Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
19
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    My point is you can't order LeoA7 since they are an upgrade of the LeaA6.

    The word proposed is IN the article itself. Let me quote so you can see it yourself:



    AKA the leo2A7 IT IS AN UPGRADED A6. AKA you cant order A7s. You need to have A6s first.

    The 125 mm is an improved version of the 125 mm the T80 and it has range will over 4km.
    Whats the range of the 120 of the M1A2?

    Also, lol at your missile comment. You made me smile Kell, God bless dude and i was having a shitty day.
    You don't need A6 to upgrade to A7.
    Russian 125mm guns have an issue and it's a two piece ammo, resulting in shorter penetration rods for APFSDS which affects the kinetic energy of the penetrator, even if you faced an Abrams and managed to hit it at 4 km range, you wouldn't penetrate anything and to be honest even at optimal range of around 1.5 km range, you would struggle to penetrate a M1A2 frontally, same applies to ATGM's, they are good to engage old junk at larger distances, but not exactly a threat to an Abrams if you were face to face.

    Anyway, a T-90 is a solid and good tank but still it's just an upgraded T-72B.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    https://twitter.com/DefenseUnits/sta...918208?lang=en

    The Turks are firing chemical weapons on the Kurdish civilians. While Kerry is in Turkey. He must have given them the go ahead.
    I remember Turks allowed many Kurds pass to Turkey when Saddam was bombing them with chemicals. And need a better source to confirm that.
    Last edited by sabe; 2016-08-26 at 06:56 AM.

  3. #163
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Oh that's right, the Northrop YF-23, the stealthier, faster aircraft that was passed over by the Air Force in favor of the more manuverable Lockheed Martin YF-22.
    IIRC the pilot who flew both claimed the 23 was actually the better dog fighter of the two. Stuff I read seemed to imply the F-22 won because it was cheaper (and/or because of Lockheed offering better bribes than Northrop).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    Actively working towards stability? Is that a joke? You have the west, Russia, and Iran all actively working to destabilize the country at the cost of its people.
    How exactly is backing the elected government in a war with extremists/terrorists "actively working to destabilize the country"? If the west hadn't been helping the bad guys prior to ISIS arrival and trying to pain them as freedom fighters in order to okay taking out Assad (because Iraq/Libya are so much better now) this mess would have been over ages ago and the country would currently be being rebuilt.

  4. #164
    High Overlord Onizuka's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Birth of Civilization
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Mavett View Post
    ^ this.

    Sucks to be a Turkish tank crew knowing they pretty much field M60's over there, some without even ERA kits, when Syria is littered with ATGM's.
    Bad front line armored tanks without protection, especially since most of them are retired / reconstructed from early 70's...
    Reckoning Bomb - Unleashes the Reckoning upon the Scourge, inflicting ridiculous amounts of damage. Some might even say the damage is ludicrous.

  5. #165
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by GoblinP View Post
    Note the important information here - The smallest country by a fair margin (Taiwan's fighter does not count, along with Pakistans) is Sweden. Japan


    Close but no cigar.

  6. #166
    High Overlord Onizuka's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Birth of Civilization
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarletlion View Post
    a)Totally false news. There is no such thing, that never happened, it's just a dark propaganda by Europe against turkish government.
    b)Just like i wrote above, dark propaganda nothing else.
    c)Which Isis is that and since when we trust terrorists' words instead of countries' and governments'? Also that just proves my point. It's a USA and Israel project and they are using it against the countries when they don't like their foreing policy. It's so obvious.
    d)Read a-b-c again.
    e)No terrorist organisation claims a bombing attack if it is done by another organisation. Also we don't need any more evidance to attack PKK or YPG, we lose soldiers and people everyday by their terrorist attacks. So it's obvious who did the last bombing.

    My suggestion is next time, try to follow trusted sources to prove your point, not with made up videos and ''satalite imaginary'' also if you are gonna blame Turkey with helping and funding Isis you should stop protecting Kurds' and PKK all the time and stop financing them, training them and selling weapons to them.
    What are you smoking on dude? The rain drops you feel, its not rain...Half of the world is spitting on you and you still think that you government is acting just?
    I don't know what networks or news you are getting this info from, but for real, check once in a while what the rest of the planet say...
    It can't be all them lies and propaganda now?! I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to see through that...
    Reckoning Bomb - Unleashes the Reckoning upon the Scourge, inflicting ridiculous amounts of damage. Some might even say the damage is ludicrous.

  7. #167
    Deleted
    The reason Europeans are annoyed with Turkey is because they keep acting like idiotic assholes. For example, some high-ranking Turkish person (I don't know the name of the rank in English) was here in Rotterdam recently and started telling our mayors how to react to demonstrations against the current Turkish government... those retards are stirring up trouble in the Turkish community here, with intimidation and vandalism against people who aren't Erdogan drones. We don't want your shitty political problems here tyvm, don't export them to us. The Turkish government has also invaded the privacy of Turks living here, sending them all ''vote for Erdogan'' propaganda via forbidden channels. The secular country also likes to influence the opinion of Turks here using some muslim imam network...

    And that is just what Turkey does here in the Netherlands, I haven't even begun about the country's uncaring attitude towards human rights, Erdogan getting pissy about some comedian utilising free speech in ANOTHER COUNTRY, him increasingly acting like a dictator and not caring for democracy (jumping off that train soon eh, Erdogan?), the country constantly threating war/death/leaving alliances... like... please do leave. Inb4 ''butt strategic partnur agaynst evil Roessia'', I don't care, if Turkey decides to skedaddle, Russia isn't going to suddenly steamroll Europe (like they could with that army...), I would rather not be allied with scum.

    I am not judging every single Turk by their government, but Jesus, their government...

    Quote Originally Posted by madokbro View Post
    I just passed through a rock festival last night in Balıkesir, a conservative city. Topless women, half naked college students literally everywhere, local populace not giving shit about the excessive drinking even though they also are muslims, just trying to open up 1M+ homemade meatball stands to make some money out of this.

    I hate festivals and half naked crowds of people, the smell of burned skin and piss everywhere really does get you. Yet it helps prove what I'm about the say: Even though shit hit fan in the last few decades, places you actually want to visit and live in here largely remain extremely tolerant, not much different from any big city in the west really.

    Lastly, Turkey is not your usual middle-eastern country in terms of religion. While the overwhelming majority is muslim, and the culture that stubbornly advocates ignorance was born and raised due to that, non-theism is such a fad amoung the young(and the 60s and 80s generation revolutionaries) that you can find an atheist in the room almost anywhere.
    I do wonder how that would have gone if it was say, a gay pride parade... people like beer and boobs. Men snogging tends to go over less well.

  8. #168
    Those parades do happen in more modern cities like Izmir, which has yearly cross dressing events as well. We also have a few clubs and such, if that can count as something to consider.

    Yet of course, LGBT is a taboo here that does not sit well with the conservative populace, or the law enforcement. They are as free as it gets though in non-erdo controlled campuses, most LGBT community requests get insta approved due to the positive publicity it gets from the target demographic, the young and the bright.

  9. #169
    Which class of tank I wonder? Certainly not Blood, that bloodboil nerf made them do negative damage, am I right or am I right guys?
    Owner of ONEAzerothTV
    Tanking, Blood DK Mythic+ Pugging, Soloing and WoW Challenges alongside other discussions about all things in World of Warcraft
    ONEAzerothTV

  10. #170
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    It is a ludicrous assumption to say that Assad is the stable option. The 'Alawi are such a tiny percentage of the Syrian people. They, of course, have a radically different vision, especially considering they are not Muslim, of the country than the majority do. Now, if you are talking bout stability in terms of military might, you are also mistaken. The military might is coming from non-Syrians, so the stability card can be placed into anyone's baskets. Unfortunately, that is being placed in the Assad's basket because he is the most viable lapdog (despite trying his best to piss of the West earlier in his reign).

    - - - Updated - - -



    I am going to try and decipher this. By elected, do you mean Assad, because he elected himself to office?

    Going on that assumption, it is destabilizing the country because it is pretty much a proxy war. ISIS means nothing to the West. They only mean something to you because it is our excuse to fight in the region.

    Now, you say the West supported the bad guys in taking out Assad. But, Assad is THE bad guy. So, i'm going to have to decipher what you mean here, as well. Do you mean the Free Syrian Army? My biggest beef with the Free Syrian Army is the bloodthirstiness they have. I can understand where they are coming from. They are sick with the tyrant. But i cannot condone their actions.
    No it's not. Syria was stable before under Assad because it was a secular country where religious party didn't have access to politics.
    This is how you keep the region stable. Otherwise you have Libya.

  11. #171
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    What would your country do if the CIA tried to mess with your government? Turkey should care less what uninformed, ignorant Europeans think.

    - - - Updated - - -



    What? Back in '83, the elder Assad crushed Hama because of a threat to his government. That pretty much secured what you want to call stability for the rest of his life. The younger Assad's reign was obviously a ticking time bomb.
    Syria under Assad is stable. Cruel but stable. If you want islamists to gain power by force you advocate chaos.
    Period.

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    It is a ludicrous assumption to say that Assad is the stable option. The 'Alawi are such a tiny percentage of the Syrian people. They, of course, have a radically different vision, especially considering they are not Muslim, of the country than the majority do. Now, if you are talking bout stability in terms of military might, you are also mistaken. The military might is coming from non-Syrians, so the stability card can be placed into anyone's baskets. Unfortunately, that is being placed in the Assad's basket because he is the most viable lapdog (despite trying his best to piss of the West earlier in his reign).

    - - - Updated - - -



    I am going to try and decipher this. By elected, do you mean Assad, because he elected himself to office?

    Going on that assumption, it is destabilizing the country because it is pretty much a proxy war. ISIS means nothing to the West. They only mean something to you because it is our excuse to fight in the region.

    Now, you say the West supported the bad guys in taking out Assad. But, Assad is THE bad guy. So, i'm going to have to decipher what you mean here, as well. Do you mean the Free Syrian Army? My biggest beef with the Free Syrian Army is the bloodthirstiness they have. I can understand where they are coming from. They are sick with the tyrant. But i cannot condone their actions.
    Well maybe five years ago there was this sentiment that democracy was spreading across the Arab world and the FSA were these freedom loving patriots fighting to overthrow a corrupt dictator, but that ship sailed a long, long, long time ago. Now the bar is set much lower, and all the international community really wants is for the shooting to stop so all the refugees stop fleeing to the West and we can all go back to ignoring Syria's existence like we did before.

  13. #173
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    You have a very wrong definition of stable. Clearly, Assad's reign is not stable as evidenced by the civil war that started to overthrow him.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Djalil, at this point, i suggest you admit being wrong (and actually work towards correcting your wrong beliefs about the Syrian Civil War). I don't mean to insult you, but it seems you are making this up as you go. I consider myself rather uninformed on Syria, as compared to most Syrians. However, there are some things i have just absorbed either from my own experiences in Syria, both before the war and at the start of the war, and from my family's. What you say goes against the reality.
    Syria under Assad was stable. Libya under gheddafi was stable.
    You can clearly inform yourself on Syria pre civil war.
    By the way, calling it a civil war at this stage is ridiculous. This is foreign powers against local powers.

    If what you are saying is that syria under Assad wasn't stable then I'm afraid you're either too young to remember or clearly delusional
    Last edited by mmocea043e1e13; 2016-08-26 at 01:24 PM.

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    It is a ludicrous assumption to say that Assad is the stable option. The 'Alawi are such a tiny percentage of the Syrian people. They, of course, have a radically different vision, especially considering they are not Muslim, of the country than the majority do. Now, if you are talking bout stability in terms of military might, you are also mistaken. The military might is coming from non-Syrians, so the stability card can be placed into anyone's baskets. Unfortunately, that is being placed in the Assad's basket because he is the most viable lapdog (despite trying his best to piss of the West earlier in his reign).

    - - - Updated - - -



    I am going to try and decipher this. By elected, do you mean Assad, because he elected himself to office?

    Going on that assumption, it is destabilizing the country because it is pretty much a proxy war. ISIS means nothing to the West. They only mean something to you because it is our excuse to fight in the region.

    Now, you say the West supported the bad guys in taking out Assad. But, Assad is THE bad guy. So, i'm going to have to decipher what you mean here, as well. Do you mean the Free Syrian Army? My biggest beef with the Free Syrian Army is the bloodthirstiness they have. I can understand where they are coming from. They are sick with the tyrant. But i cannot condone their actions.
    This is a wrong place to jerk off to your Sunni-Wahhabi-Salafi fetish, Saudi Arabia this way ->

    Let me tell you this: If Erdogan tries to go against Assad one more time, he's going to fail even harder. Regardless of your Wahhabi-Salafi Arab fetish, Assad is staying there and Turkey is doing, as it should, nothing about it.

    Take your Salafi fetish disguised as democracy, and fuck off to Arabia.
    Last edited by Kuntantee; 2016-08-26 at 02:29 PM.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    IIRC the pilot who flew both claimed the 23 was actually the better dog fighter of the two. Stuff I read seemed to imply the F-22 won because it was cheaper (and/or because of Lockheed offering better bribes than Northrop).

    .
    The F-22 was almost certainly cheaper but I strongly doubt with it's wing-tail structure the YF-23 was the more maneuverable of the two.

    The YF-23 was, without a doubt, the more ambitious of the two. During the flyoff, the YF-22 had an early Prat and Whitney YF119 engine. The YF119 (well, a refined variant of it 15 years later as the F119) went to become the core of the F-22, and then changed a bunch to become the F135, the core engine of the F-35.

    The YF-23 had a different beast... the General Electric YF120 engine. The YF120 was a variable cycle engine instead of a low-bypass turbofan. Sound familiar? If your recall previous posts about engine, that is pretty much what the ADVENT engine, the successor to the F119/F135 being designed now, is going to be - an engine that can optimize efficiency under all flight conditions with greater range (as opposed to conventional engines being optimally efficient only at certain modes of flight).

    Variable Cycle engines are certainly the way forward (a decades old belief), but what has held manufactures back up to this point is that complexity and weight. THey're extremely difficult to fabricate and they are heavier than conventional engines. Additive Manufacturing (3D printing) in place of machining has changed this, which is why ADVENT is trying again (this by the way, is also happening with rocket engines). The weight issue is key here: in 1991, although not officially part of the program, it was expected the winner of the ATF competition (the YF-22 or YF-23) would go on to also be chosen as the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter, to replace the F-14D. So weight was a real consideration.


    In retrospect, the Air Force probably didn't make the wrong choice per-se with the YF-22 - they certainly made the one more within the technological reach of the 1990s/early 2000s. To some extent though, the YF-23 was kind of screwed. It was paired with the YF120 engine, but was compatible with the YF119 engine and tested with it. The engine choice was separate from the air-frame choice. The YF-22 was also tested with the YF120. But somehow the YF-23 became more associated with the YF120.

    But the fundamental qualities of the YF-23 are extremely sound, which is why general design considerations are cycling back to it. Consider this:

    http://www.janes.com/article/63185/n...-usaf-fighters

    Northrop Grumman has been awarded a USD39.3 million contract related to the development of a laser-based self-defence system for the US Air Force (USAF).

    The contract, which was awarded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) on 23 August, is for the Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) Turret Research in Aero-Effects (STRAFE) programme.

    Northrop Grumman will develop and deliver an advanced beam control system for integration as part of a complete laser weapons system into a tactical pod for USAF fighter aircraft.

    As noted by the Department of Defense (DoD), the STRAFE aspect of the award will increase the knowledge and understanding of aero-optic disturbances in a supersonic environment by collecting data during engagement scenarios.

    Work is expected to be complete by 31 August 2021.

    It is intended that the SHiELD pod would better enable the USAF's fourth-generation fighter fleet, such as the Boeing F-15 Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, to survive in contested airspace. The fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II would probably not carry the pod, as it would negate their stealth characteristics.

    Current defence countermeasures divert incoming missiles away from the target aircraft, while the externally carried SHiELD pod would instead destroy the missile. Future pods will seek to increase this power output for greater effect/rang
    Lasers are basically here. The F-35 is getting them (in a seperate program from the above). The F-22 will probably get it at some point. And the Air Force wants to attach it to F-15s and F-16s in a pod, as you can see above.

    Missiles are getting smaller and smarter with better range.

    To put it another way, dogfighting is done. How does one dogfight with an enemy aircraft that has a laser turret that will burn a hole in your fuel tank as soon as you're within visual range? Futhermore that enemy aircraft will need to generate a lot of power for that laser (150kw class, to start with).

    The next generation of air superiority platforms will be big - very big - and not very manuverable compared to the F-22. Perhaps even a modified B-21 bomber would be appropriate. They'll have two powerful variable cycle engines to generate a lot of energy for the laser's they have. And they'll carry a massive weapons load. The Golden Eagle upgrade to the F-15 is doubling hard points from 8 to 16. Expect more on the F-22's successor.

    This makes a larger, stealthier aircraft derived from the YF-23 basic design philosophy pretty practical. In fact, about a decade ago, Northrop proposed just that for another reason... the FB-23 "Medium Bomber"... a scaled up two seater that occupies the mission space between a F-15E and a B-1B.



    My gut tells me someone, maybe not the US, will look to the YF-23 one day and pull the best features from it.

  16. #176
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post

    Close but no cigar.
    Japan is much larger than Sweden.

  17. #177
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Japan is much larger than Sweden.
    127 million people in Japan.

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by sabe View Post
    I remember Turks allowed many Kurds pass to Turkey when Saddam was bombing them with chemicals. And need a better source to confirm that.
    That is correct, Although I am not an expert on the events Turgut Ozal was an interesting president of that time. His mother was Kurdish. he tried to solve things with Armenians and PKK. However both failed because. Former because of ASALAs actions all around the world, killing Turkish ambassadors, the latter because of his unexpected death -although he achieved a ceasefire before-.

    During the gulf war, when the vice president of Iraq (Taha Yassin Ramadan) visited Turgut Ozal in his office stating; "if you let Americans use Incirlik air base, we will see you as enemies"; Turgut Ozal replied with; Tell Saddam "hi" from me. If a single shell falls to Turkish lands, I will hang both you and Saddam in the center of Baghdad". Awesome answer

  19. #179
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-weapons.html

    U.S. Plans to ‘Corner’ Russia on Syria’s Chemical Weapons
    The Obama administration is pushing U.N. reports showing Assad hasn’t given up, and is in some cases still using, poison gas. The strategy is to pressure the dictator’s patron, Vladimir Putin.
    CHRISTOPHER DICKEY
    NOAH SHACHTMAN
    08.25.16 11:43 AM ET

    Syria continues to develop chemical weapons it is supposed to have destroyed, and to use chlorine gas it agreed not to use on the battlefield. This, according to reports from United Nations agencies that have been leaked in recent days by Obama administration officials and were confirmed in part by public statements from U.S. officials on Wednesday and Thursday.

    “It is now impossible to deny that the Syrian regime has repeatedly used industrial chlorine as a weapon against its own people,” said a statement from U.S. National Security Council spokesperson Ned Price. (Chlorine was the first gas used in the trenches of World War I. When it mixes with the moisture in human eyes and lungs, it turns to acid with potentially fatal effects.)

    Also very disturbing is the conclusion in the same report that the so-called Islamic State has used sulfur mustard gas, which causes skin and lungs to blister painfully, or fatally.

    These leaks and statements are part of an administration effort to put pressure on President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian backers before an Aug. 30 meeting by the U.N. Security Council to look at the issue of chemical weapons in Syria, a U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast.

    Why now? According to this official, the answer goes back to 2014, when the Assad regime was accused of repeated chlorine attacks, and the world shrugged its shoulders.

    “We weren’t getting enough political oomph when the chlorine attacks first came to light. So we figured the best option was to work through the slow UN process, get the Russians to a place where they’re cornered diplomatically,” the intelligence official said.

    Plus, the official added, finger pointing by the United States alone wouldn’t be nearly as effective as collective action.

    “You know the way the Russians treat anything Syria-related,” the official said. “If we bring it forward, the Russians would reject it out of hand. So we helped OPCW [the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] uncover it on its own."

    In fact, the timing is politically problematic for President Barack Obama, and potentially for his favored successor, Hillary Clinton, since she is so closely identified with his administration.

    We are looking at the third anniversary of Obama’s Great Syria Failure, as many of his critics see it: the debacle in which he drew a red line against the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and the regime stepped right across it, killing more than a 1,000 men, women, and children with sarin nerve gas on Aug. 21, 2013, in a Damascus suburb called Ghouta.

    Days and then weeks of evident confusion followed, as Britain’s House of Commons bailed out of the planned multinational force bent on retribution, then Obama backtracked on plans to launch punitive attacks and put the issue before a pusillanimous Congress.

    It was clear the American people had no stomach for a new Middle East war, and unclear just what the “limited, tailored” airstrikes planned by the administration might accomplish. Some American allies, notably the Saudis and the French, hoped those raids would open the door to an American intervention that could end the war, but that was never the administration’s plan.

    In the event, the red line seemed to be fading away completely, along with Obama’s credibility, until, of all people, Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in and pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire.

    At Moscow’s direction Assad agreed to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, and fessed up to the extensive program and arsenal he previously had denied he had.
    An inspection regime was pulled together, and over the course of the next year all those weapons, manufacturing facilities and precursor chemicals that Damascus admitted to having were collected and destroyed.

    But, as The Daily Beast reported in May 2014, there were strong suspicions that Assad had some elements of a chemical weapons program, and some chemical weapons, he hadn’t put on his declared inventory.

    Privately, among officials at the OPCW in The Hague there was a common judgment that the vast majority of Assad’s chemical stockpile was indeed eliminated, but he might have kept enough of the sophisticated nerve agents to sow terror and buy time if he had to make a last-ditch stand. The feeling was that no certainty could be had that all the weapons were gone unless and until Assad is gone, but reasoning such as that, so close to the flawed rationale used for the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, was not something anyone wanted to say publicly.

    Still, we are looking at a situation today where the Obama administration has to confront the fact that its diplomatic coup of three years ago wasn’t so successful as it would like to claim.


    A 75-page document attributed to the director general of the OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, has been seen in part by reporters for Foreign Policy, who published an article about in on Tuesday. According to the summary they read, most of 122 chemical samples taken at “multiple locations” in Syria “indicate potentially undeclared chemical weapons-related activities.” Moreover, the summary said many of Syria’s explanations “are not scientifically or technically plausible, and … the presence of several undeclared chemical warfare agents is still to be clarified.”

    In a statement on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, only too aware of critiques aimed at the Obama administration’s policies toward Syria, noted that “Three years after the horrendous chemical weapons attack in the opposition held town of Ghouta, the international community must act to hold accountable those who act in defiance of such fundamental international norms” as the prohibition of chemical weapons.

    “When anyone—from any government or from any terrorist group—so flagrantly violates the global ban on chemical weapons use without consequences, it sends the signal that impunity reigns and it gravely weakens the counter-proliferation regime from which all of us benefit,” she said.

    “It is essential that the members of the Security Council come together to ensure consequences for those who have used chemical weapons in Syria,” Power declared.
    But while that was possible, in fact, in 2013, the chances of such action now are slim to none. Since then, confrontations over Russia’s actions in Ukraine have poisoned the relationship, and it’s been almost a year now since Putin committed Russian air power to the defense of the Assad government.

    Whatever proof there is of Assad’s duplicity, it is not likely to sway Russian policy. And regardless of U.S. strategizing, leaks and statements, without Putin on board, no significant measure sanctioning will pass the Security Council.

    Perhaps they can all get together to opposed the use of mustard gas by ISIS.

    Perhaps.
    My thoughts?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    Barack Obama, you motherfucking, goddamn fool.

    More bullshit from Barack Obama and the Branch Obamidians who are squatting in the White House long past their sell-by date. You want to know how casually disconnected from reality these people are? Let me summarize this article for you: they actually though they could spend three years and make a strong argument based on the facts about Assad's chemical weapons, to convince Russia to change it's policies towards him.

    Anyone see the logical flaw here? Yes. It assumes Vladmir Putin gives a rats ass about little details like "facts". Because facts are something Vladmir Putin holds dear. Because all he needs is compelling pieces of evidence put before him in the eyes of the world! What a joke. There is nothing Assad could do that would compel Russia to abandon him. This is apparently a fact lost on the Branch Obamidians, agreeing with each other as usual, but not to Foreign Policy experts who wrote this article (among others).

    The Syria disaster has many villains, but one of them is undoubtedly Barack Obama and his White House cult of true believers, who for years have refused to acknowledge the fact that the other guys has to deal with in negotiations (whatever those negotiations may be about) usually don't live in his kind of rational and fact-based highly moral universe. Interests and belief always trump facts when you're dealing with emotional, messy, prejudiced, motivated human beings. We could be talking negotiating with Russia over Nuclear Arms or Syria, or Negotiating with China over Climate change, or negotiating with Republicans over the budget or health care. Barack Obama: nobody gives a flying shit about your facts. They never have and they never will. Facts didn't stop Russia from invading Ukraine, annexing territory or STILL denying they shot down a civilian airliner filled with 200 Europeans. Facts - and losing a major court case - didn't China from being even more aggressive in the South China Sea. At what point are facts supposed to, you know, count for anything?

    Does this suck? Oh absolutely. It's terrible that we live in such a world. But it's the way it works. Those are the rules of the game.

    The fact that, here we are, the last quarter of 2016... year 7.75 of the Age of Obama, and he and his team STILL don't get this to the point they are going to laughably try and "corner Russia" with "facts" just illustrates the sheer cynicism of his failed Presidency, whose motto seems to be "If at first you don't succeed, try...try... try...try...try... try... try.... try... try... try again."

    You wanna know why Russia is wracking up points in Syria and Ukraine? Because our staggeringly naive and breathtakingly amateurish President is playing with his crayons and his "Peace on Earth" coloring books in the corner. Of course Vladmir Putin is putting points on the board: his opposition isn't even on the field. No it's worse than that. His opposition doesn't even admit the game exists.
    Last edited by Skroe; 2016-08-26 at 04:45 PM.

  20. #180
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    127 million people in Japan.
    9.9 million in Sweden.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •