Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

'they're" viewed as a reputable source? You mean HE is viewed as a reputable source. The SOHR is a one man show! He hasn't set foot in Syria since 2000. I'm not saying he doesn't know whats going on in Syria but media outlets depending on an individual as a reputable source ......


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights

No one critical has set foot in syria since the year 2000 at least not in the assad zone of control.

Most of what he says is verifiable with a bit of effort. We know a lot of military bases have been over run. We know barrel bombs have been used. We know the government are experiencing a manpower shortage. We know civilians are leaving syria by the millions.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

On a par with western? They've one aircraft carrier that they've never used in combat. They have no 5th generation fighters. These are not small differences. You are talking of them being a full generation at least behind in key areas. And the difference is only increasing by the year.

Well it depends on what we mean by saying 'par'. Sure the US might have an advantage in some tech areas but the Russians have always understood that they never had to match like for like when numbers could make up the difference. If we look at WW2, we could obviously argue that not only were they on par with Germany, they outmatched them, even though technically the majority of German equipment was vastly superior.

As far as only having one carrier, well navies are all but obsolete, they were the kings of previous generations of war, but their time is over.

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

Well it depends on what we mean by saying 'par'. Sure the US might have an advantage in some tech areas but the Russians have always understood that they never had to match like for like when numbers could make up the difference. If we look at WW2, we could obviously argue that not only were they on par with Germany, they outmatched them, even though technically the majority of German equipment was vastly superior.

As far as only having one carrier, well navies are all but obsolete, they were the kings of previous generations of war, but their time is over.

I understand what you are getting at but warfare has moved on. Ww2 was all about numbers and attrition and who could afford to lose the most men and still win. These days its all about stealth, surprise and precision weapons. 5th generation fighters are a game changer. It basically means conventional air forces are rendered obsolete in a confrontation. Russia is good against rag tag militias with no airpower or anti aircraft weapons.

RainMask

karma_ wrote: »

Well it depends on what we mean by saying 'par'. Sure the US might have an advantage in some tech areas but the Russians have always understood that they never had to match like for like when numbers could make up the difference. If we look at WW2, we could obviously argue that not only were they on par with Germany, they outmatched them, even though technically the majority of German equipment was vastly superior.

As far as only having one carrier, well navies are all but obsolete, they were the kings of previous generations of war, but their time is over.

The germans were better all round, but the russians did have some stuff that totally blew them away. Katousha rocket artillery is one example. Another was the T tanks and other heavies. First time time germans encountered these tanks around leningrad (i think) they couldnt penetrate them at all. Only manage to kill a few with their AA firepower after the tank groups had broken thru to that position.

Neither russia or nato have a defence against eachothers nuke ICMs anyways, so its all irrelevent.

InTheTrees

karma_ wrote: »

Well it depends on what we mean by saying 'par'. Sure the US might have an advantage in some tech areas but the Russians have always understood that they never had to match like for like when numbers could make up the difference. If we look at WW2, we could obviously argue that not only were they on par with Germany, they outmatched them, even though technically the majority of German equipment was vastly superior.

Dont confuse the Soviet Union with present Russia.

Present day Russia has about the same population as Germany and France together.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I understand what you are getting at but warfare has moved on. Ww2 was all about numbers and attrition and who could afford to lose the most men and still win. These days its all about stealth, surprise and precision weapons. 5th generation fighters are a game changer. It basically means conventional air forces are rendered obsolete in a confrontation. Russia is good against rag tag militias with no airpower or anti aircraft weapons.

That's a complete oversimplification of WW2 if I ever saw one.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I understand what you are getting at but warfare has moved on. Ww2 was all about numbers and attrition and who could afford to lose the most men and still win. These days its all about stealth, surprise and precision weapons. 5th generation fighters are a game changer. It basically means conventional air forces are rendered obsolete in a confrontation. Russia is good against rag tag militias with no airpower or anti aircraft weapons.

I agree that warfare has changed, large conventional war is not something the world is likely to ever see on a grand scale again and I'd argue that both the US and Russia are fighting the last war (WW2), which almost every army down through history has done. I don't really follow defense news so I don't even know what a 5th gen fighter is, however a quick search and confirmed that not only did Russia have them but also China and India, interestingly all nuclear powers. Which again means that we are never likely to see any of these forces come into conflict again. What that means of course is more proxy wars between these powers, geopolitical games for spheres of influence. And as for Russia only being useful against rag-tag armies, sure the US have never tested themselves against anyone who could do them serious damage since the 1950's. Vietnam obviously was an eye-opener for them.

RainMask wrote: »

The germans were better all round, but the russians did have some stuff that totally blew them away. Katousha rocket artillery is one example. Another was the T tanks and other heavies. First time time germans encountered these tanks around leningrad (i think) they couldnt penetrate them at all. Only manage to kill a few with their AA firepower after the tank groups had broken thru to that position.

Neither russia or nato have a defence against eachothers nuke ICMs anyways, so its all irrelevent.

Absolutely agree again. Which brings up another point, look at the sheer industrial capacity and what they developed and were able to manufacture in a few short years, whilst defending their own land mass. It was an incredible achievement, a costly one yes, but it was genius.

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

It's not the BBC's story it's from the SOHR, who are an extremely biased source.

The BBC's reporting of the war in Syria has been abysmal.

Here is a report on the fsa being attacked.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SE0M420151020

And if you query the source I'm done talking to you because you only seem to accept sources that you like and disregard ones you don't like.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Here is a report on the fsa being attacked.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0SE0M420151020

And if you query the source I'm done talking to you because you only seem to accept sources that you like and disregard ones you don't like.

I'm not questioning that source but the FSA can hardly be described as moderate considering they aren't exactly one group. It's just an umbrella term for a collective of many different rebel groups with absolutely no structure whatsoever. It's hard to say who is moderate under the FSA blanket.

I haven't disregarded one good source so far. I'd pay a lot more heed to a Reuters article than a poorly sourced BBC one.

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

That's a complete oversimplification of WW2 if I ever saw one.

Do you want the complex version? How long do you have? On second thoughts I don't have the time and it wouldn't be fair to derail the thread. Suffice it to say technology outweighs numbers of soldiers in modern warfare particularly when you include nuclear weapons which by the way brought ww2 to an end. The japanese had millions of soldiers and civilians ready to die for the cause. A few nuclear bombs would have wiped out these millions in days. Warfare has moved on, I think even you have to accept that.

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you want the complex version? How long do you have? On second thoughts I don't have the time and it wouldn't be fair to derail the thread. Suffice it to say technology outweighs numbers of soldiers in modern warfare particularly when you include nuclear weapons which by the way brought ww2 to an end. The japanese had millions of soldiers and civilians ready to die for the cause. A few nuclear bombs would have wiped out these millions in days. Warfare has moved on, I think even you have to accept that.

This is a nonsense analysis of the final stages of WW2.

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

I'm not questioning that source but the FSA can hardly be described as moderate considering they aren't exactly one group. It's just an umbrella term for a collective of many different rebel groups with absolutely no structure whatsoever. It's hard to say who is moderate under the FSA blanket.

I haven't disregarded one good source so far. I'd pay a lot more heed to a Reuters article than a poorly sourced BBC one.

Wrong. You are lumping the jihadists in with the fsa. I wish I could find one good article explaing who the fsa are and what they are about. Maybe I will later. They are separate entities. The fsa are largely made up of ex syrian military. Then there are islamic groups ranging from moderate islamic groups to extreme groups. I wouldn't even include isis as part of the opposition. They are a third force trying to exploit a vacuam. The fsa and islamic groups sometimes collaborate but the islamic groups are not part of the fsa. It would be like saying the inla were part of the ira to say that.
At least you recognise the opposition are made up of hundreds of different groups of different hues which is a start. All of them want Asssd gone. After that they will have to come to an agreement of some sort. Unfortunately Assad has encouraged every jihadist nutter in the world to come to syria. And he routinely does deals with isis such as over fuel and water supplies.

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

This is a nonsense analysis of the final stages of WW2.

Not really, its what happened. Read the history books. Americans dropped nukes on japan, japan surrender. Not my opinion, its fact!

IrishTrajan

karma_ wrote: »

You listed off a whole raft of things here and I'll not address each individually, but for sure I'd put their capabilities on par with any western force.

No, they don't. They're definitely ahead of most countries, but they're not as adept as Britain, the U.S., or France's forces.

karma_ wrote: »

We have a tendency to under estimate their capabilities, but they are completely ruthless and they just have a vastly different doctrine for war.

You are aware that Western Europeans ripped the world apart twice, right? The West isn't ruthless, because it doesn't need to be. It has the ability to restrain itself from causing unnecessary casualties. Russia does not have the technical skill or the assets to do this, or if they do, it's on a much, much more reduced level.

karma_ wrote: »

History has taught this over and over, and one of their biggest advantages over a military like the US is that casualties don't really concern them, the West has no such appetite for that.

That might've been great when they had the largest manpower reserve in Europe back in the early 1900s, but that's not how wars are fought today. Russia's army is antiquated, poorly trained, and poorly armed (they only issued socks as part of the uniform in 2013). Russia's navy is a rust bucket. They had to bring two tugboats for their two warships to train in the Atlantic... Then realized it was a bit stormy in the North Atlantic, so they parked up the Seine for a while and then went back to Russia. Russia's nuclear assets are also falling behind, as they do not have enough skilled workers to keep up with demand. They're bringing so many warheads into active deployment in order to keep people trained.

The only thing that is quite well funded is their air force, and even that is half-baked ideas at best. Look at the PAK-FA. Russia mocked the US for developing stealth fighters, saying it was pointless, then tried to develop their own but India has bought Rafale and Russia doesn't have the cash to fully fund the project.


Even if casualties don't bother them, they're going to take a lot of them. The West's forces are simply, pound-for-pound, the best in the world. Each soldier has so much money invested in them, has so much money spent on hardware and R&D... The West's "softness" when it comes to casualties is a strength, not a weakness. It's domestic appeasement, and this works to keep each Western soldier much better funded and trained than his counterparts in Russia or China.

IrishTrajan

karma_ wrote: »

As far as only having one carrier, well navies are all but obsolete, they were the kings of previous generations of war, but their time is over.

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think China is investing in 5 aircraft carriers for the S/E China Seas? People much smarter than you or I realize the necessity of having a strong naval presence. If they were obsolete, we'd be getting rid of them, not having massive overhauls and a quasi-arms race in developing capabilities.

IrishTrajan

RainMask wrote: »

Neither russia or nato have a defence against eachothers nuke ICMs anyways, so its all irrelevent.

Yes they do. Russia has the Gazelle, the US has GMD (BMD has a limited ability to stop them too).

Eugene Norman

Does the FSA even exist anymore?

IrishTrajan

karma_ wrote: »

I agree that warfare has changed, large conventional war is not something the world is likely to ever see on a grand scale again and I'd argue that both the US and Russia are fighting the last war (WW2), which almost every army down through history has done. I don't really follow defense news so I don't even know what a 5th gen fighter is, however a quick search and confirmed that not only did Russia have them but also China and India, interestingly all nuclear powers.

The PAK-FA (which is what Russia and India have invested in) is a joke. China's fifth generation aircraft (the J-20, I think) is incredibly unlikely to actually rival the US' fifth gen aircraft (the F-22 and F-35). The Chinese have 7 or 8 J-20 prototypes. The US has closer to 200 F22s and there's over 100 F-35s built (which includes what US allies are buying).

karma_ wrote: »

Which again means that we are never likely to see any of these forces come into conflict again. What that means of course is more proxy wars between these powers, geopolitical games for spheres of influence. And as for Russia only being useful against rag-tag armies, sure the US have never tested themselves against anyone who could do them serious damage since the 1950's. Vietnam obviously was an eye-opener for them.

Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world. It was heavily antiquated, yes, so it's no surprise that the US walked all over them in the opening stages of the conflict. But that is still infinitely more experience than Russia has.

karma_ wrote: »

Absolutely agree again. Which brings up another point, look at the sheer industrial capacity and what they developed and were able to manufacture in a few short years, whilst defending their own land mass. It was an incredible achievement, a costly one yes, but it was genius.

Russia's industry simply doesn't match up to the US' industrial capacity. The US has been building upon this capacity year-by-year for the last three quarters of a century. Russia has had an several fits and starts that has thrown their military complex into a shoddy shadow of what it used to be.

Gatling

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Does the FSA even exist anymore?

Depends on who and what you believe is written many seem to think the FSA is actually Isis funded by the US and John Macain is fully paid member but others thinks there all head choppers (idiotic phrase) except the Russians who claim there all terrorist's except themselves

karma_

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, they don't. They're definitely ahead of most countries, but they're not as adept as Britain, the U.S., or France's forces.



You are aware that Western Europeans ripped the world apart twice, right? The West isn't ruthless, because it doesn't need to be. It has the ability to restrain itself from causing unnecessary casualties. Russia does not have the technical skill or the assets to do this, or if they do, it's on a much, much more reduced level.



That might've been great when they had the largest manpower reserve in Europe back in the early 1900s, but that's not how wars are fought today. Russia's army is antiquated, poorly trained, and poorly armed (they only issued socks as part of the uniform in 2013). Russia's navy is a rust bucket. They had to bring two tugboats for their two warships to train in the Atlantic... Then realized it was a bit stormy in the North Atlantic, so they parked up the Seine for a while and then went back to Russia. Russia's nuclear assets are also falling behind, as they do not have enough skilled workers to keep up with demand. They're bringing so many warheads into active deployment in order to keep people trained.

The only thing that is quite well funded is their air force, and even that is half-baked ideas at best. Look at the PAK-FA. Russia mocked the US for developing stealth fighters, saying it was pointless, then tried to develop their own but India has bought Rafale and Russia doesn't have the cash to fully fund the project.


Even if casualties don't bother them, they're going to take a lot of them. The West's forces are simply, pound-for-pound, the best in the world. Each soldier has so much money invested in them, has so much money spent on hardware and R&D... The West's "softness" when it comes to casualties is a strength, not a weakness. It's domestic appeasement, and this works to keep each Western soldier much better funded and trained than his counterparts in Russia or China.

Honestly, just flag waving rhetoric and is completely dismissive of other aspects of war such as things I mentioned in an earlier post. And by the way, I'm a keen student of history and far from ignorant on the subject, which is exactly the reason I wouldn't be so dismissive of Russia. That's not even taking into account the numerous examples in history of smaller, less powerful armies defeating larger more powerful ones. Anyway, this feels a bit pointless since we both agree that it's never going to happen in any case.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think China is investing in 5 aircraft carriers for the S/E China Seas? People much smarter than you or I realize the necessity of having a strong naval presence. If they were obsolete, we'd be getting rid of them, not having massive overhauls and a quasi-arms race in developing capabilities.

All militaries plan to fight the last war. Sure they would be useful for a conflict with a smaller nation but if your talking about large powers (or todays asymmetric warfare)they are pointless.

BoJack Horseman

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Why do you think China is investing in 5 aircraft carriers for the S/E China Seas? People much smarter than you or I realize the necessity of having a strong naval presence. If they were obsolete, we'd be getting rid of them, not having massive overhauls and a quasi-arms race in developing capabilities.

Indeed, talk of navy obsolesce is poppycock.

If they were a thing of the past, what about: Project 23000E, Russia's much desired future carrier.

China has their plans, as you said... 5 in total.

France will have Chaz De Gaulle for a couple of decades yet & they have the plans in place for a nuclear powered QE2 class.

India has 2 in service, to be retired & 2 in production

Then there are the myriad of nations with STOVL carriers.
Britain, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Japan (this is why the F35-B is a game changer).

The years to come will see more active carriers than any previous peace time.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed, talk of navy obsolesce is poppycock.

If they were a thing of the past, what about: Project 23000E, Russia's much desired future carrier.

China has their plans, as you said... 5 in total.

France will have Chaz De Gaulle for a couple of decades yet & they have the plans in place for a nuclear powered QE2 class.

India has 2 in service, to be retired & 2 in production

Then there are the myriad of nations with STOVL carriers.
Britain, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Japan (this is why the F35-B is a game changer).

The years to come will see more active carriers than any previous peace time.

And look at the UK, historically the eminent naval power of all time, and they have commissioned two and have no plans to have planes capable of using them. That tells you all you need to know.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

historically the eminent naval power of all time, and they have commissioned two and have no plans to have planes capable of using them. That tells you all you need to know.

Except for the 48 planes already on order, 4 of which are already active & in testing.

Trouble with being such a keen history expert, it seems to leave little room for the future!

As I said (and it's a fact) the number of aircraft carriers is only going in one direction & in the years to come will be at their most numerous since WW2

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Except for the 48 planes already on order, 4 of which are already active & in testing.

Trouble with being such a keen history expert, it seems to leave little room for the future!

As I said (and it's a fact) the number of aircraft carriers is only going in one direction & in the years to come will be at their most numerous since WW2

The fact that there is going to be so many in no way backs up the argument that they aren't totally pointless. France could build another maginot line or two and it would be a waste of time too.

edit/ and by the way it's not like this is some sort of radical opinion, the same argument crops up time after time in the press.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

The fact that there is going to be so many in no way backs up the argument that they aren't totally pointless..

Of course they have a point.... a point surely obvious to a keen student of history?

Put simply, what is power, without the ability to project that power be it soft or hard.

Why else will Ivan go to the trouble of sinking billions into creating a new ship yard for the sole purpose of building their desired 100,000 tonne behemoth?

So, whether it's soft power or the very more direct projection of same.
capital ships still hold great appeal for world powers, as a point of national pride and key to leaders keen to appear safe & strong both home & abroad.

What may seem pointless to you obviously doesn't seem pointless to Czar Vlad, Xi Jinping & Narendra Modi.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course they have a point.... a point surely obvious to a keen student of history?

Put simply, what is power, without the ability to project that power be it soft or hard.

Why else will Ivan go to the trouble of sinking billions into creating a new ship yard for the sole purpose of building their desired 100,000 tonne behemoth?

So, whether it's soft power or the very more direct projection of same.
capital ships still hold great appeal for world powers, keen to appear safe & strong both home & abroad.

And a fine capitalist such as yourself surely sees the risk of having something worth £6 billion be susceptible to something that costs a few hundred thousand. So keep the condescension up, by all means.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

the risk of having something worth £6 billion be susceptible to something that costs a few hundred thousand.

That's why they don't sail alone!

and yes, I suppose I am a fine capitalist.... what sane person outside North Korea isn't

Shurimgreat

karma_ wrote: »

The fact that there is going to be so many in no way backs up the argument that they aren't totally pointless. France could build another maginot line or two and it would be a waste of time too.

edit/ and by the way it's not like this is some sort of radical opinion, the same argument crops up time after time in the press.

The point is you can't just rustle up an aircraft carrier at short notice a bit like the trident submarines. I agree most of these aircraft carriers are underused but you might need them eventually. As has been said they are mostly about force projection. The Americans pretty much rule the pacific because of their aircraft carriers. Its often said the battle of midway turned the course of ww2 in the pacific. The japs lost most of their carriers and were in trouble from then on. But they are incredibly expensive.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's why they don't sail alone!

and yes, I suppose I am a fine capitalist.... what sane person outside North Korea isn't

Why don't you just come out and say it, I'd respect you more for it.

BoJack Horseman

karma_ wrote: »

Why don't you just come out and say it.

Say what friend?

karma_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The point is you can't just rustle up an aircraft carrier at short notice a bit like the trident submarines. I agree most of these aircraft carriers are underused but you might need them eventually. As has been said they are mostly about force projection. The Americans pretty much rule the pacific because of their aircraft carriers. Its often said the battle of midway turned the course of ww2 in the pacific. The japs lost most of their carriers and were in trouble from then on. But they are incredibly expensive.

Well Bojack said it himself there, I suspect they are more a product of status or national pride than they are of military value these days. Or just some good old fashioned corrupt juicy defence contracts handed out to friends.

glued

Gatling wrote: »

Depends on who and what you believe is written many seem to think the FSA is actually Isis funded by the US and John Macain is fully paid member but others thinks there all head choppers (idiotic phrase) except the Russians who claim there all terrorist's except themselves

Where has anyone said any of that? What a bizarre post.

Shurimgreat

Assad from day 1 labelled anyone who opposed him a terrorist. Its easy to forget that I know. Peaceful demonstrator, moderate opposition such as snl who are banned and exiled, defected soldiers, all labelled terrorist. As someone said anyone who doesnt lick Assads boots is a terrorist according to him and his backers.

Syria is a brutal dictatorship, anyone who argues otherwise can't really be taken seriously.

Shurimgreat

glued wrote: »

The FSA don't exist. Why can't you understand that? It's nothing but a blanket term for 'moderate rebels' pushed by the SNC. They exist only in name but they don't have any presence on the ground. They are many minor rebel groups spread across a vast area in Western Syria with no central command, no communication and absolutely no allegiance to anything except for to defeat Assad. If the FSA existed Al-Nusra would be one of the biggest contributors as in the media the FSA are essentially anyone bar ISIS or the Kurds battling Assad.

There is not one shred of evidence that the FSA actually exist on the battlefield.

Your knowledge of this conflict is weak to say the least particularly your misunderstanding of the relationship between the snc and the fsa.

The fsa who still very much exist, whether you like it not is irrelevant. They largely despise the snc who they view as academics trying to piggy back on their sacrifices. Clearly you missed this point. You also seem to struggle with thd complexities of the conflict and prefer generalisations.

Suffice it to say the fsa exist but unless you chop off a few heads in syria you aren't taken seriously by the media or it seems posters around here.

Once more there are 100s of different groups in syria. There are many different brigades within the fsa. As for a command structure many of their senior commanders live in turkey. And the russians are bombing their command posts in syria, something you seem keen to ignore.

glued

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Your knowledge of this conflict is weak to say the least particularly your musunderstanding of the relationship between the snc and the fsa. In any case I understand now how weak your understanding is of the conflict, in fact its next to nothing other than peddling a pro russian line.

You'll have to try harder than that next time. You're boring me with your nonsense posts like this. You're incapable of posting without a petulant, pathetic insult.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence, I think you've done enough of that yourself.

Lockstep

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

'they're" viewed as a reputable source? You mean HE is viewed as a reputable source. The SOHR is a one man show! He hasn't set foot in Syria since 2000. I'm not saying he doesn't know whats going on in Syria but media outlets depending on an individual as a reputable source ......


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights

Yes, when referring to an organisation, "they're" is the normal term of address. But I'd rather not argue semantics with you.

At any rate, in addition to being seen as a reputable source by CNN, BBC and the Independent, he's also used as a source by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Hell, here's what one of Amnesty's own Middle East researchers says about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

“Generally, the [SOHR] information on the killings of civilians is very good, definitely one of the best, including the details on the conditions in which people were supposedly killed,”

That's a fairly solid endorsement of the SOHR as a source.

glued wrote: »

Hold on here for a minute. There you go again with this 'I provided proof' nonsense. The SOHR aren't a reliable organisation. You have not provided a reputable shred of evidence that isn't skewed with SOHR 'facts'.

Using the SOHR is like using Russia Today, complete nonsense and nobody of any competence should use them as a source.

See above. Just because you dislike the SOHR's findings doesn't make them wrong or unreliable. Unless you think Amnesty is part of some massive anti-Russian conspiracy as well.
Your entire argument basically seems to operate on the following basis
"I DEMAND PROOF"
*Sources are provided*
"I DON'T RECOGNIZE THESE SOURCES BECAUSE REASONS. I DEMAND PROOF"
Etc

I'm not going to bother replying to you any longer. The fact that you state the FSA and AoM are moderates tells its own story. Never mind the fact that the FSA doesn't actually exist. Just because every lazy journalist in the main stream media is saying something doesn't make it true.

Even the Russians claim the FSA exist

Likewise, the FSA's Southern Front still exist and continue to resist in southern Syria

Here's their mission statement

We are the farmers, the teachers, and the workers that you see every day. Many of us were among the soldiers who defected from a corrupt regime that had turned its weapons around to fight its own countrymen. We represent many classes but our goal is one: to topple the Assad regime and give Syria a chance at a better future. There is no room for sectarianism and extremism in our society, and they will find no room in Syria’s future. The Syrian people deserve the freedom to express their opinions and to work toward a better future. We are striving to create in Syria a government that represents the people and works for their interest. We are the Southern Front.

Certainly not an endorsement of extremism.

Moderates are a minority of the rebels (more if you include moderate Islamists] but they certainly exist and we really should be helping them.

Gatling

glued wrote: »

Where has anyone said any of that? What a bizarre post.

It's all over this thread

IrishTrajan

karma_ wrote: »

And a fine capitalist such as yourself surely sees the risk of having something worth £6 billion be susceptible to something that costs a few hundred thousand. So keep the condescension up, by all means.

You are grossly underestimating the defensive capabilities of a carrier strike group. A carrier strike group is, essentially, a moving fortress, and they have better defences against missiles and torpedoes than entire nations.

There is also the small matter of their strategic use. They allow for immense projection of power. Your argument about them being useless against Great Powers is also largely nonsensical. There's only one country with "carrier-killers" and that's China... And they've not actually been employed, and if you know weapons technicians, you'd know that US carriers already have a high likelihood of being able to knock them out within their terminal flight phase anyway.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Your knowledge of this conflict is weak to say the least particularly your misunderstanding of the relationship between the snc and the fsa.

The fsa who still very much exist, whether you like it not is irrelevant. They largely despise the snc who they view as academics trying to piggy back on their sacrifices. Clearly you missed this point. You also seem to struggle with thd complexities of the conflict and prefer generalisations.

Suffice it to say the fsa exist but unless you chop off a few heads in syria you aren't taken seriously by the media or it seems posters around here.

Once more there are 100s of different groups in syria. There are many different brigades within the fsa. As for a command structure many of their senior commanders live in turkey. And the russians are bombing their command posts in syria, something you seem keen to ignore.

That says a lot, their leaders are in Turkey you say, that's very convenient for them.

Gatling wrote: »

It's all over this thread

Repeated a lot by you.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You are grossly underestimating the defensive capabilities of a carrier strike group. A carrier strike group is, essentially, a moving fortress, and they have better defences against missiles and torpedoes than entire nations.

There is also the small matter of their strategic use. They allow for immense projection of power. Your argument about them being useless against Great Powers is also largely nonsensical. There's only one country with "carrier-killers" and that's China... And they've not actually been employed, and if you know weapons technicians, you'd know that US carriers already have a high likelihood of being able to knock them out within their terminal flight phase anyway.

So long as you can afford to run them i suppose, still susceptible to a hit, haven't they been buzzed by aircraft and drones either comp!etely unbeknown to the US navy or at such notice that they were unaware of their presence until it was too late.

Gatling

US special forces free 70+ hostages in Iraq earlier today from an Isis controlled prison one US SF (kia ) 6 Isis captured and many more killed in the first mass hostage rescue in a long time by special forces ,
Most of the 70 hostages were Iraqi security forces and according to the US they faced imminent death ,

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

That says a lot, their leaders are in Turkey you say, that's very convenient for them.



Repeated a lot by you.



So long as you can afford to run them i suppose, still susceptible to a hit, haven't they been buzzed by aircraft and drones either comp!etely unbeknown to the US navy or at such notice that they were unaware of their presence until it was too late.

Source? Link? Don't think there's any reports of that largely because the plane in question would be blown out of the sky. Small drones perhaps but they are harmless enough. As others have said aircraft carriers by themselves are vulnerable but they are surrounded by ships with sophisticated defences and weapons. In short you'd want to be crazy to attack a carrier group.

Shurimgreat

While the Americans are fighting ISIS hand to hand on the ground the Russians admit they don't even know where ISIS are and want the Americans help finding them. Putin has no interest going after ISIS.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

While the Americans are fighting ISIS in hand to hand combat on the fround the Russians admit they don't even know where ISIS are and want the Americans help finding them. Putin has no interest going after ISIS.

They've been at buzzing USN ships for the last 15 years, surprising you ask for sources and links and then provide none yourself?

Gatling

cerastes wrote: »

They've been at buzzing USN ships for the last 15 years, surprising you ask for sources and links and then provide none yourself?

They have been buzzing NATO countries for a lot longer and yet nobody is really bothered but yet Russian media make it out there taking on the imperialist forces and winning its amost north Korean inspired

BoJack Horseman

cerastes wrote: »

haven't they been buzzed by aircraft and drones either comp!etely unbeknown to the US navy or at such notice that they were unaware of their presence until it was too late.

No, because given the carriers area of operation, what air force would?

There are 2 carriers on deployment normally.
1 in the gulf (or at least there is normally)
1 in Japan.

so the only aggressive air force in range is Iran's & they haven't bothered such a thing in a long time.

The individual ships tha enter the black sea are of course much more vulnerable.... but they know exactly what is around them.

There was a hilarious story last year about an old SU-24 rendering the entire US navy's radar system inert..... frantically reported by Russian media & bot sites...
comical stuff

Shurimgreat

Gatling wrote: »

They have been buzzing NATO countries for a lot longer and yet nobody is really bothered but yet Russian media make it out there taking on the imperialist forces and winning its amost north Korean inspired

In the absence of a link, I dug out my own.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0415/Russian-aircraft-buzz-US-Navy-destroyer-How-big-a-deal

It happens from time to time yes. The onus is on the ships to show restraint because they could easily take any plane out of the sky.

US pilots might have a reputation for being cowboys, largely underserved. But clearly the Russian pilots are far worse and more unprofessional.

Gatling

Shurimgreat wrote: »

In the absence of a link, I dug out my own.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0415/Russian-aircraft-buzz-US-Navy-destroyer-How-big-a-deal

It happens from time to time yes. The onus is on the ships to show restraint because they could easily take any plane out of the sky.

US pilots might have a reputation for being cowboys, largely underserved. But clearly the Russian pilots are far worse and more unprofessional.

Humbug forgot a link

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

US special forces free 70+ hostages in Iraq earlier today from an Isis controlled prison one US SF (kia ) 6 Isis captured and many more killed in the first mass hostage rescue in a long time by special forces ,
Most of the 70 hostages were Iraqi security forces and according to the US they faced imminent death ,

Seen that.
Looks like it was a joint Delta Force/Kurdish raid.

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

I'd guess it's because that's where their command centre and base is at, they would be crazy not to.

ISIS have a command centre and base in Latakia? Source?

IrishTrajan

cerastes wrote: »

So long as you can afford to run them i suppose, still susceptible to a hit, haven't they been buzzed by aircraft and drones either comp!etely unbeknown to the US navy or at such notice that they were unaware of their presence until it was too late.

No, they haven't. The Chinese, Russians and Iranians like to spout these nonsensical and fantastical ravings to try and big themselves up... The reality is, if anyone started messing with a US carrier group's ability to operate, they'd blow the aircraft out of the sky.