• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Obama's Ongoing Foreign Policy Failure - Putin's Bitch

That's not what he was saying. Rather, he was saying "child" and "jihadist" are not incompatible terms. Showing that a casualty was a "child" does not prove he was a noncombatant.

We see a lot of this in Gaza--a lot of the "child" deaths are 16 and 17.
We do see a lot of child deaths that presumed to be combatant deaths. A person is a noncombatant until shown otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Anything that causes the deaths of more non-whites, huh?

Actually anything that causes the deaths of more white Russians, members of ISIS, and Assad's Army. I have great respect for the tradition of Realpolitik, and the belief that nation-states must move the chess pieces without the nuisance of incoherent emotions - as Putin seems to appreciate. Support of years or decades of a modest level warfare might be the optimal solution to checking the ambitions of ISIS, Assad, Russia, and Iran.

By the way folks: today the Russians continued a second day of air strikes against non-ISIS rebels. Putin has announced that ISIS will only be one of the targets.

In the meantime Kerry blathers on about coordinating with the Russians - is this guy on drugs?
You have yet to give any historical or fact-based rationales for why your views of the correct actions would be an improvement. Instead, you blather on about your bloody fantasies.
 
No, he is a diplomat and clearly diplomacy is a little more reserved than you appreciate.
If "reserved" means he has nothing in his diplomatic quiver, and chooses to humiliate himself and his country pretending the 'bad guy' is really a cooperative 'good guy', you are correct. Just hours after Russia insultingly gave the US an hour's warning to remove its military forces, and filling the skies of Syria with bombers attacking CIA supported forces, John Kerry holds an embarrassing joint press conference burbling drivel about their mutual cooperation and constructive engagement.
Actually he was walking a tightrope and talking both sides.

Sadly, the diplomatic rule for this administration is that it’s just too rude to point out that another country is blatantly lying and bombing your friends.
We technically have no friends in Syria, just very weak alternatives.
Rather one should pretend that country is making a genuine effort to fight extremist forces, instead of carrying out a crude and deadly effort to prop up a brutal and oppressive regime through brute force.
Didn't we do something similar starting in '03? I need to look that up. So unfamiliar with where the place was... need a map.
After all, to confront them with the reality might worsen “the relationship” - the supposition being that implies there actually is a working relationship to salvage.
It was raised, diplomatically. Once again, you seem to not understand how the game is played.
This is the contemporary state of 'liberal-progressive' backbone, and the elevation of 'bend over' politeness as being far more important that confrontation and truth.
I am quite aware of how you are completely unaware of the word pragmatism and how harsh words and calling people out actually doesn't do jack shit.

Perhaps you recall that their ancestors (cold war liberals) were not the fearful weasels of today? Remember Adlai Stevenson calling out Zorin on the floor of the UN? "Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba?
I'm certain you'll be quick to point out how that has any parallels with Syria or how the US already had missiles in Turkey and that as part of removing missiles from Cuba, the missiles in Turkey were removed as well.
 
F-15s and F-18s would be little more than appetizers for the Russian fighter.
The F-15 has a 104 to 0 win/loss ratio in aerial combat and its been in service for 40 years with constant upgrades doing the multi roles it was designed for and the airforce is planning to use it for the foreseeable future. An Israeli pilot was able to land one after a midair collision with only one wing demonstrating its air worthiness under extreme circumstances. What's your evidence this unproven Russian jet would be so superior?
 
F-15s and F-18s would be little more than appetizers for the Russian fighter.
The F-15 has a 104 to 0 win/loss ratio in aerial combat and its been in service for 40 years with constant upgrades doing the multi roles it was designed for and the airforce is planning to use it for the foreseeable future. An Israeli pilot was able to land one after a midair collision with only one wing demonstrating its air worthiness under extreme circumstances. What's your evidence this unproven Russian jet would be so superior?

I already provided the evidence of SU-30M superiority in air to air combat from Aviation Week, wikipedia, and the combat games with India's Su's. Landing on one wing was not considered a relevant feature...although I suppose it can be handy when an SU blows an F-15 wing off. The AWeek reported Flight simulations (as I quoted) show the SU-30s ability to drop off F-15 doppler radar by suddenly decreasing speed via its advanced thrust vectoring...and it then wins.

The F-15 win/loss ratio was against previous generation aircraft and third-world pilots. Prior generation Soviet MIG-29s have already shown themselves to be an excellent dog fighter in the right hands, with agility comparable to between an F-15 and F-16 (and with superior angle of attack). However, the MIG suffered from poor long-range weapons systems and only shined within visible range engagements.

The SU-30 is a generation ahead of those aircraft. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/us-air-forces-f-22s-f-15s-just-battled-one-of-their-m-1596305711

Malaysia's 18 Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MKMs are a whole different story (than the MIG-29). They represent a highly capable foe with eye-watering maneuverability via their three dimensional thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles and their canard fore-planes.

Additionally they have incredible endurance and a mix of both high-end Russian and Western avionics, including a capable phased array radar and powerful electronic warfare suite. All this along with the best missiles Russia has to offer on the export market makes the Su-30MKM just about as potent of bandit as you can currently find anywhere in the world.

See some of the SU-30MKM's "super maneuverability" in the videos below:...

The F-15s/16s are no match as they lack thrust vectoring and are not stealthy.

Even the F-22 only has two axis thrust vectoring, likely making the SU-30 three axis vectoring a superior pure dogfighter. However, the F-22 has much better beyond visual range weapons, better weapons systems, and it's stealth capability most likely frustrates SU-30 tracking and locking in missile combat. I am fairly confident that the F-22 can best the SU-30 five out of six times.

Read this: http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

Unless the Russians still fly like the old Soviets (strictly restricted by ground controllers), the F-15 and F-16 are burnt toast. The only good news is that if the US is willing to risk its precious inventory of F-22s, only then the Russkis would mostly lose (I hope).
 
More importantly, your implication that it is okay to kill a teenager because he/she might become a jihidist is morally depraved.

That's not what he was saying. Rather, he was saying "child" and "jihadist" are not incompatible terms. Showing that a casualty was a "child" does not prove he was a noncombatant.

We see a lot of this in Gaza--a lot of the "child" deaths are 16 and 17.

Sure, but isn't the same true of the "children" killed by Russia's bombing campaign? The good US-backed rebels use teenagers the same as the jihadists do. Heck by any reasonable measure they are jihadists, the only difference is that their jihad is against Assad.
 
Well, the PICCA (People in Charge of Current Administration) gang is floundering on the second day of Russian airstrikes. The "dealing from weakness" Russians are pounding the various non-ISIS forces that have been worrying the Assad regime. Recent developments include: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-Syria-on-Isil-to-US-anger-live-updates.html

Here is our summary of events in Syria on Thursday, from Richard Spencer, Middle East Editor, Nabih Bulos in Beirut and Ruth Sherlock in Washington:

• Iran was on Thursday night moving up its ground forces in Syria in preparation for an attack to reclaim rebel-held territory under the cover of Russian air strikes... Hizbollah, which has come to the Assad regime’s rescue in battle-fronts across the country in the past two years, is being prepared to capitalise on the strikes...

• Sources in Lebanon told Reuters that Iran, which is the main sponsor and tactical adviser to Hizbollah, was sending in hundreds of its own troops to reinforce them. ...Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said the move would be an "apt and powerful illustration" that Russia's military actions had worsened the conflict.

• A Hizbollah-backed advance would fit the pattern of Russian air-strikes, which have predominantly targeted those rebels not aligned to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant who currently present the gravest threat on the ground to core regime territory.

• The long-term aim would be to defeat or demoralise the non-Isil opposition, so that Isil became the regime’s only enemy. That would force the West to back President Bashar al-Assad against it. “They want to clean the country of non-Isil rebels, and then the US will work with them as Isil will be the only enemy," the Damascus source said.

• Among the dead from Wednesday’s strikes was said to be a prominent rebel leader in north Homs province, Captain Iyad al-Deek, a former regime officer who defected early in the uprising.
...
• The rebels also claimed there were a number of civilians among the dead. "The mosque was virtually destroyed, and there was a body under the ruins, and there were eight wounded, among them a child,” said Tareq Abdul-Haq, a media activist who visited Jisr al-Shughour after the Russian bombing. He said a “poor, civilian” neighbourhood had been hit.

And there is another reason the Russians are targeting non-ISIL forces:

Why would Russia bomb non-Isil groups?

The same spokesmen are sometimes vague - referring to Isil and terrorists in the same breath. By “terrorists” they mean the same as Bashar al-Assad - anyone part of the armed opposition. And it so happens that the gravest threat to the regime’s core areas - Damascus, and the central and western plains to the coast - comes from non-Isil rebels. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president has also said that he believes the survival of the Assad regime is very important, so it makes sense to target them first.

And PICCA?

obama-fiddles-while-mid-east-burns.jpg
 
Wow. So while Russia is required to move pilots and A/C into Syria to prop that pathetic regime up it's suffering an Obama initiated recession which apparently has no end in sight just because it did essentially the same thing its doing now in the Ukraine.

Yeah we know there are 25 million ethnic Russians in the Ukraine that Putin claims are there because USSR collapsed. Actually they are there because Russia wanted to keep its people employed while ripping off the Ukraine so they ensured that number when their government collapsed of its own weight of corruption.

Any predictions about what's gonna happen. How about the same thing as last time. Russia is going to collapse, its military is already not being paid but part of what they were promised, people are being told to sacrifice for mother Russia with no possibility of their being relief from their buy in to western style economy only with much more corruption.

Eyup. Quite a hold that Putin has on Obama and us week US types. We're only the only nation outside Asia to be perking up and getting perkier. Guess what Republican drank their own Kool Aide and are trying to gin up another trickle down scheme on us because they actually believe Raygun was the Savior.

Away you go cowboy 'publicans. Ride with Putin into total political and economic demise.
 
Why would Russia bomb non-Isil groups?

The same spokesmen are sometimes vague - referring to Isil and terrorists in the same breath. By “terrorists” they mean the same as Bashar al-Assad - anyone part of the armed opposition. And it so happens that the gravest threat to the regime’s core areas - Damascus, and the central and western plains to the coast - comes from non-Isil rebels. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president has also said that he believes the survival of the Assad regime is very important, so it makes sense to target them first.

Putin: Leave the current government in and subdue armed terrorist groups on the invitation of the government.
Obama: Arm terrorist groups within the country in order to overthrow the government.

One of these is in line with international law. The other is a war crime
 
Putin: Leave the current government in and subdue armed terrorist groups on the invitation of the government.

Thank you, Putin talking point defender! Your check is in the mail! Hope your local bank accepts Rubles!
 
Obama is nobody's bitch, it's just US strategy in Syria failed. Obama made similar mistake Bush&Co did when they tried to build democracy in Iraq. In case of Syria US analytics expected Assad to lose rather quickly to moderate opposition, so they basically trashed Assad mercilessly, after all, they knew he is on his way out like Qaddafi. "Unfortunately" he turned out to be much tougher than Qaddafi.
Now, US can't work with Assad, that's politically impossible, the only way out for US is to let Russia do it. Same thing happened with chemical weapons. EU is happy too with latest development, they are not interested in Assad fall and all these alavites going to Europe.
As for the Russia, the warm port is not he only reason. The probably bigger reason is honest worry about thousands of russian citizens in ISIS and other terror groups. Nobody in Russia wants them back, nobody wants it to spread even more in case of Assad's regime fall. Also there are bragging rights
in case this intervention works :)
Problem with US bombing ISIS was that they were not willing to coordinate with Assad's army on the ground, and in the end it was a waste of fuel.
Also, from military point of view it's not the ISIS that is the biggest and most immediate problem for Assad, that's Al-Nusra which is responsible for the most damage to Assad. ISIS is busy building Caliphate, raping women and executing kids for watching soccer on TV.
 
Garry Kasparov's commentary in the WSJ makes several points that are self-evident.

Boris Nemtsov, my longtime friend and colleague in the Russian opposition, was murdered in the middle of Moscow on Friday night. Four bullets in the back ended his life in sight of the Kremlin, where he once worked as Boris Yeltsin’s deputy prime minister. ...

Mr. Obama has already decided to continue his policy of disengagement from the Middle East...Of the conflict in Syria, he said, “we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the prewar status quo.” But every listener was aware that Mr. Obama had no intention of backing his words with action.

Mr. Putin, speaking about an hour later in the same room, included his usual NATO-bashing and obvious lies. ...He spoke of national sovereignty—which is very important to Mr. Putin, unless it’s the sovereignty of Georgia, Ukraine or another place where he wishes to meddle.

In other words, Mr. Obama’s speech was routine because he knows he will not act. Mr. Putin’s speech was routine because he knows he will act anyway.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/garry-kasparov-putins-culture-of-fear-and-death-1425249677

Today the news is that Russian aircraft are now bombing - not Isis, but the Free Syrian Army. Obama's 'disengagement' and empty red-lines have only led to greater Russian aggression and the filling geostrategic vacuums. And Putin's most recent message to Obama is: 'Get out and, in the meantime', don't get in our way'.

And sadly, we have to hear Kerry and Obama yammer on with empty and laughable warnings to the Russians.

If the government of Russia were to start arming dissident groups in America then you might have an argument. But our country has been pumping in weapons in all these hotbeds of conflict to the delight of our weapons manufacturers. In every one of our international incursions, it is our people who are the aggressors. The Russians likewise are not innocent. Our national leaders on both sides of the line are a liability to our race. Jayjay does not understand that there is no country in the world whose leaders do not make a show of caring about refugees, children, women etc. but it is all bullshit. As long as it happens out of sight, our "democracies" which really aren't really have no special regard for human life outside their territory.
 
One more time, Free Syrian Army are not your friends, just because you renamed al-Qaeda into Free Syrian Army does not mean they are your friends:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...03d06f4-3b2e-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html

The Jabhat group now has somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 fighters, according to officials of an non-governmental organization that represents the more moderate wing of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). They say that the al-Qaeda affiliate now accounts for 7.5 percent to 9 percent of the Free Syrian Army's total fighters, up sharply from an estimated 3 percent three months ago and 1 percent at the beginning of the year
 
One more time, Free Syrian Army are not your friends, just because you renamed al-Qaeda into Free Syrian Army does not mean they are your friends:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...03d06f4-3b2e-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html

The Jabhat group now has somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 fighters, according to officials of an non-governmental organization that represents the more moderate wing of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). They say that the al-Qaeda affiliate now accounts for 7.5 percent to 9 percent of the Free Syrian Army's total fighters, up sharply from an estimated 3 percent three months ago and 1 percent at the beginning of the year
But isn't Russia saying they are targeting ISIL, not al Qaeda?
 
But isn't Russia saying they are targeting ISIL, not al Qaeda?
Yes, that's what they are saying, does not mean they are avoiding other terror groups including al Qaeda
Actually, it would very much indicate that that is their stated intention. If they are saying they are attacking ISIL and then don't bomb ISIL, that implies they are full of crap.
 
Yes, that's what they are saying, does not mean they are avoiding other terror groups including al Qaeda
Actually, it would very much indicate that that is their stated intention. If they are saying they are attacking ISIL and then don't bomb ISIL, that implies they are full of crap.

they ARE attacking ISIS, it's just western media fixated on fictional reports about attacks on mythical FSA.
 
Actually, it would very much indicate that that is their stated intention. If they are saying they are attacking ISIL and then don't bomb ISIL, that implies they are full of crap.
they ARE attacking ISIS, it's just western media fixated on fictional reports about attacks on mythical FSA.
But you said they were targetting al Qaeda as located in the FSA, not ISIL.
 
Back
Top Bottom