International Syria Conflict: Bombs away boys. (Israel openly admits to bombing Iranian bases in Syria)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So how are the Russia-fanboys holding up the last couple of days
Must be a bit depressing having your great leader exposed as a paper tiger and having the west call your bluff and shitting over your threats

lol... trump literally spent over a quarter billion dollars to bomb empty buildings just like his last smoke show.

You really think Russia is going to retaliate against trump’s cinematic effort and risk full scale confrontation.

A country with the best ICBM technology ever created and the largest nuclear bombs in existence can not be a paper tiger. Talk about moronic.
 
A country with the best ICBM technology ever created and the largest nuclear bombs in existence can not be a paper tiger. Talk about moronic.
They could be glass cannons though.
 
lol... trump literally spent over a quarter billion dollars to bomb empty buildings just like his last smoke show.

You really think Russia is going to retaliate against trump’s cinematic effort and risk full scale confrontation.

A country with the best ICBM technology ever created and the largest nuclear bombs in existence can not be a paper tiger. Talk about moronic.
Too bad they wouldn't be able to use that great tech without getting utterly destroyed (paper tiger)

Love the sudden attitude change aswell, from vowing to "shoot down any missiles fired against syria and destroying the launching platforms" too basicly trying to brag about not getting hit full force.
Its like the US, France and the UK slapping Russia in the face and Russia bragging about them not using a fist
 
SYRIACHEMICAL%2BHOAX2%2529%2B%25283%2529.GIF


DaSMsbGVAAAEwl6.jpg


DaSMtNEUwAApPxY.jpg


Think.
 
Too bad they wouldn't be able to use that great tech without getting utterly destroyed (paper tiger)

Love the sudden attitude change aswell, from vowing to "shoot down any missiles fired against syria and destroying the launching platforms" too basicly trying to brag about not getting hit full force.
Its like the US, France and the UK slapping Russia in the face and Russia bragging about them not using a fist

Russia was fed the locations of the bombings prior to them, if US and Russia go to direct war both sides will be nuked and destroyed you imbecile. Thats the reason why they are always in proxy wars and never in direct confrontation.
 
Russia was fed the locations of the bombings prior to them, if US and Russia go to direct war both sides will be nuked and destroyed you imbecile.
I'm well aware, so what we are left with are the conventional weapons of war
 
Too bad they wouldn't be able to use that great tech without getting utterly destroyed (paper tiger)

Love the sudden attitude change aswell, from vowing to "shoot down any missiles fired against syria and destroying the launching platforms" too basicly trying to brag about not getting hit full force.
Its like the US, France and the UK slapping Russia in the face and Russia bragging about them not using a fist

Trump bitched out and targeted empty buildings. Had he deliberately targeted actual Russian assets you can be assured that Russia would have retaliated. But that’s not how these dick swinging contests work. It’s all just for show so people like you eat it up.
 
Trump bitched out and targeted empty buildings. Had he deliberately targeted actual Russian assets you can be assured that Russia would have retaliated. But that’s not how these dick swinging contests work. It’s all just for show so people like you eat it up.
Russia will shoot down US missiles fired at Syria and retaliate against launch sites, says ambassador.

Good thing Russia chickened out
 
Russia will shoot down US missiles fired at Syria and retaliate against launch sites, says ambassador.

Good thing Russia chickened out

Maybe one day you will grow up and come back to these posts and feel embarrassed at how small minded you were.

That’s not a real quote. It’s alleged that the Russian ambassador to Lebanon said that.

Russia/Putin isn’t as moronic as trump as to say they’re going to sink an American destroyer...
 
Maybe one day you will grow up and come back to these posts and feel embarrassed at how small minded you were.

That’s not a real quote. It’s alleged that the Russian ambassador to Lebanon said that.

Russia/Putin isn’t as moronic as trump as to say they’re going to sink an American destroyer...
Nah in all seriousness i applaud Russia beeing wise enough to realise they have nothing to gain by escalating
But from time to time i feel the need to kick the Russia-bots when they are pretending that Russia/Putin is some invincible behemoth that doesn't take shit from anybody.
They take shit often enough, luckily for them and us they are often smart enough not to overplay their hand

Edit: might aswell add something "usefull" to the thread
The Trump administration is coming in for an avalanche of complaints that it conducted military operations against Syria without having a strategy for Syria. This is inaccurate.

President Obama had grandiose goals that he omitted to attain. He wanted Bashar al-Assad to go. He wanted the Russians to leave Syria. He wanted to promote democracy and protect human rights unless it became too costly (see: vacillation on military aid to Egypt). He wanted to advance the remit of international organizations and international law. His administration talked about “whole of government operations” but failed to conduct them.

President Trump has no grandiose goals. Despite the mollifying language in his National Security Strategy, there was never any real prospect the president would be bound by its restrictions. Nor was there any reasonable basis for believing Secretary of State Tillerson’s speech announcing a whole of government approach to Syria would actually be carried out. President Trump does not appear to believe in democracy promotion. He does not believe in nation building. He does not believe the victims of terrorism and rapine governments deserve America’s shelter or support. He does not believe in international organizations or international law.

» Subscribed to The D Brief? Get the latest top national security and global military news delivered to your inbox every morning. Sign up here.

There are important similarities in the Obama and Trump strategies for the Middle East. They both want to use American military power freely and sparingly. Neither are comfortable with the extended duration of supporting fledgling governments and building partner capacity. Both undercut American public support for sustained internationalism by emphasizing the domestic opportunity costs of foreign engagement.


But it’s wrong to suggest, as Martin Indyk concludes in The Atlantic, that the Trump administration’s Middle East policy is effectively no different from President Obama’s “leading from behind.” Critics are not giving Trump enough credit: He does have a strategy for Syria and the broader Middle East. His strategy is to limit American involvement, to push responsibility for outcomes in the region back onto states in the region, and to let power determine outcomes. He has no particular affinity for states in the region, and professes to be a devoted friend to each without committing to enduring obligations to any. He is indifferent to government type, and just as likely to be a benefactor to authoritarians as to democrats. It is an approach international relations theorists call “realism,” of the variant called “offshore balancing,” as he seeks to withdraw U.S. forces from the region.

The one twist from standard realism is the president’s susceptibility to images of suffering. He indulges an occasional sentimentality to Do Something when randomly confronted by video of victims of chemical weapons attacks. It is not immediately apparent why that particular form of suffering merits action in his view when seemingly all other forms of brutality leave him unmoved. But he is willing to act punitively and in a limited way to penalize chemical weapons use. This he has done without letting it upend his strategy: It is not a commitment to change the horrible and predictable outcome of the Syrian civil war; it is narrowly constrained to avoid involving Iran or Russia.

It produced an outcome of working in conjunction with allies—both militarily and at the UN—to enforce the international norm prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. This was something Obama, the advocate of international norms and institutions and great advocate of non-proliferation, only pretended to do.

And if the message has been confusing—with the president saying military operations will be sustained; the secretary of defense saying Friday’s strikes would be “a one-off;” and the UN ambassador splitting the difference, saying the U.S. was “locked and loaded” to recommence operations if chemicals were used again—that is a pretty standard problem in signaling limited intent while seeking to maximize deterrent value.

Trump is also willing to run risks that Obama never would have. President Obama declined to confront Iranian violations of the UN restrictions on missile programs, support for terrorism in the Middle East and even within the United States, threats to the free passage of shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, attempts to destabilize regional governments, or human rights depredations. Concern about confronting Russia featured in both his Syria sin of omission and his response to Russian interference in U.S. elections.

President Trump has twice been willing to conduct military strikes in Syria in and around Russian military forces. He allowed U.S. military forces to directly attack Russian mercenary forces. His administration appears to have alerted Russians to coming operations in order to reduce the risk of escalation or miscalculation. Those alerts reduced the effectiveness of attacks, with the Russians moving their military out of reach and giving the Syrian government time to reposition its own. But they were a sensible weighing of risk and reward.

That approach is actually different than Obama’s. Obama was self-deterred, whereas Trump—or at least his administration—runs limited risks. Obama generated false hope among reformers and victims; Trump generates no hope. But he does have a strategy, and it does carefully assess and manage risk to achieve its aims
From: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/20...-actually-makes-sense/147467/?oref=d-topstory
 
Last edited:
What consequences ? Like the last 2 times next to nothing was the consequence
A possibly hugely costly in lives prize delivered for next to no cost isnt madness its a smart move

And he probably didn't order the attack. So a whole lot of nothing is going on.

Except that someone is attacking these people with chemicals. Maybe someone like you needs to go over there and get to the bottom of this.

Until then I'm just going to keep watching CNN and rolling around in my floor throwing a tantrum.
 
Well i guess that makes being their biggest source of income ok then? lol (iran and russia have oil you know )

Thats before we talk the local peace deals in place for years so they both fought only rebels ,the literal tonnes of arms and ammo they got from his useless ground forces , the fact many of their members were trained in terrorism by his intel services to fight u.s in iraq , the propagana boon his terror strategy was for their formation etc



And lol at russia killing them all russias been a bit part player vs isis

Umm... he did get an oil deal with Russia. That's why ISIS is dead now and Russia is there.
 
Too bad they wouldn't be able to use that great tech without getting utterly destroyed (paper tiger)

Love the sudden attitude change aswell, from vowing to "shoot down any missiles fired against syria and destroying the launching platforms" too basicly trying to brag about not getting hit full force.
Its like the US, France and the UK slapping Russia in the face and Russia bragging about them not using a fist

Neither country can use it's "great tech" without being utterly destroyed.


That's the whole point of Mutually Assured Destruction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top