ISIS militants attack and take over Iraqi northern city of Mosul

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would assume that the ground troops that they've authorized are more then likely security for air fields and ports and logistical centers as opposed to front line infantry and armored units that are going to go out in the field and fight.

I would think that the Russians still remember Afghanistan.

Agreed. Pro-Assad forces will take the front lines against FSA targets; Russian ground troops will protect logistical centers and urban "hot spots" that come within striking distance of Assad's forces. I doubt there is any ISIS engagements with ground troops directly.

[CaptainCrunch]

However, the Russians will probably be selling a lot of upgraded equipment to Syria for hard currency which helps the Russians against the Sanctions. We're already seeing front line Russian Tanks and Artillary showing up in Syrian military units.

[Ozy_Flame]

And you have to wonder if such actions will be used as justification for Ukrainian occupation, with Putin and company arguing that it prevents the flow of trained, radicalized fighters into mainland Europe via Caucasus transport routes.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Wonder how Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni states will react to this. I also wonder if Russians are ready to become the #1 target for Sunni terrorists. Obviously getting ISIS is marginally relevant, but we all know beating ISIS is about getting on the ground and it's still political suicide for anyone to commit their countries troops there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And you have to wonder if such actions will be used as justification for Ukrainian occupation, with Putin and company arguing that it prevents the flow of trained, radicalized fighters into mainland Europe via Caucasus transport routes.

Well there's an elegant logic to that argument.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Hesla

So....

The Syrian army and Russian Air Force are bombing the rebels and FSA, the IDF is bombing Syrian Army positions, the Coalition/Arab nations/Kurds are bombing ISIS, the Turks are bombing the Kurds...

Seems like a free for all.

I think what's actually going to happen is that everyone else, once they see Russia is involved, is going to slowly slink away from their positions. This is the Putin show now.

[edslunch]

This article, in the National Post no less, makes some positive comments about Putin's position on Syria

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...ate=2015-09-30

[blankall]

Originally Posted by edslunch

This article, in the National Post no less, makes some positive comments about Putin's position on Syria

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...ate=2015-09-30

It's very convenient for Russia to say these things now. Overall, the US involvement in the beginning of the conflict was minimal, and it's a conflict that never would have occurred if Russia hadn't backed Assad the way they did.

When the anti-Assad protests broke out in Syria, Assad brutally crushed them. This led to armed conflict, and this created the power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS. Now Russia is pointing the finger at Western democracies that "cheered" on the initial protests against a totalitarian regime. The Western nations attempted diplomacy at the beginning, but Russia vetoed all the UN resolutions. Meanwhile Assad was dropping barrel bombs on its citizens in Soviet made planes.

Everyone knows that Iraq didn't work out. However, the problems in Syria would have occurred either way. Saying that rebels wouldn't have taken arms up in Syria if Iraq was more stable is ridiculous. The two situations are independent from each other.

This is Russia's mess through and through, and their solution has always been to prop up Assad.

[nik-]

I think both sides are to blame. But it's cute that Putin is taking the high ground while the rebels he's backing in Ukraine are shelling civilians and shooting down passenger planes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wonder how long it takes for the chemical weapons that Russia "Removed" from Syria to find their way back into the Syrian arsenal.

[T@T]

This whole mess in Syria wouldn't have happened if Obama wasn't a pvssy. If he had stuck to his words of "a red line in the sand" none of this would be happening.

Idiot.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by T@T

This whole mess in Syria wouldn't have happened if Obama wasn't a pvssy. If he had stuck to his words of "a red line in the sand" none of this would be happening.

Idiot.

yeah, this complex mess is Obama's fault....and Obama's fault only.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

yeah, this complex mess is Obama's fault....and Obama's fault only.

Well he is a Muslim, that probably had something to do with it.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

yeah, this complex mess is Obama's fault....and Obama's fault only.

ISIS wouldn't exist without his actions and non actions.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by T@T

ISIS wouldn't exist without his actions and non actions.

Likewise, ISIS wouldn't exist if Saddam was still running Iraq.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't trust them either. But I also don't trust the Americans. I was listening to John Kerry talk about Assad bombing his own people and was eerily reminded of Bush telling us how Iraq was tossing babies out of incubators.

I don't understand your point. Saddam's regime was clearly and obviously sadistic...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't understand your point. Saddam's regime was clearly and obviously sadistic...

Quite right. And the alternative has proven to be just as or even more sadistic. The Middle East is a debacle and you basically have to choose between dictatorships or jihadists running the show unless you want a massive, permanent Western presence, which of course only increases hatred of the West and breeds more jihadists. Both horrible options clearly, but you have to choose between those two horrible options.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by T@T

ISIS wouldn't exist without his actions and non actions.

ISIS has existed for more than a decade. They just had a name change.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't understand your point. Saddam's regime was clearly and obviously sadistic...

Part of that sadism was a bunch of "atrocity propaganda"... made up stories including one about Iraqi soldiers chucking babies out of incubators; a story that would obviously make people think we should go to war. Another of these examples is the wmd nonsense during the second go around with Sadaam. Powell was coached for days about how to make it all sound believable. His 2003 speech at the UN is now obviously propaganda and deception.

So I can't help but listen to Kerry plead the case for Assad's brutality and wonder if it's not just a bunch of BS. It's just all too familiar, almost word for word and certainly the exact tone of past lies. Kerry is insisting Assad is using poisonous gas weapons and Syrian ministers, Russian officials and UN investigators are saying it's not true or they are still gathering evidence. So I'm just saying it's a story I've heard before.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2460560/joh...ed-poison-gas/

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Part of that sadism was a bunch of "atrocity propaganda"... made up stories including one about Iraqi soldiers chucking babies out of incubators; a story that would obviously make people think we should go to war. Another of these examples is the wmd nonsense during the second go around with Sadaam. Powell was coached for days about how to make it all sound believable. His 2003 speech at the UN is now obviously propaganda and deception.

So I can't help but listen to Kerry plead the case for Assad's brutality and wonder if it's not just a bunch of BS. It's just all too familiar, almost word for word and certainly the exact tone of past lies. Kerry is insisting Assad is using poisonous gas weapons and Syrian ministers, Russian officials and UN investigators are saying it's not true or they are still gathering evidence. So I'm just saying it's a story I've heard before.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2460560/joh...ed-poison-gas/

I would agree with the whole propaganda thing, but aside from the WMD and the incubator thing. Hussien on a personal level and a governmental level was incredibly brutal and it was beyond maintaining power, the man was a personal sadist and a rapist and a monster, and he took pride in making his son into monsters.

He just wasn't and nobody is as overert as ISIS. But the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that vanished each year weren't being given teddy bears.

The problem that we're starting to learn in the middle east is that those in power have to be incredibly brutal it seems if they want to survive in power.

As for the WMD thing, I have this personal theory that even Saddam believed that Iraq had them, he had to because he knew in defying the west and hiding his so called weapons and threatening to use them that he was putting his own head in the noose.

And I believe because of his nature that his own people maintained that illusion, frankly if the choice is telling your leader that believes that you've been working on bigger and badder weapons that yes you're on track and have 50,000 gallons of nerve gas or having your finger nails pulled out and your eyes gouged out with a hot poker after watching your wife and kids raped and murdered you're going to say "Yes sir, they're in that warehouse over there"

I believe right up until the Americans' started coming for him that Saddam believed that he had an ace in the hole until he told his military leaders to use them and they said "Oh yeah, about those barrels of nerve gas, that's actually pee, you should flee"