Asian Fever

Terrorists Kill at least 140 in Paris

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
The Russians won't keep many troops, if any, in Syria after the fighting. It's unlikely that they want to send any ground forces in given their experience of loss in Afghanistan and the ongoing loss of the Western countries' adventure in Afghanistan. Bombs, cruise missiles and "technical advisers" and trainers will likely be the bulk of Russian participation. If they send in significant ground forces, they will probably be their for a specific campaign and quickly pulled back out before a rising body count affects Putin's standing back home.
I disagree. Syria is nothing like Afghanistan. The coast mountain range is really just foothills for anyone from BC or Alberta. There is flat dessert on the coast and flat dessert on the eastern side of the mountains. The dessert on the east runs north to Turkey, south to Jordan and east to Iraq and Iran. Ideal mobile Infantry, Calvary and Armour country. With active use of drones, there is nowhere for ISIS to hide. Unlike the US, Russia doesn't presume that anyone else in a house that they are taking fire from is an innocent victim.

I'm expecting that if they can get the political support from France, Belgium, Germany and Turkey, Russia will put a Brigade in and demonstrate what Germany was in for if the Cold War hadn't ended. It wouldn't surprise me if Iran supports Russia by defending their borders so that the runners have no place to go, especially by closing off Pakistan and Afghanistan.
 

westwoody

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
7,671
7,228
113
Westwood
if they can get the political support from France, Belgium, Germany and Turkey
Or maybe not support, but yeah go ahead we'll protest but we won't get in your way.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
The terrain you describe is exactly like that in Iraq where the militants handed a much more capable military (the USA) their asses by mixing in with the local population. This was exactly the same tactics that was used against the Russians by the US trained Mujaheddin in the Russian / Afghan war. Those US trained and battle tested Muj then formed the training cadre on first the Afghan resistance to the US / Nato invasion of that country and the subsequent US invasion of Iraq. It worked against the Russians in the 1980's, It worked against the USA in first decade & a half of the 21st century and it would probably work against Russians in Syria.

A key point to remember is that Russia wants / highly desires the port facilities being provided to them by the current Syrian regime. This is not the same as Chechnya which is seen as a core part of the Russian homeland. The levels of force that are prepared to use, the amount of treasure they are prepared spend, and the level of casualties they are prepared to endure are much higher to retain homeland versus a foreign port.

Putin's hold on power is largely based on a cult of personality based in is appearance as a strong man that can deliver stability to the majority of Russian citizens. His seat is really a precarious one that cannot long endure if Russian citizens experience significant loss over something that does not stimulate strong nationalist feelings. Thus his sensitivity to casualties amongst his soldiers is probably about the same as that of the western countries. He can probably clear any battlefield (France or even Belgium can probably do that), but Putin cannot afford the losses that the reversion to a guerrilla style insurrection will invariably entail.

Iran's borders are already closed to Isis-like insurgents. Iran is a Shia state. All the Isis-like groups are Sunni. Their backers are Saudia Arabia and Turkey whose borders (and coffers) are open to them even today. Turkey gets them into Europe (and Russia) and Saudia Arabia gets them to the whole world.
You must have never watched MacGyver. When Jimmy Carter authorized the training, arming, supplying and paying of the Afghan resistance, he did so for two reasons.
1. He needed a listening post and forward bases to replace what he had thrown away in Iran
2. As MacGyver showed week after week on TV, the brutal Russians figure if a shot is fired from a house, the entire house is filled with Afghan Resistance Fighters. Answer, destroy the house and everyone inside.

The Americans have never been able to accept a high casualty rate, not with their troops and not with the civilians mixed into the resistance fighters. The media counted every Iraqi or Afghan killed by coalition troops, it's the reason that Obama wanted to politically free himself from Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has or will ever count the number of Chechens that were killed by Russian troops. The Russians don't embed media in their line companies. The Russians won't be re-pacifying any territory they pass through.

The fact that Iran is a Shia state is why Iran will close it's borders to the Sunni "Runners".
 

Jethro Bodine

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2009
4,459
1,892
113
Beverly Hills. In the Kitchen eatin' vittles.
My opinion and I am obviously not as expert in these matters as others, is that both of you (PeaceGuy and swd) are correct on certain points.
Putin is not going to jeopardize his hold on power which is exactly as PeaceGuy says, by allowing too many Russian boys to come home in body bags. As much as he controls the media word would still get around. On the other hand this is his chance to show the world and most importantly the Russian people that once again he is a "Man's man" who gets things done and protects the Motherland.
I agree that he likely doesn't give a flying F*** if the Russians bomb a village controlled by ISIS and happen to kill a couple hundred civilians.
To the average Russian citizen who supports him, they could care less. I've been to Russia and Eastern Europe back n the early 90's doing some work after the fall of the Soviet Union. These people have endured more hardship than we Westerners could ever imagine. Their lives were very hard and death was a part of it. Many of those beliefs still exist.
Russians tend to accept the loss of civilian life as unfortunate but necessary.
I can't say what his long term plan is but what I think is for now if Putin wants to, he can go in with planes and cruise missiles and inflict a shit load of damage to ISIS without worrying WTF Anderson Cooper or Peter Mansbridge thinks.
 

Jethro Bodine

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2009
4,459
1,892
113
Beverly Hills. In the Kitchen eatin' vittles.
Now they've pissed off the Chinese.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to know ISIS's endgame but pissing off now 2 nations who could care less if they blow the entire region back to the stone age is not a good thing in my eyes.
I'd like to see the looks in the eyes of the average ISIS fighter as a million Chinese infantrymen come rolling over a sand dune.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/asia/isis-hostages-china-norway/index.html
 

hornygandalf

Active member
Now they've pissed off the Chinese.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to know ISIS's endgame but pissing off now 2 nations who could care less if they blow the entire region back to the stone age is not a good thing in my eyes.
I'd like to see the looks in the eyes of the average ISIS fighter as a million Chinese infantrymen come rolling over a sand dune.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/asia/isis-hostages-china-norway/index.html
They think differently than we do. They see a coming apocalypse or armageddon, and they are trying to hasten the process.
Drawing the Chinese in supports their twisted ideology of what the end game is.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
They think differently than we do. They see a coming apocalypse or armageddon, and they are trying to hasten the process.
Drawing the Chinese in supports their twisted ideology of what the end game is.
It seems that ISIS is responsible for world peace. Obama and Putin are saying nice things about each other. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...adimir-putin-is-wests-best-friend-walkom.html
War has a funny habit of changing things. Just a month ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin was routinely lambasted in the West as a thug and bully.

Now, in light of the Paris attacks, the Russian President has miraculously been transmogrified into a man of stature — an important ally in the battle against Islamic State (ISIS) militants.

Speaking in Manila Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama praised Putin as a “constructive partner” in the international attempts to end Syria’s civil war — a war that has allowed ISIS to thrive.

Obama also said he’d “welcome” any Russian military efforts in Syria aimed at ISIS.

Meanwhile French President François Hollande is planning a pilgrimage to Moscow next week where he is to meet Putin and forge a common front against ISIS.

Since the ISIS-linked attacks in Paris Friday, France and Russia have been co-ordinating their military efforts in Syria.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
And that is why the Russians succeeded to pacify Afghanistan, put their puppet in place and remained in control of that country to this day. :rolleyes:
You really should brush up on your history and perhaps your reading comprehension skills. I said:
You must have never watched MacGyver. When Jimmy Carter authorized the training, arming, supplying and paying of the Afghan resistance, he did so for two reasons.
1. He needed a listening post and forward bases to replace what he had thrown away in Iran
2. As MacGyver showed week after week on TV, the brutal Russians figure if a shot is fired from a house, the entire house is filled with Afghan Resistance Fighters. Answer, destroy the house and everyone inside.
Which parts of the Americans were running a smart propaganda campaign, training, arming, supplying and paying the Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Russians did you not understand? It became a Zero Sum game for Brezhnev because he also had Lech Walesa in Poland to worry about. So Brezhnev decided to walk away from Afghanistan which was not an integral part of the Soviet Union and pay attention to Poland which was an integral part of the Soviet Union.

Of course Brezhnev then died and left the "Polish Problem" to Andropov who also died, which left Gorbachev with Poland already leaving unless he wanted to repeat the actions of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Because the old Soviet leaders were all dying, Poland broke away, Germany unified - basically everything west of Russia's pre WWII border slipped away as Gorbachev tried to salvage something.

Ronald Reagan was in power in the US and Reagan was not a Jimmy Carter. Gorbachev knew that he could allow the countries that Russia had gobbled up after WWII to slip away, or he could "test" to see if Reagan really would fight for eastern Europe. Gorbachev made the only decision the leader of a bankrupt nation could make.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I don't disagree that the US paid the Afghans to fight the Russian invaders. It was, of course exceedingly short sighted to do that if you are just going to cut them loose after the Russians were pushed out.

All that training, along with some antipathy from being used to fight the Russians but given no help to rebuild after the war was over, created a fairly well trained group of Muslim guerrilla fighters who had ousted one foreign supported regime and looking for a way to fill their bellies by trading on that skill set. So some went abroad as adventurers & some got in the business of training motivated would be insurgents from other countries. And those trained folks upped the game of a fair number of insurgents, criminals & terrorists in a lot of countries.

I don't disagree that the Russian can be brutal on the battlefield and would likely wipe from the battlefield any forces that ISIS chose to stand against them. Regrettably, ISIS does not need to mass on any battlefield and may choose to disperse into the local population if large units of foreign ground troops arrive in country. As long as the Syrian Government cannot deliver effective services and stability, ISIS is winning the fight. Small group tactics using sabotage, assassination & small terror events can wake the government appear ineffective to the masses. ISIS WANTS to govern territory but is probably prepared to step back to lower intensity combat to preserve the parts of the organization it deems essential and wait out the new players before making another try.

That the Russians lost to the insurgents in Afghanistan is a fact as much as it is a fact that the Americans lost the war in Vietnam as much to South Vietnamese insurgents as to North Vietnamese troops. Foreign military force generally cannot win against a determined local insurgency. It can temporarily drive it into the shadows but eventually the foreigners will go home as the cost in bodies and treasure mounts. A local insurgency can afford to operate on a timescale of generations. The people involved are already at home & so generally cannot go away when the going get tough so they just bank their fires and wait for the next opportunity.
The USA "lost" the war in Vietnam because Congress voted to leave or more accurately - not to pay for it. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congendswar.htm
Congress Ends the Vietnam War
On Aug.

5, 1964, Congress enacted the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, authorizing President Lyndon Johnson to use "all necessary measures" to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces in Vietnam. The resolution passed easily, 466-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate, with the only dissenting votes coming from Democratic Sens. Wayne Morse (Oregon) and Ernest Gruening (Alaska).

Unlike the resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Iraq, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained language allowing Congress to repeal it at any time. Unsuccessful congressional efforts to repeal the Tonkin Gulf Resolution began as early as 1966, just two "quagmire-ish" years after its passage.

Finally in January of 1971, Congress succeeded in passing a measure repealing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. While he did not veto it, President Richard M. Nixon refused to honor the measure and continued to wage the war, claiming presidential authority to do so as commander in chief of the military. But, another far more effective act of Congress would ultimately end the Vietnam War by closing the federal purse strings.

In December 1970, Congress reacted to the U.S. invasion of Cambodia by passing the landmark Cooper-Church amendment to the Foreign Military Sales Bill. The amendment, named for and sponsored by Sens. John Sherman Cooper (R-Kentucky) and Frank Church (D-Idaho), prohibited the use of any funds already appropriated for military spending on the introduction of additional U.S. troops into Cambodia. While President Nixon denounced Cooper-Church as harming the war effort, he failed to veto it. Today, the Cooper-Church amendment is regarded as the first congressional action taken limiting presidential powers during a war.

Following Cooper-Church, and even after the Paris cease-fire agreement, Congress literally dropped the hammer on the Vietnam War with its passage in 1973 of a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 636) prohibiting any further appropriation or expenditure of any funds for any "combat in or over or from the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia."

Drawing the Purse Strings to End Wars
Since 1970, the United States Congress considered 21 bills intended to restrict or totally cut off funding for U.S. military operations on foreign soil. Of those 21 bills, five were actually enacted, drawing the curtain on further military combat operations in Indochina (Vietnam War), and Somalia in 1993.
The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan because the Soviet Union was bankrupt - unable to pay the troops - and the Soviet Union was in the process of breaking up.

So, completely different reasons for the end of the two wars. In neither war did the troops fail to win every battle that they were permitted to fight. That is also the case in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was completely successful and effectively destroyed the Iraqi military. What happened was Pro-Consul Paul Bremer. Duffy is chicken feed compared to a man that was incapable of making an intelligent decision and managed to "lose" 8.8 Billion Dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer
 

Jethro Bodine

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2009
4,459
1,892
113
Beverly Hills. In the Kitchen eatin' vittles.
What about the Chinese?
I know they tend not to get drawn into these international disputes, focusing more on domestic concerns or areas where they want something like Senkaku Islands or areas of the South China Sea but I can't see them taking the execution of the Chinese hostage by ISIS without some kind of response.
What do you guys think?
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
What about the Chinese?
I know they tend not to get drawn into these international disputes, focusing more on domestic concerns or areas where they want something like Senkaku Islands or areas of the South China Sea but I can't see them taking the execution of the Chinese hostage by ISIS without some kind of response.
What do you guys think?
China's Foreign Minister issued a statement in 2007 regarding their relationship with other Nations.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/01/20070301-104826-2978r/
Beijing likens Cheney criticism to nosy neighbor
By - The Washington Times - Thursday, March 1, 2007

BEIJING — Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang responded yesterday to Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks about China during his recent Asia trip with an earthy metaphor about home invasion and a barbed eight-point statement outlining China’s diplomatic philosophy.

Mr. Qin’s comments strayed far from the tepid boilerplate answers normally issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when he was asked about remarks by Mr. Cheney, who had expressed concern over the transparency of Chinese military expenditures and suggested that China’s anti-satellite test in January posed a threat to the world.

Acknowledging that the comparison might not be entirely appropriate, he said: “If you had a neighbor always standing at your doorstep, peering into your household and constantly shouting at you, ‘Why don’t you open your door and let me see what’s in your house, what’s in your family,’ how would you feel about that?”

Mr. Qin continued: “You wear your clothes, you wear your underwear, and when there are people shouting at you, ‘Please take off all your clothes and let me see what’s inside,’ how would you respond? I think you will cry for police help.

“I hope such a comparison will help you better understand our position,” Mr. Qin said.

The foreign ministry official then gave an eight-point statement on whether China poses a threat to the world, telling reporters, “We hope you can make your judgment on the basis of Chinese diplomatic philosophy and its precepts.”


1. China will not seek hegemony. China is still a developing country and has no resources to seek hegemony. Even if China becomes a developed country, it will not seek hegemony.
2. China will not play power politics and will not interfere with other countries' internal affairs. China will not impose its own ideology on other countries.
3. China maintains all countries, big or small, should be treated equally and respect each other. All affairs should be consulted and resolved by all countries on the basis of equal participation. No country should bully others on the basis of strength.
4. China will make judgment on each case in international affairs, each matter on the merit of the matter itself and it will not have double standards. China will not have two policies: one for itself and one for others. China believes that it cannot do unto others what they do not wish others do unto them.
5. China advocates that all countries handle their relations on the basis of the United Nations Charter and norms governing international relations. China advocates stepping up international cooperation and is against unilateral politics. China should not undermine the dignity and the authority of the U.N. China should not impose and set its own wishes above the U.N. Charter, international law and norms.
6. China advocates peaceful negotiation and consultation so as to resolve its international disputes. China does not resort to force, or threat of force, in resolving international disputes. China maintains a reasonable national military buildup to defend its own sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is not made to expand, nor does it seek invasion or aggression.
7. China is firmly opposed to terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. China is a responsible member of the international community, and as for international treaties, China abides by all them in a faithful way. China never plays by a double standard, selecting and discarding treaties it does not need.
8. China respects the diversity of civilization and the whole world. China advocates different cultures make exchanges, learn from each other, and complement one another with their own strengths. China is opposed to clashes and confrontations between civilizations, and China does not link any particular ethnic group or religion with terrorism.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I'm sure the people of Tibet would argue with Numbers 1 & 2 on the list.
Tibet is like Taiwan - the Chinese consider formally held territory to be still part of China. There are portions of Vietnam that the Chinese still consider to be part of China. The Dutch, French, British, Portuguese and Americans all split off parts of China and included them in their colonies. Below is a map of China in 1892

 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
The Russians don't plan to introduce ground troops in Syria. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/russ...ing-blitz-slashed-isis-oil-revenues-1.2667970

Somebody with the Mobile Infantry or Armour is going to have to do the work on the ground. That's the USA, Russia, France, Germany or the British. The Chinese also have the capability, but it would take a change in long held policy and air support plus transport by Russia or the USA.

Training native volunteers gets you this:



One good thing is that Russia is bombing the crap out of ISIS's Oil Storage and Refining. The US wasn't because they have a policy of not destroying infrastructure that could be used once ISIS had been defeated.
 

Papa Chongo

Who's your Papa
May 22, 2010
488
6
18
Vancouver
This is the lounge you can post about anything you want!
 
Vancouver Escorts