let the Russians and Assad have Syria. Its a kingdom of rubble.
Click to expand...

I thought that "'d bet 10 Cyberbucks on "Make Assad Great Again"." was pretty clear.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
One out of seven is around 14.29% so it's obvious that I think that the invasion of Iraq was the best thing since sliced beer.

Right?
Click to expand...

Points for good intentions though, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom