EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 143
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:27 Kaitlin wrote: I guess that's one way to see it... if you're completely blind. President Obama was leading the charge for the attack and he couldn't drum up any support. Consequently, as I said, since he is absolutely unwilling to do anything which he can be blamed for, he is in the process of backing down. Kerry's comment was not a blunder; it wasn't even unintentional. he wasn't leading anything. he was bullshited about this from the get go; he was a puppet listening to his advisors, aka lobbyists/interest groups or whatever you have there. | ||
|
riyanme
Philippines940 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:45 xM(Z wrote: he wasn't leading anything. he was bullshited about this from the get go; he was a puppet listening to his advisors, aka lobbyists/interest groups or whatever you have there. But he promised to not have any lobbyists / interest groups in his Administration, remember ? So, they can't be advising him. His advisers are individually hand-picked. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:45 xM(Z wrote: he wasn't leading anything. he was bullshited about this from the get go; he was a puppet listening to his advisors, aka lobbyists/interest groups or whatever you have there. Obama number one cheerleader for bombing Syria But of course Boooooooooooooooooooosh The bullshit nonsense people will say so they can act like Obama is soooo different from Boooooooooooooooooooosh Jesus the man hasn't been president for 4 years and 9 months and you can't even tell that he isn't in the Oval Office anymore Barack Obama is zero difference from George Booooooooooooooooooooosh except he talked shit on George Booooooooooooooooosh and with a wink and a smile he says oh no things are different now and the less astute are sooooooo easily fooled by it just because they hate George Booooooooooooooooooooosh so much Obama could invade Iraq again tomorrow and say "hey this is different" and guaranteed there'd be people lining up ten deep to desperately explain how it wouldn't be the same as Emmanuel Goldstein I mean George Booooooooooooooooooooosh | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Holy. Shit. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On September 11 2013 07:38 Roe wrote: Did "Debbie" just promote Flip Flopping Romney as a better alternative to Obama? Yeah I'm glad you didn't elect him too. yeah man keep living in the fantasy world romney's dog in a cage on top of the car would be a better alternative than obama talk about flip flopping 1 week ago obama was beating his chest and scolding the world and implying he'd bomb syria pretty much no matter what now he's all for diplomacy and negotiating a deal because he's such a fool vladimir putin can run rings around him without breaking a sweat | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Assad will never have complete control over Syria again, is there a town or city in the country that isn't in ruins? Holy. Shit. link That video.... wow. To see that tank blown up, knowing that there are actual people inside of it.... it's a lot different from how it looks in the movies and video games.... :[ | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Assad will never have complete control over Syria again, is there a town or city in the country that isn't in ruins? Holy. Shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO3keRxRbso its amazing how close the rebels can get to those Syrian tanks. If they were armed with any reasonable AT weapons, all those tanks and APCs would have been dead. Also, bizzare to see tanks with no infantry support at all just parked in random areas around high rises and shit. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:43 Warlock40 wrote: That video.... wow. To see that tank blown up, knowing that there are actual people inside of it.... it's a lot different from how it looks in the movies and video games.... :[ I felt the same way. It's sad there's really no good outcome to this whole situation. No matter who wins, a lot of people will suffer in the process, and a lot more will probably suffer after the war itself is over. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On September 11 2013 09:00 Sub40APM wrote: its amazing how close the rebels can get to those Syrian tanks. If they were armed with any reasonable AT weapons, all those tanks and APCs would have been dead. Also, bizzare to see tanks with no infantry support at all just parked in random areas around high rises and shit. if you don't have enough infantry to protect the tank or can't get the infantry in position cost-effectively, it's better to have the tank out there than simply ceding control of the area. even though tanks without infantry support are hideously vulnerable in urban combat (and anywhere that isn't an open plain really) they're still tough nuts to crack and have more firepower than a whole squad of soldiers. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:19 DeepElemBlues wrote: yeah man keep living in the fantasy world romney's dog in a cage on top of the car would be a better alternative than obama talk about flip flopping 1 week ago obama was beating his chest and scolding the world and implying he'd bomb syria pretty much no matter what now he's all for diplomacy and negotiating a deal because he's such a fool vladimir putin can run rings around him without breaking a sweat nothing more than empty propaganda you're spewing. I don't find anything in this post impressive or convincing. Try to keep it "real" and not parabolic. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On September 11 2013 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Assad will never have complete control over Syria again, is there a town or city in the country that isn't in ruins? Holy. Shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO3keRxRbso Well Latakia is pretty much intact, except the burned out forest and places where the SAA forces fight the rebels (the mountain areas. On September 11 2013 09:08 DeepElemBlues wrote: if you don't have enough infantry to protect the tank or can't get the infantry in position cost-effectively, it's better to have the tank out there than simply ceding control of the area. even though tanks without infantry support are hideously vulnerable in urban combat (and anywhere that isn't an open plain really) they're still tough nuts to crack and have more firepower than a whole squad of soldiers. Well they way the warfare has developed in the urban areas of Syria, is about snipers and tanks, tanks advance and then the snipers take places, then the tanks retreat, and the snipers are left in the area for a few days, then the tanks advance again and the snipers advance a few buildings more, repeat, repeat, repeat. The thing is that the FSA can't really reach the snipers since they are well hidden and in fortified positions with good vision of the area so they can't really use RPG's or anything like that to reach the snipers since the soldier would get killed before actually firing the grenade ( i have actually seen quite a few videos of that happening, scary shit), and they can't really use mortars since the buildings are of several floors high and the mortars don't have the precision to make a hole across several floors. So the only option really left is the use of IED agaisn't tanks and then try to use your own snipers to kill the enemy snipers, but still for the FSA it is not efficient to use IED's since the T-72 & T-80 are some REALLY biffy tanks, so the only option they have is to use bigger IED's because they just don't have the Javelins/bazookas to destroy such tanks. It is really incredible how these guys can not only hold terrain but to actually win ground in such situation. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
Just because of Russia's singular and completely political objections? The world needs to strike Syria, now. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On September 11 2013 09:00 Sub40APM wrote: its amazing how close the rebels can get to those Syrian tanks. If they were armed with any reasonable AT weapons, all those tanks and APCs would have been dead. Also, bizzare to see tanks with no infantry support at all just parked in random areas around high rises and shit. ANNA is great for Syrian videos; they are filming with the Republican Guard in Damascus/outskirts: https://www.youtube.com/user/newsanna?feature=watch If you watch closely at 12:30 on, you can see a rebel run down the street; that is why the APC stops to blast those buildings. Watch the circled part: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JBERVMx.png) There are plenty of places in Syria not destroyed, the thing is, nobody films those places to upload on the net and get views. Some areas are bleak, especially Darayya, it has gone from a population of 200,000 to a few hundred civilians and a few thousand rebels/jihadists. Lots destroyed, lots not destroyed. | ||
|
Hug-A-Hydralisk
United States174 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 11 2013 09:56 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone disagree that Obama would be in a better position politically than he is now had he simply kept his mouth shut on Syria? so what you are saying is, Obama is courageous enough to sacrifice some political capital and let Republicans insult him a bit to achieve a goal no Republican president has ever managed, the disarmament of Syrian chemical weapons? And he did it without costing one American life? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 11 2013 13:28 Sub40APM wrote: so what you are saying is, Obama is courageous enough to sacrifice some political capital and let Republicans insult him a bit to achieve a goal no Republican president has ever managed, the disarmament of Syrian chemical weapons? And he did it without costing one American life? Uh... lol? 1. When did Obama achieve the disarmament of Syrian chemical weapons? 2. How would his "limited airstrike/no boots on the ground" have achieved said disarmament? 3. Courageous enough to try to turn a bad political situation around on his political opponents and then brave enough to act like he wasn't the one who set the "red-line" and then brave enough to flip-flop back and forth because he has no idea what he's doing? That's something right there, but I don't think most people would call it "courage". | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 11 2013 13:28 Sub40APM wrote: so what you are saying is, Obama is courageous enough to sacrifice some political capital and let Republicans insult him a bit to achieve a goal no Republican president has ever managed, the disarmament of Syrian chemical weapons? And he did it without costing one American life? Obama hasn't accomplished anything yet. To the extent that Syrian disarmament may happen, it could have been done much, much better in a way that wouldn't carry adverse consequences that Obama's course of action has carried. Yeah, there are many ways to skin a cat, but the best ones don't involve cutting off your thumb. And no, I'm not preaching what is obvious with 20/20 hindsight. I'm preaching what has been obvious all along once Obama embarked on this path. The critical mistake was drawing that red line with no intention of enforcing it. Every failure and adverse effect flows from that initial mistake. | ||
| ||
