Jump to content

Saddle up for Syria? Or Op Deny Christmas '13


brickhistory

Recommended Posts

Russia isn't in nearly as strong of a position as they like to claim, and Iran has no interest in provoking us to directly attack them.

I'm afraid to say that we're not as strong as we like to claim either...not to mention that the hardware and humans are tired as hell after 12 years of non-stop multi-theater war. Russia and Iran can get away with poking us in the eye some because we're too damn tired to give a shit or really do anything effective about it. While our military might is still the most superior, these naïve views that a compilation of our enemies couldn't put a world of hurtin' on us is dangerous.

As for Iranian involvement, they don't have much to lose. At least if they jump into a fight that has already been started, they can plan out and get in a few sucker punches. The way I see it with our politicians (left and right), Iran is fukked either way. Our GOP debate on foreign policy turned into an idiotic argument over who could destroy Iran the fastest with the biggest bombs! The bobbleheads on the left have proven the single sided nature of our foreign policy (Obama has been Bush on steroids); Iran should be worried that we are going to destroy them, I don't see anyone in the US arguing that we shouldn't. With this Syria debacle front and center, we can see Mr. Noble Peace Prize winners' stance on military action. All boils down to foreign policy; if we hadn't screwed their country over royally back around 1950, likely everything would look totally different. We made the bed. Avoid the foreign entanglements dammit.

While I agreed with most of what Ms Pirro had to say, I think she's also guilty of resorting to sensationalism and fear mongering. WW3? Really?

It's not sensationalism, its patriotic emotionalism and concern for her country. I feel it too. Fear mongering? Why, because she is terrified of this president taking us to war in another middle east shit hole for no justifiable valid reason, with no clear objectives, and ABSOLUTELY nothing to gain (but everything to lose)? As for WW3, do we get to determine who jumps into the fight? Our intervention and entanglements have infuriated many countries around the world; if we can't win a 12 year war against the cave dweller on his land then what chances do we have of achieving an undefined goal against a collaborated group of our sworn enemies on their soil? We don't get to determine how this escalates nor do we get to say who gets to jump in. If I said regional war would that be better? Maybe it'll just be another success story like Iraq or Vietnam? Much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok dude.

Yes, Obama is making us all look bad. He is also making our country less secure. Is this a surprise to anyone?

However, WW3 will not be started over Syria. At least not now. There will be no shots fired between Russia/US or Iran/US. It's all posturing in an effort to manipulate perceptions with each party having an end goal of strengthening their influence in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin has given one other Op-Ed to the NYTimes. There may be one thing that keeps Putin up at night and somewhere in these two Op-Eds is a common theme. https://www.nytimes.c...e-must-act.html

I am sure this is one issue that keeps him up at night...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chechen-militant-doku-umarov-targets-winter-olympics-in-sochi-8686107.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twist and turns in Syria continue, the fog is thick. Before this is all over we may end up having to bomb the rebels to ensure the security of the CW stockpiles. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/14/securing-syrias-weapons-may-require-us-troops.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1 https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/politics/us-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Honestly this has been the case since Pakistan got the bomb. The Saudis likely paid for some of the development and the world always kind of assumed that if Shia Iran got the bomb that Sunnis (i.e. Saudi and Pakistan) would stick together and respond in kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I'm thinking somebody found some stock photo of one and just ran with it. I don't remember seeing anything on Syria getting Flankers.

Exactly. Yeah the picture in the BBC article is clearly a Flanker, but as pointed out, Syria never has operated Flankers before. They do have Fulcrums and Fencers, but that's not in the pic (obviously).

This is the image I'd seen screen captured from video...

480155597.jpg

Seems anybody posts whatever photos to their news articles, if you google "Turkey shoots down Syrian" you see pics of MiG-21s, Su-27s, MiG-29s, L-39s, Su-22s, Mi-8s...go figure.

Seems the Syrian Fulcrum fleet has gotten more involved...videos have lots of 'Allahu Akhbar' going on as normal, but still impressive imagery. First link is a strafing run pointed right at the camera...

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b36_1395944414

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15e_1396010090

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...