US Presidential election 2016
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
EC1
On a break
if the threat used in the same way Putin used it..i'd applaud it. He has used it as a threat..not much point having it if he ain't gonna threaten..he does say..he hopes it don't go that way. I can't see a prob if Cameron used same tactic.....with how i read it...basically..we gonna bomb em..and if that don't work..then we go in heavier. If you are going to go and fight there..mean it...don't arse about like the US have been doing.
The US wouldn't threaten it though as they only appear like taking out certain bits of Isis..they for instance have made sure the oil supply to "friends" Turkey for instance has been left undamaged these last 12 months..been bombing 12 months..but oil supply still been getting through..wtf??
Surely Turkey buying oil off Isis has helped to fund murder by Isis..thats a bit worse than being a terrorist sympathiser which seems to be a buzz word at the moment..it makes those paying..part of Isis. What did Obama do when Turkey..funders of Isis ...brought Russian jet down..he pattted terrorists funders on the back..is Obama a terrorist sympathiser as well then? Turkey are friends of none of us from what i can see.
..Russia in there for 5 minutes..start bombing oil supply..its not hard to work out who really wants rid of Isis..and who is playing at it for reasons only known to themselves.
Last edited:
The US have been using depleted uranium in Iraq Clive, and in addition began a development programme in 2003 to build a new generation of "mini nukes" (about 1 kiloton) precisely to deliver strategic nuclear weapons onto a future battlefield like this one (about 1 mile radius). It would be naive of you to think American military planers and politicians are not alert to the way things might pan out and haven't responded.
Total rubbish. Completely missing the point
the left wing "stop the west" half wits on forums and elsewhere would be screaming blue murder if cameron or trump or anyone else suggested they were to nuke the terrority. Rightly so
when Putin does so... It's suddenly a good idea
wankrs who populate this thread soon crawl all over any suggestion of "western interference" such as simply bombing supply lines or carefully taking out isis leaders but nuclear attacks and the previously mentioned biological weapons are seemingly fine to be on the agenda
you couldn't make it up
the left wing "stop the west" half wits on forums and elsewhere would be screaming blue murder if cameron or trump or anyone else suggested they were to nuke the terrority. Rightly so
when Putin does so... It's suddenly a good idea
wankrs who populate this thread soon crawl all over any suggestion of "western interference" such as simply bombing supply lines or carefully taking out isis leaders but nuclear attacks and the previously mentioned biological weapons are seemingly fine to be on the agenda
you couldn't make it up
Last edited:
Quite frankly the stuff about private armies and landing in the beaches of Europe is pure 12 years old Star Wars stuff.
A tiny state with the population of Birmingham with a twit of a president declares its self a muslim Republic but with clear stated intention not to oppress other faiths and suddenly the world is falling apart. Wtf
A tiny state with the population of Birmingham with a twit of a president declares its self a muslim Republic but with clear stated intention not to oppress other faiths and suddenly the world is falling apart. Wtf
EC1
On a break
nuking was always going to be on Putins threat list Clive..i'm not supporting him..its just how its going to pan out unless the west sort their act out
what was needed from the west..well the rest of the world .. was not airstrikes alone..but a large world army on the ground coming behind airstrikes..when that event happens..we can beat them..as it is..if all these countries who are so disgusted with Isis don't sort themselves out to do that..then whilst only bodies on the ground are deemed expendable by Putin..he will use owt he has..he doesn't care.
its not a matter of supporting him or the west or whatever...until a world army is on the ground backing strikes up..Putin will do whatever he wants. The point is..he means business..but without a ground force..the rest of us don't. We won't use nukes..he might though...and he will certainly threaten with them.
Where is this unity of armies thats been talked about?..is there one?
what was needed from the west..well the rest of the world .. was not airstrikes alone..but a large world army on the ground coming behind airstrikes..when that event happens..we can beat them..as it is..if all these countries who are so disgusted with Isis don't sort themselves out to do that..then whilst only bodies on the ground are deemed expendable by Putin..he will use owt he has..he doesn't care.
its not a matter of supporting him or the west or whatever...until a world army is on the ground backing strikes up..Putin will do whatever he wants. The point is..he means business..but without a ground force..the rest of us don't. We won't use nukes..he might though...and he will certainly threaten with them.
Where is this unity of armies thats been talked about?..is there one?
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
The Nuclear threat is utterly bogus, imo.
It would result in an escalation that Putin couldn't control or influence, and control/influence is what he is all about. He is far too calculating too ever use them. Besides - last time I checked - nukes can't be targeted at just Daesh, and it makes no sense for him to intervene in Syria, only to then wipe-out the very thing he is trying to save.
It would result in an escalation that Putin couldn't control or influence, and control/influence is what he is all about. He is far too calculating too ever use them. Besides - last time I checked - nukes can't be targeted at just Daesh, and it makes no sense for him to intervene in Syria, only to then wipe-out the very thing he is trying to save.
EC1
On a break
its a threat though isn't it..do we know for sure he wouldn't?..he might push himself into a corner by threatening
what everyone else has to do is organise a ground force and do the job right..which was most people's argument against just using airstrikes
we keep being told what a large threat Isis are..where is the unity now for ground action?
If it was so urgent to airstrike..then surely a ground force is urgent too?..surely we aren't relying on the imaginary 70.000
what everyone else has to do is organise a ground force and do the job right..which was most people's argument against just using airstrikes
we keep being told what a large threat Isis are..where is the unity now for ground action?
If it was so urgent to airstrike..then surely a ground force is urgent too?..surely we aren't relying on the imaginary 70.000
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
It looks more and more like air-strikes are the 'Do something' option, whilst West/Russia try to find a mutually-acceptable deal around Assad.
It was reported over the weekend that some rebel groups were allowed to leave (I think) Homs, under a temporary cease-fire agreed with the Syrian government/their troops. Exactly what this infers I'm not so sure, as apparently it was Al-Nusra who were allowed to leave, but it did basically seal the re-take of the entire city, which has clear propaganda implications that benefit Assad.
Maybe these are tentative steps towards Assad arranging for some of the brutality being taken out of the situation - if only for a respite - in a bid to make his tenure a little more acceptable to the West. Indeed, maybe it has happened at the request of the West, as some form of bizarre 'goodwill' measure on Assad's part?
Whatever it is, the fact that Homs has been re-taken means Assad has all the momentum (granted, thanks to Putin) and the West would be wise to deal with him. In my view, we should be pushing for a quick settlement with Assad, in order that the boots-on-the-ground army sent to tackle Daesh, is a Syrian Government Army. If that could somehow be backed him elements of the FSA, then so much the better, but it has to be questionable whether the FSA/Moderates could or would ever trust Assad, even if he did publicly agree to a Constitutional Review, under the auspices of the UN (or suchlike). An awful lot of spilt-blood has flown under the bridge.
It was reported over the weekend that some rebel groups were allowed to leave (I think) Homs, under a temporary cease-fire agreed with the Syrian government/their troops. Exactly what this infers I'm not so sure, as apparently it was Al-Nusra who were allowed to leave, but it did basically seal the re-take of the entire city, which has clear propaganda implications that benefit Assad.
Maybe these are tentative steps towards Assad arranging for some of the brutality being taken out of the situation - if only for a respite - in a bid to make his tenure a little more acceptable to the West. Indeed, maybe it has happened at the request of the West, as some form of bizarre 'goodwill' measure on Assad's part?
Whatever it is, the fact that Homs has been re-taken means Assad has all the momentum (granted, thanks to Putin) and the West would be wise to deal with him. In my view, we should be pushing for a quick settlement with Assad, in order that the boots-on-the-ground army sent to tackle Daesh, is a Syrian Government Army. If that could somehow be backed him elements of the FSA, then so much the better, but it has to be questionable whether the FSA/Moderates could or would ever trust Assad, even if he did publicly agree to a Constitutional Review, under the auspices of the UN (or suchlike). An awful lot of spilt-blood has flown under the bridge.
Your plan 'A' should be for the government's of Iraq and Syria (I would say Libya as well but heaven knows what passes as a government there any longer) to regain their own territory using their own people. That doesn't look likely to happen now without external top cover. By providing the top cover however, the governments of the countries concerned will become dependent on their sponsors, which means there is plenty of scope for America to achieve their Assad objectives through an accommodation with Russia.
That's your best scenario. A reset to where we were 4 years ago.
If however the Iraqi and Syrian governments can't regain the territory, then we need to start looking at plan 'B'. Ideally that would be some kind of arab force then, but that also runs a very real risk of escalating.
Kremlin planners reassessed their timescales last week, with Putin demanding more money. The 3 months they thought that they could clear out the Aleppo offensive has slipped now to over a year. Basically two things are at play. The opposing forces (estimated by Moscow to be between 45,000 and 50,000) are stronger than they realised. They noted the impact of foreign fighters, and the Chechens in particular. The other thing that they failed to legislate for was just how degraded the Syrian army is, and how much they've struggled. The Aleppo campaign in particular has seen a series of gains and losses of small villages, and hasn't really made any great strides.
The SAA are apparently 2 or 3 miles west of Palmrya now, but have lost ground in the north
Plan 'C' is western troops, albeit you might argue this is a lesser risk than plan B
As a policy 'containment' has dangerous precedents with the Iran/ Iraq war as trying to manage a stalemate will eventually go wrong.
That's your best scenario. A reset to where we were 4 years ago.
If however the Iraqi and Syrian governments can't regain the territory, then we need to start looking at plan 'B'. Ideally that would be some kind of arab force then, but that also runs a very real risk of escalating.
Kremlin planners reassessed their timescales last week, with Putin demanding more money. The 3 months they thought that they could clear out the Aleppo offensive has slipped now to over a year. Basically two things are at play. The opposing forces (estimated by Moscow to be between 45,000 and 50,000) are stronger than they realised. They noted the impact of foreign fighters, and the Chechens in particular. The other thing that they failed to legislate for was just how degraded the Syrian army is, and how much they've struggled. The Aleppo campaign in particular has seen a series of gains and losses of small villages, and hasn't really made any great strides.
The SAA are apparently 2 or 3 miles west of Palmrya now, but have lost ground in the north
Plan 'C' is western troops, albeit you might argue this is a lesser risk than plan B
As a policy 'containment' has dangerous precedents with the Iran/ Iraq war as trying to manage a stalemate will eventually go wrong.
Last edited:
Don't credit the midget inadequate with some sort of unqiue cool calculation. Anyone with half a mind would know that it's out of the question and frankly ludicrous.
My point is that the reaction to it has been muted.
people here scream about all muslims being considered as a lumpen group and the next suggestion is drop a nuke on them. Nukes are not selective. I have a link that proves that.
i look forward to corbyns Stop the Jews coalition condemning and protesting against putins intentioms
Last edited:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I am merely thinking aloud, so try and keep yer bloomers on.
I have to laugh at your dismissal of Putin. It is clear to anyone with a pair of eyes and a functioning cerebral-cortex that - when it comes to Syria - he has demonstrated an acuity that is entirely missing from Western politicians. They are all dancing to his tune, whether you like it or not. It's also hard to take your (accurate) dismissal of Warbler's obsession with Cameron seriously, when your every-other post is slating Putin or Corbyn.
If you (ever) choose to read what I actually post, you will see that I am already well aware that nukes are non-discriminatory, and therefore an empty threat.
In spite of this being your favourite expression you spend an awful lot of time trying.
If Obama or Cameron threatened to use a nuclear weapon who would take them seriously? I don't take Putin's threat seriously either. He may be an authoritarian little man with a big ego but I don't think he would go that far. On the other hand I'd rather not have to be second-guessing him or anyone else making such threats.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Second-guessing him is exactly what he is all about though, Art. The more unpredictable he appears, the more leverage he has in his dealings with the West - in his eyes, at least.
what he's doing overall is not the point. But if you can't see the point that anyone else making the suggestion would have been seized on by the thick left....
what I am pointing out is that hypocritical media and for that matter posters scream about a targeted bombing from the Brits but stay silent when there is suggestions of nuclear weapons being used.
and they are just reflecting the same mindset as stop the west
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
shall we have a poll?
archie
Senior Jockey
You mean like:
Is there a thick left?
Is there a thick right?
Is there a thick left?
Is there a thick right?
EC1
On a break
i don't know..shall we have a poll to decide
you have failed to condemn Putin anyway...Clive won't be happy you know
you have failed to condemn Putin anyway...Clive won't be happy you know
EC1
On a break
have you seen this Clive?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-poll-numbers-v-ed-miliband-2015-11
http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-poll-numbers-v-ed-miliband-2015-11
EC1
On a break
i personally don't care Clive what they think about nukes..yes i understand their beliefs..my post doesn't suggest otherwise....my point was that Putin was always going to use the threat..whether it makes any difference..wasn't what i was saying...i don't have a view on what he does really...none of us really know what he will do next....again you read a post..put a slant on it..then have a dig at your own interpretation
ffs..its a bit tedious Clive..come on lad
ffs..its a bit tedious Clive..come on lad
Last edited: