ThePest179

Banned four wanting two ban me four real.

Kermet the frog. At least most people would be able to understand me when I bsay something.

Kill it with fire, or water?

The desk.

Having a flamethrower, or electricity firing from your hands?

Banned for noticing my intentional misspellings of crtain words.

Next in line is an unofficial political truce with Assad, I think...

 

Regards

That I doubt. Assad is one of the largest reasons for this clusterfuck, and the WH knows.

And, of course, in these situations there are always "advisors" and "specialists" from the main antagonists, such as Russia and the US in the case of Ukraine, fighting a proxy war.

 

Regards

There are no US advisors in or near Ukraine. Also, when I sais "many" I meant alot of them. Particularly Russians but also others like Armenians.

Life.

Cheese, or no cheese?

Banned for not havce the song in your post.

Oh, and who is "RT"?

RT is an abbreviation for Russia Today. Didn't know you weren't talking about me, sorry.

Hmmm, I think you are totally confused about the events sequence now. Anyway, let's see if the ceasefire will hold and what will come out of further negotiations...

 

Regards

Not really. Many separatists came from outside Ukraine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29079052

The world turned upside down.

You move away from the fighting, not toward it.

 

You mean the other 200-odd thousand were just so moronic that they could not tell where the rockets were coming from and tried to escape towards the front?

What?

A) they shouldn't have been fighting anyone, shouldn't have been sent there even, in the first place. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.

 

B) if you do decide to fight against an insurgency then an indiscriminate artillery shelling of residential areas of a large city is not the way to do it because 1) it doesn't work and 2) it is a war crime.

 

Regards

First, the Ukrainian army was responding to a case of foreign aggression, and had to respond.

Second, the Ukrainian army is not as trigger happy as you keep portraying them. They have shelled civilian areas and it IS wrong, but compared to the rebels the Ukrainians have been much more decent.

Banned for not havce tomato.

Granted, but it rains so hard you drown.

I wish I was more important and less complacent.

Death.

Death or life in extreme boredom, forever?

Yes.

I wish for the nineties again.

OT: Nope.

Remember Ego Waffle commercials?

I thought BTG was out of it when he suggested ISIS would use aircraft in a Kamikaze style attack, but ever since ISIS took Tabqa airbase in Syria that may very well be possible (albeit with a great many difficulties, but still possible).

Careful, you might eventually have to apologize for being wrong at some point... (if they end up actually using the aircraft for attacks that is)

Hey, if it happens I'll say I was wrong, but it hasn't happened yet.

Interesting you mention the referendum. Firstly, in my opinion, participation in a poll that may not have been approved by the government should not be an offence punishable by heavy artillery shelling. Secondly, according to a BBC news report based on the UN data, over 1 million people have fled the conflict region, out of whom about 80% went to look for shelter in Russia. This actually ties up statistically with the results of the referendum, no matter what its legality was.

 

Isn't it strange that people who are supposedly in mortal fear of the bullying Russia chose to seek refuge there?

 

Regards

You move away from the fighting, not toward it. And you refuse to answer my question of what the Ukrainian Army is supposed to fight the rebels with, considering that they fired on Ukrainian troops.

Again, jumping to conclusions that are completely untrue.

Umm, what?

Please don't tell me that you're taking RT's side.

Nope. But do you remember when it was a completely stable dictatorship?

Actually no. 1991 and all that.

Remember when bin Laden wasn't a big name in America?

Yes, first there were protests. Then the government sent tanks and IFVs, which promptly surrendered to the protesters without anyone firing a shot. The government then sent more tanks and troops from the Western regions of the country who started killing of the rebel volunteers at checkpoints. That's how it started.

 

Regards

That did not happen. There were protests (not very strong ones either), then armed militants stormed government buildings and fired on Ukrainian troops, sparking a response. Not mention the separatists held a sham referendum which was considered faulty from the few U.N./Western journalists/inspectors there. Your own source shows this.

Oh yes, and those defections? I've seen no verification to that, and they were much more likely to be desertion or surrenders rather than joining the separatists wholesale.

Demonstrators occupying a few buildings - that justifies using tanks and heavy artillery for you? Clutching at straws in this argument, aren't you?

 

Regards

They were armed and immediately fired on Ukrainian troops who weren't backed by tanks and aircraft until a bit later.

And what exactly do you propose Ukraine do to clear out the "rebels"? light infantry with zero armor and artillery?

Mostly agree with you. This shows the difficulty, doesn't it?

 

Iraqi shia and Kurds will continue to bear the brunt of it. Iran will be supporting both, to some extent. Syria's Assad will continue on his own. But that will only lead to a stalemate, they will keep ISIS from expanding, at least for a while, but it won't "roll them back".

 

Without a supportive Muslim coalition the US is unlikely to do anything more than bombing an occasional car or a house "on actionable intelligence". The UK will stay out of it and the Australians? I have no idea.

 

ISIS have been heard threatening Putin with reprisals for the supplies of the Russian jets to Iraq, that may or may not lead to something...

 

Regards

If ISIS is "contained" (and at the rate they get volunteers from abroad and the alarming "total war" strategy they're employing, it seems unlikely to stay "contained") they still have a large car bomb and suicide bomber "industry" to use at their discretion. I thought BTG was out of it when he suggested ISIS would use aircraft in a Kamikaze style attack, but ever since ISIS took Tabqa airbase in Syria that may very well be possible (albeit with a great many difficulties, but still possible). Even if a "stalemate" occurs ISIS would still be able to trigger a large scale Sunni-Shia war and as a result, look like the "defender of Sunnis", and exponentially increase their membership.

ISIS is making threats against Russia? I don't expect ISIS to do much except an attack in Chechnya or Dagestan, and I don't expect Russia to do much, being busy attacking Ukraine and all.

As you wish...

 

But if you are still interested - there is a helpful timeline here on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275

 

Look starting in April 2014 onwards.

 

Regards

Starting in April, pro-Russian "demonstrators" and militants stormed buildings with very little provocation beforehand.

Hey, remember when this thread was for fun and not a politics-laden bitchfest?

Yes, but thanks to a lot of factors in the US and abroad, every single forum I've been to has this creeping in through some form or another. Which reminds me...

Does anyone remember when Iraq was a half stable democracy and not a complete clusterfuck? I don't...

There is very little chance of that happening, unfortunately.

 

My best hope is that the US will be able to form a coalition with key Muslim states in the region - including Iran, Saudis and Syria - in order to take direct action against ISIS. It's going to be difficult, though, but without that, a unilateral military action by the US may just be what ISIS wants. That will generate for them a lot of popular support in the region as they will be seen as heroes fighting the anti-Muslim oppressor...

 

Regards

Iran is opposing US intrests and want Syria and Iraq to be its puppets, the Saudis will never contribute (official) troops (and right now can't trust their own), and Syria is led by a brutal, genocidal, and sectarian dictator, who is practically handing ISIS fighters and will turn many Sunnis against us if we support him.

A real military force in the region would be Jordan, along with as many anti-ISIS Sunni volunteers we can obtain. Otherwise, the US, UK, Australia, and the Iraqis/Kurds are going to be the ones doing most of the fighting.