Despite the fact that a whole third of arms and munitions eventually are handed over to Islamists, O - Polidicks

Thanks Obama

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48837678]And tow missiles that were given to the FSA, and weapons and ammo, etc, etc, etc. We've funded the FSA for years, and a lot of that has ended up with ISIS.[/QUOTE] 1st off, a TOW missile is a heavy weapon fired from specially equipped vehicles, not the manned anti-air rockets that other nations have been flooding into the conflict, second, 6 trucks and a few boxes of ammo doesn't give Isis a decisive victory at all, especially if that was say 5.56 and the people who took it have AKs

[QUOTE=Sableye;48838811]1st off, a TOW missile is a heavy weapon fired from specially equipped vehicles, not the manned anti-air rockets that other nations have been flooding into the conflict, [/QUOTE] Well rebels in Syria do have TOW launchers, so I don't really see what's your point there...

[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;48838127] Russia intervening on behalf of Assad is honestly the best thing to happen in Syria but we have to stop it because of some petty bullshit.[/QUOTE] You honestly think Russian intervention will somehow allow Assad to stabilize Syria? He's the guy who started this mess slaughtering his civilians, how on earth is he supposedly able to stop the violence in Syria short of killing every man woman and child who opposes him? Even if they take back all of Syria, there will be a long long insurgency fought against him, and Syria does not have the forces to fight against an insurgency, so now they need foreign aid, only Russia would be stupid enough to send in troops at that point, since they're already committed to stabilizing Syria, so now they're pouring troops in to stop the insurgency, maybe it dies down, eventually the Russian public won't stand for a bloody insurgency in a far away country all for a naval base, and even the jingoists won't be able to reverse that trend, so then what, Russia pulls out and Syria destabilizes again. It's essentially Afghanistan (the US one) but with even more resistance

Incoming backfire of the decade.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48838833]eventually the Russian public won't stand for a bloody insurgency in a far away country all for a naval base, and even the jingoists won't be able to reverse that trend[/quote] You're thinking way too highly of our 'public', they'll sit in front of TVs and eat it all up "Вперед Россия!".

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48838848]Incoming backfire of the decade.[/QUOTE] Just one of many, unfortunately. Until we un-fuck our political situation, the revolving door continues to spin

Let's try (just try) to predict possible reaction of Russian Goverement for that. I'd say no ground forces would be deployed in Syria, [B]BUT[/B] you have Iraq where prime minister already asked for possible Russian airstrikes on their territory. It's far more plausilbe that we would simply open "second front" to press on FSA and ISIS, rather than simply send in soldiers - less direct involment and casualities by our side, more influence and reach over situation as whole.

And back we go to the Cold War.

The 80's are back!

When will the US realise that whenever they wave their dicks around the world, it has serious consequences for everybody else and we're getting bored of it. Same goes for Cameron and the UK government too but obviously our influence is somewhat lesser. We're all bored and seeing through the West/East proxy bullshit, it's primitive and yet shows no signs of slowing down.

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;48839565]When will the US realise that whenever they wave their dicks around the world, it has serious consequences for everybody else and we're getting bored of it. Same goes for Cameron and the UK government too but obviously our influence is somewhat lesser. We're all bored and seeing through the West/East proxy bullshit, it's primitive and yet shows no signs of slowing down.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I love the drama. But I am slightly insane, so.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;48839753]I don't know, I love the drama. But I am slightly insane, so.[/QUOTE] You can leave a country if it's too troublesome, but you can't leave the world. [yet]

[QUOTE=Mabus;48839435]The 80's are back![/QUOTE] Where were they ten years ago when the music scene was [I]really[/I] bad?

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;48838500]What is it with this many retards saying "STOP IT AMERICA JEEZ" your governments are a part of this too, so shut your sewers.[/QUOTE] Canada is only involved because Harper is a fucking American sockpuppet. When we hopefully vote him out in a couple weeks we're done.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;48839235]Let's try (just try) to predict possible reaction of Russian Goverement for that. I'd say no ground forces would be deployed in Syria, [B]BUT[/B] you have Iraq where prime minister already asked for possible Russian airstrikes on their territory. It's far more plausilbe that we would simply open "second front" to press on FSA and ISIS, rather than simply send in soldiers - less direct involment and casualities by our side, more influence and reach over situation as whole.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression Russian ground forces have been deployed already and Moscow has stated as such?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48840125]I was under the impression Russian ground forces have been deployed already and Moscow has stated as such?[/QUOTE] There is a difference between sending ground forces for operation and providing military staff to for security to airforces. Russian goverment and president established that no troops will be send to walk the desert. It was quoted many times but i just cannot be arsed to look up anywhere besides original RT post i shared earlier - [url]https://www.rt.com/news/317013-parliament-authorization-troops-abroad/[/url] [quote][B]Ivanov stressed that no ground operations are planned in Syria. Russia would use its warplanes to hit terrorist targets when requested by the Syrian government.[/B] He stressed that unlike the US-led coalition of countries that bombs militant troops in Syria, Russia was invited to do so by the legal authorities of Syria and thus follows international law.[/quote] On slight more related to my initial post there is a newsflash on mail.ru that Matvienko (speaker of Russian parliament) confirmed willingness to approve airsupport in Iraq if official request by goverment will be received. Waiting for it to pop up further in newsagencies.