ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RoboCod said:
So Assad, who could not quash a civilian uprising in his own nearby cities
Click to expand...

He was winning on all fronts before the west intervened, had they stayed out of it he would have had the rebels beat before ISIS became an issue.


RoboCod said:
could have swept aside a fanatical terrorist group littered with seasoned fighters and equipment?
Click to expand...

Yes, notice how he hasn't been using his air force properly against the rebels out of fear of US reprisal? He wouldn't have that problem with ISIS and his military could have gone full force (plus he could have asked Russia for help if he needed it).
 
I think the main point being missed in this whole matter is that Russia is now establishing what looks to be permanent residence of an air base right on the Western edge of the Mediterranean. Base a few long distance strategic bombers there and rather than that huge flight they usually do over the top, they can now quite easily come across international water, over to London or other major Western European city with ease. Strategically, it's a bold and cunning move.
 
Uther said:
Anyone who takes on Islamic terrorists, no matter who, gets my support.
Click to expand...

One of the groups in the rebel areas is Al Qaeda, I thought they were the mortal enemy of the West? Or are they our allies now?

The US cannot get rid of Assad and control what happens next, four failures in a row and this time they won't even send troops. Russia have been in combat for two days in a war that has been raging for years, MSM still goes full retard.
 
Moses said:
They already have their naval base there (which is a big part of why they're getting involved now). If they'd wanted an airbase there before this all started, they could easily have arranged it... and before, during, and after this I'm sure Assad would have given them access to his airfields if they wanted it. Basically, I don't see it as a play to get an airbase next to the Med.
Click to expand...

Nope, not that simple I'm afraid. You also can't make the leap of faith that Assad would have allowed that. Disagree by all means, but you'd be incorrect to do so ;)


PS - Tartus is pretty insignificant, it can't even host a Russian war ship.
 
Last edited:
RoboCod said:
I think the main point being missed in this whole matter is that Russia is now establishing what looks to be permanent residence of an air base right on the Western edge of the Mediterranean. Base a few long distance strategic bombers there and rather than that huge flight they usually do over the top, they can now quite easily come across international water, over to London or other major Western European city with ease. Strategically, it's a bold and cunning move.
Click to expand...

I can think of better places of placing a permanent base than in the middle of a warzone. And we get plenty of russian warplane violating our airspace as it is.

Amazing how much cold war paranoia still flies about. "The russians are coming, the russians are coming! Build your bunker now!"

Terminal_Boy said:
Of course it's not all the West's fault. Where did I say that?

The region has been a basket case forever, but removing 2 of the most effective despots in the region was never going to improve stability, was it?
Click to expand...

And we can't stop interering. And it was hardly "forever". Dismember the Ottoman Empire so the west can clean up on Saudi Oil.. check. Iran's elected left wing president deposed by a US plot and install a previously constitutional monarch as dictator... check. No wonder the Iranians hate the US so much.

How many hundreds of britons have left these shores to join IS? Perhaps we should be looking closer to home to protect our security. Questions of identity allegience and integration that we seem strangely reluctant to confront.
 
Last edited:
Terminal_Boy said:
Of course it's not all the West's fault. Where did I say that?

The region has been a basket case forever, but removing 2 of the most effective despots in the region was never going to improve stability, was it?
Click to expand...

You're asking the wrong person because I think long term it is the correct thing to do, remove dictators who murder their own people. I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to the dim view that "them there barbarians ought to be ruled with an iron fist, it's all they know". In the long term it's not really a way of seeing a civilisation progress and modernise is it? Civil unrest and revolt has occurred throughout history, more so in the Europe than anywhere. It's necessary to advance.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
I can think of better places of placing a permanent base than in the middle of a warzone. And we get plenty of russian warplane violating our airspace as it is.

Amazing how much cold war paranoia still flies about. "The russians are coming, the russians are coming! Build your bunker now!"
Click to expand...

It isn't paranoia, it's the consideration of strategic military advancements to gain a foothold over your adversaries in order to increase ones influence and global power. It's really not rocket science, nor tin-foil hat territory. Read a history book.

And out of interest, if you were Vladamir, where would you put an airbase to position your bombers to give you greater influence in Europe?

The armchair generals are out in force today.
 
RoboCod said:
I think the main point being missed in this whole matter is that Russia is now establishing what looks to be permanent residence of an air base right on the Western edge of the Mediterranean. Base a few long distance strategic bombers there and rather than that huge flight they usually do over the top, they can now quite easily come across international water, over to London or other major Western European city with ease. Strategically, it's a bold and cunning move.
Click to expand...

I thought the cold war was over.

Why do you think Russia would be interested in an armed confrontation with western Europe, pray tell? Given that it wouldn't end well for anyone.

RoboCod said:
Will you please also just emigrate along with the other anti-West/Pro-Russian types?
Click to expand...

You know both the US and the UK has a very shaky history. We've done some extremely immoral things.

Why should be be blindly patriotic and deny anyone else (including Russia) the ability to do what we've been doing for decades?

I also don't see Russia as the enemy, as you so clearly do.
 
Last edited:
No because clearly the world isn't bad guys vs good guys, cowboys and Indians. When discussing whole states and the strategic maneuvers they make its almost always in regards to a position that puts them to an advantage over other states. If you want to take the naive stance on enemy being someone we are fighting, as in adversary in war, good guy vs bad guy then obviously Russia is not an enemy in that sense, I'm not going to fear for my safety walking through Moscow. However, they're an adversary who will compete with other states for political, economic and resource dominance over other states. Which brings me conveniently on to your other point about shaky histories... What does that have to do with anything today? Should we regret and apologise for it? No. Should we therefore turn round and say to the rest of the world "oh sorry old chaps, seeing as we were quite the bunch of tyrants centuries ago, have at it and have your fair share of rape and plunder, what what". How bloody British would that be! :D no sorry, the world doesn't work like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom