Russia to boost Syria's air defences

[Easo]

Sure, boost all you want. Until now said boosting has been mostly innefective, as show by Israel during Arab wars and USA during the Gulf War.
P.S.
1. Russia cannot and will not give Syria replacement for every single plane lost.
2. Syrian Air Force have suffered enough attrition during last 6 years. Every single plane for them counts.

[Deleted]

Dream on, dream on....

About what? If this was your "message", if this was your "warning", then your capabilities are really pathetic and limited. Hell I wouldn't even call it a symbolic gesture.

More like temper tantrum. So tell me, armchair general, what did you gain?
1. Everyone is laughing at you
2. Material losses minimal and damage will be repaired in a short time
3. Russkies will make sure that that next time you are not able to do something like this
4. Your best buddies ISIS didn't manage to gain any territories

Pathetic, laughable, miserable. YOU want to defend US? Hell, even our 15000 army could do better than you. We should probably ask Russians or Chinese to protect us instead from your incompetence. I'm really ashamed that we're in alliance with you.

[Z-Man]

I can take a map and circle shit and say its hit but all the close up images show only 16 and here they are for you to see go ahead count em.
http://imgur.com/a/2Uc7L

There are close ups you don't have. Like, from inside the fence close up. There are far more than 16 holes.

[Kellhound]

About what? If this was your "message", if this was your "warning", then your capabilities are really pathetic and limited. Hell I wouldn't even call it a symbolic gesture.

More like temper tantrum. So tell me, armchair general, what did you gain?
1. Everyone is laughing at you
2. Material losses minimal and damage will be repaired in a short time
3. Russkies will make sure that that next time you are not able to do something like this
4. Your best buddies ISIS didn't manage to gain any territories

Pathetic, laughable, miserable. YOU want to defend US? Hell, even our 15000 army could do better than you. We should probably ask Russians or Chinese to protect us instead from your incompetence. I'm really ashamed that we're in alliance with you.

Only idiots are laughing
Material losses were what you would expect
That shows that it rattled them
It had nothing to do with ISI.

The US Boy Scouts could handle your "army", shoo.

[Deleted]

About what? If this was your "message", if this was your "warning", then your capabilities are really pathetic and limited. Hell I wouldn't even call it a symbolic gesture.

More like temper tantrum. So tell me, armchair general, what did you gain?
1. Everyone is laughing at you
2. Material losses minimal and damage will be repaired in a short time
3. Russkies will make sure that that next time you are not able to do something like this
4. Your best buddies ISIS didn't manage to gain any territories

Pathetic, laughable, miserable. YOU want to defend US? Hell, even our 15000 army could do better than you. We should probably ask Russians or Chinese to protect us instead from your incompetence. I'm really ashamed that we're in alliance with you.

I prefer fresh bait, this is stuff you get out of a can.

[Deleted]

Only idiots are laughing
Material losses were what you would expect
That shows that it rattled them
It had nothing to do with ISI.

The whole world is laughing.
Material losses were exactly what I would expect from you - zero, nada, zilch.

It had nothing to do with ISI.

It had everything to do with ISIS. They, like every time you did something similar in the past, tried to gain some more territories. They failed now. Man, they must too think that you're incompetent. How could you fail your best allies?

The US Boy Scouts could handle your "army", shoo.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. We've seen plenty of times what happens when your soldiers get in a "fair" situation:

[Halicia]

I do, but I also see it takes some of the real threat of our retaliation away. It's not a real threat if they know we won't attack without telling Russia first.

As I said it's just a PR move for Trump to fool more idiots.

I mean, I understand it...

but I still find it ironic that Trump felt the need to ask Russia's permission, but didn't ask the US's permission.

[Kellhound]

The whole world is laughing.
Material losses were exactly what I would expect from you - zero, nada, zilch.



It had everything to do with ISIS. They, like every time you did something similar in the past, tried to gain some more territories. They failed now. Man, they must too think that you're incompetent. How could you fail your best allies?



I wouldn't be so sure about that. We've seen plenty of times what happens when your soldiers get in a "fair" situation:

As I said, shoo, you are way over your head as usual.

[Skandulous]

There are close ups you don't have. Like, from inside the fence close up. There are far more than 16 holes.

Oh they arent showing those i wonder why? Maybe cause it shows they didnt hit shit. Oh look the MSM is catching on to the failure lmao.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...-idUSKBN1792XA

[Kellhound]

I mean, I understand it...

but I still find it ironic that Trump felt the need to ask Russia's permission, but didn't ask the US's permission.

Telling someone you are going to do something is not the same as asking them if you can do it.

[TwistedSkull]

The whole world is laughing.

Doubtfull... Mutliple countries has shown US support in the matter so it doesn't look like it.

[Deleted]

Hard to believe that they would be THAT stupid, Assad used chemical weapons... what was he expecting to happen?

I was expecting Russia to remove their support after that.

You are otterly lost pal..I suggest you stop watching CNN or whatever other horrid news u cling to..

- - - Updated - - -

More like temper tantrum. So tell me, armchair general, what did you gain?

Well, they did an Israel which is to say gained nothing. And Trump lost a lot of his supporters.

[Kaleredar]

Because Sarin gas is classified as a WMD and you know exactly what happened last time we heard about someone in the region having a WMD(which they didn't even have)

I guess republicans are keen on sinking their brand again.


At least they waited a few years for Bush. This is still pretty fresh out of the gate.

- - - Updated - - -

Because this was her idea

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...e-remove-Assad

"I really believe we could have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

Are you just completely ignorant of the fact that Hillary in an interview like a day ago suggested doing the exact same thing in response to the chemical weapon attack? This isn't far beyond what Hillary would do. It is literally what she said she would have done.

...except people were claiming that made her a War Hawk wheras Trump was the "peaceful" candidate.


I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.


Hillary muses on no-fly zone in Syria during the elections -> "War-like behavior, wants War with Russia, going to cause WW3, needless aggression, complete warhawk"

Trump actively attacks Syria -> "Completely justified, Russia wont do anything, it shows we mean business, Assaad is a tyrant and always has been"

Get it?

[yoma]

Ok, maybe I should dust off my tinfoil hat for this one, but does this reek to anyone else of one massive diversion away from the Trump-Russia investigation? "Oh look, Trumpie just purposly pissed off Russia! He CAN'T be in leage with them now!"

Plus the wording of the Russian spokespeople just seems... off.

“Some people here thought that it would be easy to deal with Trump,” Yelena Suponina, a Moscow-based Mideast expert, said in televised remarks. “No, it will be very difficult. He’s not only ready to make tough decisions, he is unpredictable.”

It sounds like an ad written by the Trump campaign.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you just completely ignorant of the fact that Hillary in an interview like a day ago suggested doing the exact same thing in response to the chemical weapon attack? This isn't far beyond what Hillary would do. It is literally what she said she would have done.

Then I guess there's literally no reason for Trump to be president over Hillary. But I digress.

[alexkeren]

So one chemical attack in another country that we hardly know the context of is an appropriate catalyst to go in and indiscriminately blow shit up?

I thought we needed to avoid war with Russia at all costs, and that Hillary was going to put up a no-fly zone and that'd just be too much.

Since when did "no-fly zone" become a more egregious military action than "BOMB 'EM," hmmm?

You have your facts wrong, or are being intentionally obtuse. So /cookie just in case.

Enough time has elapsed to know details that puts it as stuff that Assad was supposed to get rid of, nor is it his first, second or even third such attack.

Second, most everyone the last time said Obama needed to show force, not the weakness he ended up showing.

Third, and most importantly, it wasn't an indiscriminate attack. It WAS an attack on an airbase of Assad's.

[Kaleredar]

You have your facts wrong, or are being intentionally obtuse. So /cookie just in case.

Enough time has elapsed to know details that puts it as stuff that Assad was supposed to get rid of, nor is it his first, second or even third such attack.

Second, most everyone the last time said Obama needed to show force, not the weakness he ended up showing.

Third, and most importantly, it wasn't an indiscriminate attack. It WAS an attack on an airbase of Assad's.

...so then why was Hillary Clinton supposedly being an incongruous warhawk for wanting to be tough on Syria?

[Independent voter]

How effective will these defenses be against cruise missles?

1. Very effective.
2. Somewhat effective.
3. Not effective at all.


Assad should save his money cause the Russians are trying to get him to pay for systems that won't work.

[AlphaOut]

I guess republicans are keen on sinking their brand again.


At least they waited a few years for Bush. This is still pretty fresh out of the gate.

- - - Updated - - -







...except people were claiming that made her a War Hawk wheras Trump was the "peaceful" candidate.


I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy.


Hillary muses on no-fly zone in Syria during the elections -> "War-like behavior, wants War with Russia, going to cause WW3, needless aggression, complete warhawk"

Trump actively attacks Syria -> "Completely justified, Russia wont do anything, it shows we mean business, Assaad is a tyrant and always has been"

Get it?

It just shows the status quo has changed. Zero hypocrisy. Our current administration could now justify what they couldn't, in their opinion, in 2016.

[Kaleredar]

It just shows the status quo has changed. Zero hypocrisy. Our current administration could now justify what they couldn't, in their opinion, in 2016.

Well nice to see the current administration sure goes from zero to sixty on that whole "risk war with Russia business," eh?

And as for "the status quo has changed," here's the noted chemical attacks in Syria from the past 4 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of...rian_civil_war

The number of chemical weapons used by the Syrian army wasn't zero prior to three days ago.



So yeah, I'm calling hypocrisy.

[sonololo]

How effective will these defenses be against cruise missles?

1. Very effective.
2. Somewhat effective.
3. Not effective at all.


Assad should save his money cause the Russians are trying to get him to pay for systems that won't work.

One crusie missile costs $1.5m.

One shot from C300 (launch of two rockets against one target and all corresponding expenses) costs $20m.

Do the math.