Are Russia preparing for WW3?

MoBeats said:
Not propping up, using them as pawns guiding them to try and topple Assad.
Click to expand...
They're using other rebel groups to bleed Assad (and, indirectly, Iran) dry. That's no secret.

But ISIS is a much bigger problem for the US than Assad. Saying they're actively backing ISIS is like saying the US is backing North Korea just to keep China busy.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
They're using other rebel groups to bleed Assad (and, indirectly, Iran) dry. That's no secret.

But ISIS is a much bigger problem for the US than Assad. Saying they're actively backing ISIS is like saying the US is backing North Korea just to keep China busy.
Click to expand...
It's really not.
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have by now. By throwing a shit load of bombs at nothing makes a good show but doesn't kill them off. All the US have been good at bombing so far is hospitals. Good job.
 
MoBeats said:
Without being an arse, what do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

InfoWars is a fringe conspiracy site and its founder Alex Jones, is widely known as a mentally unstable liar.
 
Raoul said:
InfoWars is a fringe conspiracy site and its founder Alex Jones, is widely known as a mentally unstable liar.
Click to expand...
Ah, ok. Did you actually watch the clip? Watch it and then comment.
 
Alex Jones v Piers Morgan on Gun Control

 
MoBeats said:
It's really not.
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have by now. By throwing a shit load of bombs at nothing makes a good show but doesn't kill them off. All the US have been good at bombing so far is hospitals. Good job.
Click to expand...
I see you are a WUM now, shame on me.

Can you actually debate one of the points I presented?
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I see you are a WUM now, shame on me.

Can you actually debate one of the points I presented?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought I did.

Saying they're actively backing ISIS is like saying the US is backing North Korea just to keep China busy.
No its not.

But ISIS is a much bigger problem for the US than Assad.
Its not, The US could have destroyed Syria ten times over with the amount of bombs they've dropped since this began. They could have toppled ISIS had they wanted to. Fact is, they are handy for them in their plight against Assad, which you admit in your retort.
 
MoBeats said:
Sorry, I thought I did.

Saying they're actively backing ISIS is like saying the US is backing North Korea just to keep China busy.
No its not.

But ISIS is a much bigger problem for the US than Assad.
Its not, The US could have destroyed Syria ten times over with the amount of bombs they've dropped since this began. They could have toppled ISIS had they wanted to. Fact is, they are handy for them in their plight against Assad, which you admit in your retort.
Click to expand...

They actually couldn't have, since unlike the Russians, they don't have a policy of actively bombing civilian populations. If they did, this would all been over years ago along with about one or two million civilian casualties.
 
Maybe you're right and they just have a really really shit aim with those state of the art weapons.
 
It's all just willy waving.
But what the US army general guy said is particularly worrying. They truly think they're untouchable.
 
BringNaniBack said:
I haven't wondered into this part of the forum since the EU referendum. But I will return with my usually trail of so called bullshit. Simply put, America are backing ISIS in Syria and Russia are trying to destroy ISIS, so yes it could well lead to war between Russia and the US and possibly WW3.
Click to expand...

 
The duran also has an article using YouTube comments as an indicator of US public opinion to support their argument. YouTube comments.
 
MoBeats said:
Not propping up, using them as pawns guiding them to try and topple Assad.
Click to expand...
Not what's happening on the ground, isis are fighting everyone but Assad's forces.
 
In fact the regime are the only benefactors of isis right now.
 
Aren't they all stealing emails and intercepting calls from eachothers?
 
If you don't think the Russians are preparing for war then you are burying your head in the sand.
 
Raoul said:
How do you think the US/West should react ?
Click to expand...

It's a great question, the West in reality is one country with its hangers on.

At some point the US will need to slap Putin down, he feeds on weakness and Obama has been a God send for him. Conventionally Russia will not live with the US but geography is a great leveller. The US needs to decide what the red line is and act accordingly.
 
SirHenryPercy said:
It's a great question, the West in reality is one country with its hangers on.

At some point the US will need to slap Putin down, he feeds on weakness and Obama has been a God send for him. Conventionally Russia will not live with the US but geography is a great leveller. The US needs to decide what the red line is and act accordingly.
Click to expand...


Good point. Personally, I think he is helping himself to what ever he wants while Obama is still in office and positioning himself for maximum leverage once Hillary eventually confronts him.
 
SirHenryPercy said:
It's a great question, the West in reality is one country with its hangers on.

At some point the US will need to slap Putin down, he feeds on weakness and Obama has been a God send for him. Conventionally Russia will not live with the US but geography is a great leveller. The US needs to decide what the red line is and act accordingly.
Click to expand...
What? Are you out of your mind?
The west should feck off out of other people's business, they don't belong in Syria, they should leave.
 
SirHenryPercy said:
It's a great question, the West in reality is one country with its hangers on.

At some point the US will need to slap Putin down, he feeds on weakness and Obama has been a God send for him. Conventionally Russia will not live with the US but geography is a great leveller. The US needs to decide what the red line is and act accordingly.
Click to expand...

Obama hasn't been weak dealing with Russia. He just hasn't been saber rattling.
 
adexkola said:
Obama hasn't been weak dealing with Russia. He just hasn't been saber rattling.
Click to expand...

He's unfortunately been weak. Authoritarian despots like Putin and Assad only respect strength and power, and once they correctly identified that Obama didn't have the nerve to use force they proceeded to form an alliance and Putin consolidated his positions in places like Ukraine and Syria. This has imo been the poverty of Obama's foreign policy over the years, which will no doubt not be the case if Hillary takes over. When she does, you can bet there will be a massive round of sanctions that will continue to squeeze the life out of the Russian economy.
 
And plunge us into a massive war which likely most of us will not survive.
 
Raoul said:
He's unfortunately been weak. Authoritarian despots like Putin and Assad only respect strength and power, and once they correctly identified that Obama didn't have the nerve to use force they proceeded to form an alliance and Putin consolidated his positions in places like Ukraine and Syria. This has imo been the poverty of Obama's foreign policy over the years, which will no doubt not be the case if Hillary takes over. When she does, you can bet there will be a massive round of sanctions that will continue to squeeze the life out of the Russian economy.
Click to expand...
I hope she crushes Russia.
 
Russia has this week moved an unknown amount of Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad with a civil ship. During the move SU-27 fighter jets that were protecting the move breached both Finnish and Estonian air space.

The Iskander-M missile system is a short range ballistic missile system that can hold tactical nuclear warheads, this means that that we now most likely have Russian nuclear weapons stationed in the middle of Europe.
 
Raoul said:
He's unfortunately been weak. Authoritarian despots like Putin and Assad only respect strength and power, and once they correctly identified that Obama didn't have the nerve to use force they proceeded to form an alliance and Putin consolidated his positions in places like Ukraine and Syria. This has imo been the poverty of Obama's foreign policy over the years, which will no doubt not be the case if Hillary takes over. When she does, you can bet there will be a massive round of sanctions that will continue to squeeze the life out of the Russian economy.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on the matter, but I think Russia is content with having a sphere of influence and buffer zone, if you so will. There are more pertinent threats around the world that the US should be focusing on, and as the Iran nuclear deal showed, we gain a lot more when Russia is an ally than an enemy.
 
adexkola said:
I'm no expert on the matter, but I think Russia is content with having a sphere of influence and buffer zone, if you so will. There are more pertinent threats around the world that the US should be focusing on, and as the Iran nuclear deal showed, we gain a lot more when Russia is an ally than an enemy.
Click to expand...

That's Putins problem not Obamas. It was his actions that invaded Ukraine and Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.