Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
OverSword

Russian warships gathering off Syria waters

160 posts in this topic

OK thank you for the explanation and your honesty throughout your posts. I don't know much regarding the dissolution even if the region to me is fascinating, maybe one day you could fill me in on the Hrvatski point of view, but I wish you also knew and understood the Serb and Bosniak views too, then synthesize them all to create an above-ground view that would be more factual overall. Your honesty thus is limited but still highly appreciated.

My honesty is not limited by my nationality, only my objectivity can be limited with my nationality.

Or you say there are more and less honest nations?! I seriously doubt a natural speaker can do that sort of mistake in choice of words, but later in my post you'll see I understood it was not a mistake. Or, to be precise, it was a mistake but done on purpose.

Anyway, for complete picture you’ll need a Bosniak (talk to odas, he’s great guy and also happens to be Bosniak) and at least three Serbs: one from Serbia, two ethnic Serbs from other countries, one of them loyal to his country, the other to Serbia. Except you, there are none on UM at the moment, or all others are hesitating to come out the ethnic closet too.

So it’s about five people.

I’m quite sure I understand them all, bearing in mind that understanding and approving is not remotely the same.

We progress and have been throughout history. War will be outlawed one day, I am sure you will support that, hope you would anyways.

How about we grow over the law and go full Utopia?

Your point of view, like an Israeli pov, is always that of the victim, "they are picking fights on us", but funny you guys win because you have more strength. I would like their point of views too, I don't see why you ignore them. We are a Brotherhood of Man. We are all one litter.

Great, problem solved, but then you throw this:

Now Croatians helped Nazis in WW2 against the Serbs who helped the Allies. What the Croatian Ustasi did was reprehensible on the level of Nazi SS and while some can point to a few and call them psychos it is the ordinary people who hold point of views such as yours which make that possible, your view is the bed for their disastrous action against humanity.

It is not as if when you guys did it, it was OK and just defense. But when they do it back it becomes a crime against humanity. No your side is equally guilty of that too.

Thank you so much for boiling the origins of SS down to me, personally. Himmler is spinning in his grave like helicopter rotor right now :lol:

Ustashe were completely psychotic, true, but what you, komšija, are forgetting to add is that Croat partisans were with the Allies, until they (the Allies) presented them to Stalin as sort of a gift.

Also, I demand that each time someone mentions Ustashe he also adds few words about Chetniks, and their habit of raping nuns, skinning people alive and running back and forth between Brits and Germans.

If you don’t know, then it’s not you that should explain it to me.

If you do know, then come clean with your preferences. Be honest. Like me.

Psychosis visits all litters equally it seems. Instead of hiding your own, or showcasing that of your enemies, again a synthesis view is required

What does synthesis say of children buried under rubble made by JNA?

What amount of submissive love I should have sent to their “officers”?

Do you even comprehend how offensive your preaching is?

I love your sense of humor, "preferably in peace," lol.

:D

I agree. I am no pacifist. Sometimes greater forces compels us into war and roles.

The difference is in philosophy, war is wrong, it doesn't matter if some are compelled into it through conscription, if I were I would engage the enemy, but my heart will also be in knowing they are human, what their point of view is, and that they have mothers too. After the war I would help anyone. But as a civilian I would help anyone, even who you would call the enemy, I would shelter them from you, if you were my own kind.

War is obviously devastating, but it is not wrong, it is merely a fact of life. Wrong is what some people do, excused by war.

When you preach about things that are theoretical for you, you are forgetting that I had experienced them. Compassion is not absent from human mind, not even at times of war, if that compassion was always there.

You’d be surprised how far some good people went, out of compassion. Not in their posts, but in actual fire.

Surrendering is not an act of compassion, it’s an act of stupidity. Stop trying to preach me into submission. It doesn’t work like that. You can’t hypnotise people who are not willing to submit.

I refuse to roll over and die.

And your views are somehow humanitarian and enlightened? In my view yours are equal to your enemies. You share more than just a mutually understandable tongue.

You have, excuse my bluntness again, views detached from reality.

And in that reality people are skipping both yours and my posts, because we are out of Syria, off topic and increasingly boring.

Back on topic, if you wish to comb through ex-Yu history, PM me.

Edited by Helen of Annoy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numeration should not be considered here. It could be one woman with a nuclear weapon and she would still be a threat. The threat is not diminished.

They should not threaten, period. You are offering excuses.

Not with nuclear weapons.

Defend your home and family? By destroying the next door neighbors and starving their children plus denying them medication? I could go on but I would not call your idea of defending as a defense, it is an offense.

Save the best defense is an offense quotes, an offense is an offense and never a defense.

I understand they have enemies who want to destroy them, that does not give them the right to do so to others.

Only through a disarmed Israel will we ever have peace in the region. They remain a threat to the world and its stability especially because they believe they are always under attack, a siege mentality never produces reasonable decisions when it comes to making peace, in fact it appears to be a national pyschosis of sorts. They are not capable of peace as they are, especially armed.

Mostly the whole world disagrees with your views, your ideas are probably based on fundamental Christianity, that too is in decline, but your ideas are also badly misguided since they are only based on religiosity. Any other excuses you come up with are all there just to hold up your religious views.

As soon as you understand the Bible does not give anyone a right in the modern era to harm others under the guise of defense then you can join the rest of us Christians who do not favor a world with war.

Your solution leaves Palestine with no entity known as Israel. Never gonna happen bud... nice hearing your opinions on it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every other Syrian thread has been derailed so might as well do it with this one too. Maybe and then and Yamato need their own separate thread to debate these matters. ;)

I actually do try to steer away and back to the topic at hand. Sorry - sometimes I just can't help it. I WILL try harder though. I know it gets boring chewing the same dirt over and over... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually do try to steer away and back to the topic at hand. Sorry - sometimes I just can't help it. I WILL try harder though. I know it gets boring chewing the same dirt over and over... :tu:

Okay back to the Russian ships. Where are the ships at now? Have they deterred the west yet?

The Saratov, a large landing ship "loaded with troops and vehicles", is currently headed for Tartus Syria.

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=387527

http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/35667.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay back to the Russian ships. Where are the ships at now? Have they deterred the west yet?

The Saratov, a large landing ship "loaded with troops and vehicles", is currently headed for Tartus Syria.

http://www.interfax....f.asp?id=387527

http://vestnikkavkaz...tics/35667.html

I get the impression they are there to

1 Provide security for Russian citizens in Syria

2 Bring in a few more weapons/ammo

3 Show the flag

Their presence does have some deterrent effect on western action I guess, but if chemical weapons get used I doubt the Russians would try to stop the west from responding. If they did it could get really ugly. I think Putin is as adventurous as he is diminutive ;) but I also hope he's rational enough not to provoke a war over Syria. Having a tool like Obama in office makes this kind of equation dicey because he isn't respected. We do NOT need to be involved in Syria in any way. It's a no win for the US.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression they are there to

1 Provide security for Russian citizens in Syria

2 Bring in a few more weapons/ammo

3 Show the flag

Their presence does have some deterrent effect on western action I guess, but if chemical weapons get used I doubt the Russians would try to stop the west from responding. If they did it could get really ugly. I think Putin is as adventurous as he is diminutive ;) but I also hope he's rational enough not to provoke a war over Syria. Having a tool like Obama in office makes this kind of equation dicey because he isn't respected. We do NOT need to be involved in Syria in any way. It's a no win for the US.

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression they are there to

1 Provide security for Russian citizens in Syria

2 Bring in a few more weapons/ammo

3 Show the flag

Their presence does have some deterrent effect on western action I guess, but if chemical weapons get used I doubt the Russians would try to stop the west from responding. If they did it could get really ugly. I think Putin is as adventurous as he is diminutive ;) but I also hope he's rational enough not to provoke a war over Syria. Having a tool like Obama in office makes this kind of equation dicey because he isn't respected. We do NOT need to be involved in Syria in any way. It's a no win for the US.

Since the "fleet" is predominantly amphibious ships, accompanied I think by one frigate, if they were likely to have anything in mind it would be invading Syria, I'd have thought.

Who, incidentally, isn't Obama respected by? Perhaps not by the Republican party, but I think most of the rest of the world were quite pleased to see him be re-elected. Would Romney's macho rhetoric have made people respect him? It didn't make the last Republican president very much respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who, incidentally, isn't Obama respected by? Perhaps not by the Republican party, but I think most of the rest of the world were quite pleased to see him be re-elected. Would Romney's macho rhetoric have made people respect him? It didn't make the last Republican president very much respected.

Obama just tapped Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary so he can't be all bad; Hagel isn't like those Republicans, he's cut from a different cloth.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the "fleet" is predominantly amphibious ships, accompanied I think by one frigate, if they were likely to have anything in mind it would be invading Syria, I'd have thought.

Who, incidentally, isn't Obama respected by? Perhaps not by the Republican party, but I think most of the rest of the world were quite pleased to see him be re-elected. Would Romney's macho rhetoric have made people respect him? It didn't make the last Republican president very much respected.

Invading? With a few hundred marines and into an allies ports? I don't understand that one. It is a very small contingent after all. And my statement about Obama is quite clear I think. Being liked and being respected are often two entirely different things. Of course, I do start from the premise that countries in this world have different and often conflicting national interests and will forcefully pursue them. So why wouldn't the leaders of Russia, China or Iran LOVE to have an American president in power who often enough lines up with THEIR goals? More specifically though, power politics is like a poker game with lives on the table instead of chips. If an enemy thinks you will not defend a principle (or a port) then *gasp* they might just push you when you least expect it. Quite naive to think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama just tapped Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary so he can't be all bad; Hagel isn't like those Republicans, he's cut from a different cloth.

OMG quit fanboying Hagel.

While Hagel did not cast a vote on that particular legislation, he voted four times between 1998 and 2003 to uphold a ban on abortions at military hospitals, and he announced in 1995 that he had "tightened" his position on abortion to oppose it in cases of rape and incest. "I don't think those two exceptions are relevant," he said at the time, noting the low incidence of pregnancies from rape.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/chuck-hagel-abortion_n_2427148.html

"We welcome evolution on issues of gay rights, but the timing of this evolution, the way it was announced, and Hagel's record, support for DOMA as well as his statements about 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' make him the wrong choice for this nomination."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/chuck-hagel-news_n_2441511.html

On economic issues, Hagel supported the Bush tax cuts, the G.O.P.’s calls for a balanced-budget amendment, and the 2001 bankruptcy law that made it harder for credit-card debtors to walk away from their debts. He voted against No Child Left Behind, a ban on drilling in the Arctic, more restrictions on the tobacco industry, and campaign-finance reform. He voted for means-testing Medicare, eliminating fuel-economy standards, and the partial privatization of Social Security. In short, he was a faithful supporter of pro-corporate, trickle-down policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invading? With a few hundred marines and into an allies ports? I don't understand that one. It is a very small contingent after all.

No, i wasn't saying that they were, just that it's hardly what you'd send if you wanted a show of force to dissuade anyone from intervening, is it. Or perhaps, if you wanted to be conspiratorial, perhaps to put troops on the ground in order to dissuade people from doing so?

And my statement about Obama is quite clear I think. Being liked and being respected are often two entirely different things. Of course, I do start from the premise that countries in this world have different and often conflicting national interests and will forcefully pursue them. So why wouldn't the leaders of Russia, China or Iran LOVE to have an American president in power who often enough lines up with THEIR goals? More specifically though, power politics is like a poker game with lives on the table instead of chips. If an enemy thinks you will not defend a principle (or a port) then *gasp* they might just push you when you least expect it. Quite naive to think otherwise.

So when the previous Republican president was rattling the sabre (or in fact doing more than rattling it, actually thrusting it into the bowels of Saddam Hussein), that made him respected and gave him credibility? :unsure2: I'd have said it did just the opposite for America's credibility and respect worldwide; unless the intention was just to make America feared. Any gung-ho sabre rattling such as Mr. Romney might have offered would not have made America much more respected, I suspect.

Edited by Lord Vetinari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i wasn't saying that they were, just that it's hardly what you'd send if you wanted a show of force to dissuade anyone from intervening, is it. Or perhaps, if you wanted to be conspiratorial, perhaps to put troops on the ground in order to dissuade people from doing so?

So when the previous Republican president was rattling the sabre (or in fact doing more than rattling it, actually thrusting it into the bowels of Saddam Hussein), that made him respected and gave him credibility? :unsure2: I'd have said it did just the opposite for America's credibility and respect worldwide; unless the intention was just to make America feared. Any gung-ho sabre rattling such as Mr. Romney might have offered would not have made America much more respected, I suspect.

I'm thinking primarily of the impressions formed by world leaders. Perhaps fear is the correct word but I don't really think so in this case. My point is that if a leader like Putin or Ahmadinejad for example have sized up Obama as an empty suit with no backbone to defend an ideal with force then that certainly enters into their calculations on foreign policy issues concerning contact with America. If the fear of force is sufficient to keep trouble at bay then violence is avoided. Hard feelings can be smoothed in time. Miscalculation is one of the best known causes for war. As to America's respect and credibility I agree that the world pretty much feels justified to blame us for nearly all the ills present today. Many are justified but not all. Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak and Gaddafi sent the message that we'll walk away just when needed most. That doesn't help with credibility or retaining allies either. I'm not sure what latitude he had to act in their favor but he seemed to do nothing but say here's your hat, what's your hurry? As he showed them the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG quit fanboying Hagel.

Do you know how rare it is for a US politician to exhibit a non-interventionist mindset? I'm not a "fan" but I know how much worse it could easily be. And still might.

What is wrong with tax cuts and balanced budgets? What's right about abortions? Do you want tax increases and unbalanced budgets and more abortions? I'll take the other side on all three of those, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, lets see who is awake... Here is latest news about refitting Russian cruiser, undoubtably for pupose of attacking FSA. And the other day Putin was aboard Peter the Great at Murmansk, so that must be "proof" of huge invasion fleet about to set sail against reactionary imperialists and capitalists. If only.......

http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1003106&cid=7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, lets see who is awake... Here is latest news about refitting Russian cruiser, undoubtably for pupose of attacking FSA. And the other day Putin was aboard Peter the Great at Murmansk, so that must be "proof" of huge invasion fleet about to set sail against reactionary imperialists and capitalists. If only.......

http://www.vesti.ru/...d=1003106&cid=7

I don't imagine anyone is panicking just yet ;) The Russian moves are just to protect their citizens and their political allies. I only worry that our leader is so weak that others will feel they can challenge him too much. Bad situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, lets see who is awake... Here is latest news about refitting Russian cruiser, undoubtably for pupose of attacking FSA. And the other day Putin was aboard Peter the Great at Murmansk, so that must be "proof" of huge invasion fleet about to set sail against reactionary imperialists and capitalists. If only.......

http://www.vesti.ru/...d=1003106&cid=7

Ah, they're recommissioning her at last,are they? I heard that China might have been interested in buying her to build up their blue water fleet to challenge the U.S. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supplying the Syrian regime from outside Syria is precisely what will keep this bloody grind going indefinitely. If Assad can contain the resistance into pockets and strangle it for long enough, victory for the rebels doesn't look plausible. It might be easy for some of us to act callous about this and joke about museum ships in the light of all this death and destruction even if Assad comes out the winner in the end, when we don't have to live in Syria and it isn't our families who were killed by their own government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supplying the Syrian regime from outside Syria is precisely what will keep this bloody grind going indefinitely. If Assad can contain the resistance into pockets and strangle it for long enough, victory for the rebels doesn't look plausible. It might be easy for some of us to act callous about this and joke about museum ships in the light of all this death and destruction even if Assad comes out the winner in the end, when we don't have to live in Syria and it isn't our families who were killed by their own government.

Assad I think will at best only rule over a portion of the Syria he began this with. If he survives at all I think it will be over a canton that is heavily defended by a praetorian and chemical weapons. Most likely it grinds on until he is assassinated. But when the rebels don't have to worry about his army any longer I suspect they will get down to the business of revenge. Unfortunately the dying may just be beginning there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't imagine anyone is panicking just yet ;) The Russian moves are just to protect their citizens and their political allies. I only worry that our leader is so weak that others will feel they can challenge him too much. Bad situation.

Except not everyone feels Russia is our enemy or that our leader is weak.

And in case you forgot again the Cold War is over. The 80s texted and want their paranoia back.

Assad I think will at best only rule over a portion of the Syria he began this with. If he survives at all I think it will be over a canton that is heavily defended by a praetorian and chemical weapons. Most likely it grinds on until he is assassinated. But when the rebels don't have to worry about his army any longer I suspect they will get down to the business of revenge. Unfortunately the dying may just be beginning there.

Sounds like a movie.

Anyways the only solution for Syria is dialogue.

The era of conflict with winners and losers is rapidly coming to an end. The century of compromise is before us which will lead into a millennium of harmony.

See, if we have to offer fantasy in this thread it is better to be positive about it in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a movie.

It did sound like a movie. Even if I can entertain the idea, when Assad's canton gets surrounded like he just described, he's as good as done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except not everyone feels Russia is our enemy or that our leader is weak.

And in case you forgot again the Cold War is over. The 80s texted and want their paranoia back.

Sounds like a movie.

Anyways the only solution for Syria is dialogue.

The era of conflict with winners and losers is rapidly coming to an end. The century of compromise is before us which will lead into a millennium of harmony.

See, if we have to offer fantasy in this thread it is better to be positive about it in any case.

Your humor isn't appreciated. If you disagree with an assessment can you at least be adult enough to explain it without the sarcasm - or is that not possible with you? This display on your part seems to be a trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did sound like a movie. Even if I can entertain the idea, when Assad's canton gets surrounded like he just described, he's as good as done.

First of all I think it's quite possible as long as Russia feeds and arms him. Second, don't be so quick to assume the rebels would rush headlong into annihilation against chemical tipped scuds. It's a nasty way to die and once Assad is facing his own death I don't think he'd become PC about using this poison. He has shown ABUNDANTLY that he will do anything to maintain his power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I think it's quite possible as long as Russia feeds and arms him. Second, don't be so quick to assume the rebels would rush headlong into annihilation against chemical tipped scuds. It's a nasty way to die and once Assad is facing his own death I don't think he'd become PC about using this poison. He has shown ABUNDANTLY that he will do anything to maintain his power.

I'm taking these Russian ships about as seriously as anyone. I must have asked almost a year ago if there were Russian ships sailing into Syrian ports because that's the kind of activity that could neutralize whatever minor gains the rebels can muster and keep Assad invulnerable. Resupply is crucial to fight on indefinitely. The supply lines are everything in this conflict in the long run. If you're surrounded in a canton, you're done. If the rebels are constrained to pockets of resistance surrounded by government forces, they're done if they can't break out or be rescued from the outside. Warfare is impossible without supplies; supplies are impossible without supply lines to move them. Assad using chemicals isn't the game changer that running out of food and ammo will be. Using chemical weapons would probably be the biggest mistake Assad makes in this conflict because what little political capital he has left would be spent. He'd be vilified by the world even if he could still rule Syria from his bunker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian "fleet" on it's way to crush FSA, start WWIII on any other fantasy garbage vomitted on this thread by know nothings. Here is frigate Yaroslav Mudry at Malta a few days back. While US sends carriers etc all around the world, invades some countries and engages in black ops in others, I will not listen to the selfrighteous garbage here. Russia has every right to protect it's own interests and citizens. The subheading to the thread is "To deter the west", what total fantasy, nothing but see through Russophobe propaganda. So, how many US/Nato ships in the area?, how many US carrier battle groups? yet here there is garbage about one Russian frigate and some landing and supply ships. Yet here not one word here against Saudi and Quatar. Smell of hypocracy very strong from west, as always.....

a2d2d80e2adc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.