This government offensive for Aleppo is mental. They'll be no one there soon. Awful.
Printable View
This government offensive for Aleppo is mental. They'll be no one there soon. Awful.
Saudi Arabia offering to invade Syria to fight ISIS (lads...) was good, as was the Revolutionary Guards actually lolling at them.
Peter Oborne goes to Aleppo:
Sounds like a great holiday.Quote:
'This was not regime change, it was invasion. And why was it taking a religious theme? Why does it have a beard? We are not ready to replace a secular society with a religious one.'
Well that was thoroughly depressing and once again Turkey somehow come across as the biggest bastards involved.
Utterly desperate scenes now with Assad claiming he won't stop until the rebels are crushed, no matter what the cost. Just seen a video of some really young kids running about in rubble after a shelling shouting for their mama. My heart felt like it's been ripped out. Fuck it.
I like how the BBC have described it: 'Iran, Russia and Lebanon's Hezbollah movement are propping up the Alawite-led Assad government, while Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar back the more moderate Sunni-dominated opposition, along with the US, UK and France'.
That sounds about right.
Turkey has started shelling the Kurds.
And the lol EU want them to become part of Europe. It would be a disaster.
Pics coming out from the besieged towns near Aleppo, fucking horrendous. Can only imagine if social media was around during WW2...
Russia deliberately attacking hospitals too.
Well lads, what's the suggestion for fixing it?
I believe I've outlined it before. Support the Kurds, join forces with Iran and tell/force the Saudi's and Turks to stop helping the wrong people.
Let the Russians get on with it. They know what they're doing, presumably because they lost the Cold War and had to wise up.
This article on Saudi Arabia's filthy involvement in Yemen is interesting. In short, they want to run an oil pipeline through it.
Philip Hammond has seen 'disturbing evidence' of the Kurds co-operating with the Syrians and the Russians, which makes him 'distinctly uneasy about the Kurds' role in all of this'. Mate, The Sunday Times interviewed Assad in December and he said the government gave the Kurds weapons, and where did you think they were getting them all in the first place? They can't possibly be that stupid (they are, but my 'This is why you're ineffective' job application was possibly a mistake), so this may be the start of blowing them out for the Turks. Way to go.
Syrians retake Palmyra
Great news, all but ignored in the media because it was the Syrians (with Russian help). This is a major blow to ISIS in the place where they'd done so much to wreck ancient heritage sites.
Sorry how has it been ignored? I've heard frequent updates on the radio and in The Guardian.
It was the main story on the BBC website for two days. :D
Shia Twitter was gloating over the BBC referring to 'Syrian government forces' rather than 'Assad's orc legions' (or whatever it was before). They're loving it.
Yeah that was even on TV news the other day. Think it was ITN I saw it on.
Do the Shias like Assad then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
They can't get enough of anything that kicks Saudi Arabia in the bollocks.
Well he's an Alawite so... Then again he bombs his own people so...
It's a blow to ISIS's prestige certainly, but it hardly ranks as their Stalingrad.
Speaking of which, the Russians have donned this on every level haven't they? And all for less money than the Americans have spent waging a proxy war against themselves (which I believe is a world first).
Yep. And they've fucked Europe as well with their own throbbing, pink, liberal dick.
They have, really. Even prior to their formal intervention, they ran rings around the Americans on the chemical weapon issue.
The one thing you would say about the Russians is that, whether you like their strategy or not, they've at least had one with a clear end game. The west have, as usual, waded into something they don't really understand, thrown around moral judgements and then watched as said judgements have forced them to try and defend stupid or illogical positions. It's been quite the lesson from the Russians on how to get what you want.
How are the sanctions holding up over Crimea? I see the oil price has rebounded, which helps them but some of the analyses I read a while back suggested they would probably go bankrupt by the summer so fuck knows what the actual state of affairs is.
I was trying to think of a major Russian foreign policy failure post-1941 the other day, and even with Afghanistan you could make the case that they were actually right, so there is clearly something to be said for basing your entire national psyche on expected suffering.
Isn't that what Scotland do?
Huh? Russia and Karmal lost big time to Pakistan and the US. Otherwise you're right, but that foreign policy blunder along with all of the domestic blunders led to the biggest empire collapse ever, so it's p important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
How were they right on Afghanistan?
Their empire collapsed because communism is a shithouse way to run an economy. As for Afghanistan, they would have been better letting it rot; but on balance they probably had a better idea of what to do with it than their opponents did.
We got someone else to start fighting a war we did not want. To do it they starved out a city and bombed hospitals in a way Isreal or the US would get crucified over. In the US print media at least, there was barely a sound. Russia and Iran are now on the hook for the cleanup and any resulting insurgency which will take up a good chunk of their mischief funds. How easy will it be to get out of Syria? We are getting much what we wanted except Assad. How much did we really care? It doesn't look all bad.
I have no doubt that the Americans are secretly okay about the Russian intervention, insofar as they can pretend that the danger of a 'hostile incident' with them renders any deeper involvement unwise. That said, the American policy in Syria has been incredibly muddled by trying to support one of the three major factions whilst bombing a second of the three factions and actively campaigning, albeit they've stopped now, for the removal of the third faction from power. This all stemmed from their wading in and recognising the 'opposition council' without having a fucking clue who was actually behind it, getting themselves into diplomatic knots and not wanting to row back from their stated public position.
I don't think Obama has ever aimed for anything other than containment and views the region as a wasteful time sink. If you can't win, then the trick is to not be left holding the mess. Everyone has the same three sides dilemma and the Atlantic stops the refugee issue from being ours.
Perhaps, but if that's the case then you shouldn't go and officially recognise the opposition's ill-formed political body or make a huge deal about "red lines" which you're not prepared to enforce.
His argument (not necessarily mine) has been that they stopped using them after he drew the line. And that Putin is truly weak because he can't just say it - to enforce it he has to level the place.
I was under the impression that the empire collapsed mainly because Gorbachev eased up on things. It's not like the economy was that much better under Stalin or Krushchev (or maybe it was, I'm just getting to Gorbachev in my history class so not extremely informed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
They'd probably have held it together in some form if Gorbahev hadn't implemented his reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
But the economy was performing better under Stalin and Krushchev. Their system was very good at rapid industrialisation, less so at providing consumer goods and so forth.
I've always had it that they developed rapidly whilst there was still spare industrial capacity, but once they had all the steel they needed they started failing, which was why Leonid Brezhnev had to turn a blind eye to the black market (the 'Little Deal') to keep things ticking along until their oil crisis pushed them over the edge and made those reforms necessary. They could probably have kept going regardless, but they would have either had to give up the Cold War or starve half the population.
I only recently read the story of Boris Yeltsin and the Texas supermarket. That's pretty funny if you've got a few minutes.
:D
That's superb.
Evidence of why wading in early doors to back "the rebels" against Assad - and compounding it by DEMANDING he step down - was a fucking stupid idea.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multim...97_739757b.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by GS
"No problem mate"
I don't even know what that means.
Then you have an incredibly short-term memory.
The bombing campaign was a separate issue, as it was designed to 'punish' Assad for chemical weapon use.
The issue of Assad stepping down being a condition for anything - indeed, the rebels being recognised by certain parts of the international community, no less - was a far more stupid decision with more profound consequences.
The battle for Mosul has begun. This quote from the Iraqi PM is all kinds of :drool:
Quote:
"Our dearest people in Nineveh province, the victory bell has rung, and the operations to liberate Mosul have begun. I am announcing today the beginning of these heroic operations to liberate you from the brutality and terrorism of ISIS. God willing, we will meet soon on the ground of Mosul where we will all celebrate the liberation and your freedom."
US just launched a chunk of missiles at Syria.
And Trump ... delivered ... a speech ... at one ... or two .... words ... per minute.