DescentBB

...with a warning.

Russia warns against US attack on Syrian forces

Russia warned the United States Saturday against carrying out any attacks on Syrian government forces, saying it would have repercussions across the Middle East as government forces captured a hill on the edge of the northern city of Aleppo under the cover of airstrikes.

Russian news agencies quoted Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying that a U.S. intervention against the Syrian army "will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b1dff53f ... ian-forces

vision wrote:False.

Wrong NS post vision.

NS, Russia is backing Assad, nothing we do will change that. Assad and the Russians are bombing the crap out of Aleppo. Russia doesn't want the U.S. to target the Syrian forces they're backing either. They have that right since they're allies. I'd say we're stuck between a rock and a hard place unless we want to enter into a full scale war with Russia in order to render humanitarian aide and possible salvation to the besieged residents of Aleppo and also bring down Assad as part of the deal. Now the question is, will Americans want to stomach a large scale war, or possibly a nuclear war, with Russia, in the effort to put down a 2-bit tinpot murderous dictator? Putin has stated in the past that he's willing to use nukes if necessary to defend Russia and her interests, and Syria is definitely a Russian interest.

tunnelcat wrote: NS, Russia is backing Assad, nothing we do will change that. Assad and the Russians are bombing the crap out of Aleppo. Russia doesn't want the U.S. to target the Syrian forces they're backing either. They have that right since they're allies. I'd say we're stuck between a rock and a hard place unless we want to enter into a full scale war with Russia in order to render humanitarian aide and possible salvation to the besieged residents of Aleppo and also bring down Assad as part of the deal. Now the question is, will Americans want to stomach a large scale war, or possibly a nuclear war, with Russia, in the effort to put down a 2-bit tinpot murderous dictator? Putin has stated in the past that he's willing to use nukes if necessary to defend Russia and her interests, and Syria is definitely a Russian interest.

Yes. We really should stay the heck out of Syria. We have to take care of Iraq- nothing can change that; but we shouldn't push the Russians...especially after the stunt that Turkey pulled to try to get a war with Russia started.

tunnelcat wrote:

vision wrote:False.

Wrong NS post vision.

Holy crap, did he edit this post into a completely unrelated topic? Wow. He's a BS posting machine! We can't reply fast enough!

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

vision wrote:False.

Wrong NS post vision.

Holy crap, did he edit this post into a completely unrelated topic? Wow. He's a BS posting machine! We can't reply fast enough!

Or vision, you have your head in a certain dark spot and didn't read correctly.

woodchip wrote:Or vision, you have your head in a certain dark spot and didn't read correctly.

Nah, he edited the thread. It used to say something like "Massive Scale Voter Fraud" and blamed the DEMOCRATS (in all caps). I think phpbb has a way to the check edit history and admins could confirm it.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Or vision, you have your head in a certain dark spot and didn't read correctly.

Nah, he edited the thread. It used to say something like "Massive Scale Voter Fraud" and blamed the DEMOCRATS (in all caps). I think phpbb has a way to the check edit history and admins could confirm it.

Yeah, I was in the process of re-checking the story and it turned out to be bogus so I deleted it. You must have replied within a millisecond of my initial post because I deleted it right away when I found it was false in other tab I had opened.

I have the impression that squabbles it is favorite entertainment of Americans It seems destroy the country from within a piece of cake, if only Russia would like it

sigma wrote:I have the impression that squabbles it is favorite entertainment of Americans It seems destroy the country from within a piece of cake, if only Russia would like it

Sigma, I have no idea why you delight in our demise- but bear in mind that Russia is far more brittle and prone to instability than the USA has ever been since the Civil War over 150 years ago.

It has only been 24 years since the Soviet Union collapsed...and Russia was taken over by a communist revolution only 76 or 77 years before that.

The Russian conventional military is a thin cracking eggshell of its former Soviet self and its nuclear arsenal is all that remains that is a real threat.

Nightshade wrote:Yeah, I was in the process of re-checking the story and it turned out to be bogus so I deleted it.

I commend you for double checking the story. Keep it up. And a little self control will get you far.

Nightshade wrote:

sigma wrote:I have the impression that squabbles it is favorite entertainment of Americans It seems destroy the country from within a piece of cake, if only Russia would like it

Sigma, I have no idea why you delight in our demise- but bear in mind that Russia is far more brittle and prone to instability than the USA has ever been since the Civil War over 150 years ago.

It has only been 24 years since the Soviet Union collapsed...and Russia was taken over by a communist revolution only 76 or 77 years before that.

The Russian conventional military is a thin cracking eggshell of its former Soviet self and its nuclear arsenal is all that remains that is a real threat.

OK.
On the other hand, the naked eye can see that the United States as tetraodon struggling to appear larger than it actually is. There is something behind that. It's fear. And perhaps almost critical domestic problems. Or something similar.
Of course, as you quite rightly remembered, Russia is known for its unpredictability. But why aggravate the situation, the NATO flag waving in front of the muzzle of the Russian bear? And many, many, many, many other silly mistakes. You have to be a complete moron to risk the lives of 300 million Americans for the sake of personal ambition.

thanks, Sigma, for illustrating why the US needs to maintain a predictable leader. With your proud boast, and the evidence extant from North Korea, adding a third 'unpredictable' nuclear armed nation to the global mix might be disasterous.

callmeslick wrote:thanks, Sigma, for illustrating why the US needs to maintain a predictable leader. With your proud boast, and the evidence extant from North Korea, adding a third 'unpredictable' nuclear armed nation to the global mix might be disasterous.

Firstly, I want to say that the constant upgrading and increasing the number of Russian weapons of mass destruction is completely and only the guilt of the United States. It's just a necessary defensive reaction to compensation in the confrontation with NATO. Which, incidentally, is always portrayed in the Western media as a Russian aggression. While everyone understands that this is a necessary measure to reflect any, even accidental attacks on Russia. Not only from the United States.
Remember who is now the President of Russia? Here really powerful nuclear weapons under such strict control, it is difficult to convey in words.
I'm more concerned about the cases of drug use by military personnel in the US military who have access to a serious strategic nuclear weapons. I even more concerned that the United States has renewed nuclear warheads at the NATO missiles in Europe, although there was no news in the media, where and when have been disposed of old warheads and whether they have been disposed of at all.


Add: I'm willing to bet, Slick or once again ignore the uncomfortable topic, or will play the role of verbiage )

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

vision wrote:False.

Wrong NS post vision.

Holy crap, did he edit this post into a completely unrelated topic? Wow. He's a BS posting machine! We can't reply fast enough!

NS deleted one. When I first came here yesterday, your post went with the proper NS rant vision. After reading and posting for a bit, I came back couldn't find the original post that went with yours when I went looking for it.

Nightshade wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: NS, Russia is backing Assad, nothing we do will change that. Assad and the Russians are bombing the crap out of Aleppo. Russia doesn't want the U.S. to target the Syrian forces they're backing either. They have that right since they're allies. I'd say we're stuck between a rock and a hard place unless we want to enter into a full scale war with Russia in order to render humanitarian aide and possible salvation to the besieged residents of Aleppo and also bring down Assad as part of the deal. Now the question is, will Americans want to stomach a large scale war, or possibly a nuclear war, with Russia, in the effort to put down a 2-bit tinpot murderous dictator? Putin has stated in the past that he's willing to use nukes if necessary to defend Russia and her interests, and Syria is definitely a Russian interest.

Yes. We really should stay the heck out of Syria. We have to take care of Iraq- nothing can change that; but we shouldn't push the Russians...especially after the stunt that Turkey pulled to try to get a war with Russia started.

Sooooo, who do you think would be more likely to invade Syria and bring on Russia's ire as our next president? A thin skinned aggressive spoiled rich brat who takes exception to every little slight, like Trump, or the wussy, dickless female who's never been driven by testosterone in her whole life, like Clinton?

Well, considering the supposed friendship between Trump and Putin, I would have to say we would have less to fear from Russian aggression if Trump was elected.

Logical?

Of course it’s all BS if you ask me.

tunnelcat wrote:Sooooo, who do you think would be more likely to invade Syria and bring on Russia's ire as our next president? A thin skinned aggressive spoiled rich brat who takes exception to every little slight, like Trump, or the wussy, dickless female who's never been driven by testosterone in her whole life, like Clinton?

TC, Clinton is the neocon. There's a good chance she'll start WW3 because she will simply continue Obama's disaster in the middle east. How do you think we got involved in Syria?

Trump, as Spidey noted, is more open to backing down and negotiating with the Russians whereas the Obama administration has broken off all dialogue and is considering "options" in Syria.

Clinton will continue the same Obamanation of a path to war without a doubt.