Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[olemars]

Ballistic missiles make no sense, unless there is something lost in translation. There is no conventional ballistic missile capabillity on any western navy vessel and I doubt NATO is suddenly going full trident on Syria.

[10ebbor10]

Most likely a test signal that went wrong. Not the first time that happened.

[olemars]

Apparently a US/Israeli missile test that also happened to be a good test of Russian early warning systems. Very helpful that the russians immediately call ITAR-TASS when there is a blip on the radar screens.

edit: If  by Sparrow target missile they mean a Sea Sparrow modified to mimic a ballistic missile trajectory then the new russian radars are quite good. A Sea Sparrow isn't that big, and the Armavir radar is at the far end of the Black Sea.

edit2: Actually they are a series of target missiles designed to mimic SCUDs:
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/1/1171.pdf (order yours today!)

[misko27]

Apparently a US/Israeli missile test that also happened to be a good test of Russian early warning systems. Very helpful that the russians immediately call ITAR-TASS when there is a blip on the radar screens.

edit: If  by Sparrow target missile they mean a Sea Sparrow modified to mimic a ballistic missile trajectory then the new russian radars are quite good. A Sea Sparrow isn't that big, and the Armavir radar is at the far end of the Black Sea.

edit2: Actually they are a series of target missiles designed to mimic SCUDs:
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/1/1171.pdf (order yours today!)

Way to many people are getting money off this. Some rebels are using Chinese made equipment (specifically a anti-air rocket launcher), whihc they got through a middle-man who takes anyone who can pay, and a Chinese firm used them as advertising. "If poorly trained rebels can use them effectively, clearly they are of a excellent quality."

Anyway, the Republican House leaders endorsed Obama on Syria. For our non-american posters, let me assure you that this never happens. Ever. He's got some momentum going now, as long as the rank-and-file can be convinced, Obama will have a 60 day period to work with

[palsch]

Reportedly, there was a telephone call between British Prime Minister David Cameron and the leader of the Labour party Ed Miliband, in which Cameron scolded Miliband for taking Sergei Lavrov's position on the war in Syria and voting down the British military action against the country, thus "letting down America" and "betraying Britain".

This wouldn't surprise me in the least. Lots of people were pissed at Miliband after the votes, reportedly referring to him as a "fucking cunt" and a "copper-bottomed shit".

The reason is simple enough;

Cameron originally wanted to authorise military action immediately, to follow any American lead as soon as Obama wanted to move.

Miliband came back saying he didn't want to rule out military action in any way, but wanted a set of tests before it could happen and wanted a second vote at the time of actual authorisation.

Cameron then amended the government proposal to put in the second vote and make the bill essentially a condemnation of Assad with the option of military strikes remaining open but requiring a second vote.

Miliband still put forward his proposal with his five point test for military action being allowed (note that that site has strong biases that would take too long to outline here, but that post is just a useful summary of his position), with a second vote before any action could be taken to confirm that the conditions were met (or just that the MPs wanted to wave the conditions). This was voted down by 332 to 220.

Cameron then put forward the government resolution. While this lacked Miliband's five points the overall effect would have been near identical (any Miliband supporters who didn't believe the five points had been met could have voted against action in a second vote either way, same way people who wanted military action but rejected the five points could have ignored them in the previous scenario). This lost by 285 to 272 votes.

There wasn't much overlap between the ayes on the two votes, so you had a total of more than 450 MPs voting in favour of keeping military intervention as an option over two functionally similar bills. But because of the way they were split (mostly on Miliband) now military action is a political impossibility.

[SalmonGod]

Anyway, the Republican House leaders endorsed Obama on Syria. For our non-american posters, let me assure you that this never happens. Ever. He's got some momentum going now, as long as the rank-and-file can be convinced, Obama will have a 60 day period to work with

And why wouldn't they do whatever's needed to enable him to take an unpopular course of action?  Especially when they can later say that they didn't support him and he did everything wrong, and only a negligible number of people will have enough political memory or willingness to fact check.

[Nadaka]

I dunno, I have heard it going around conservative circles that the republicans should block it for the following reasons:

1: Obama is a communist foreigner illegitimate infiltrator posing as president.

2: if Obama doesn't get congressional approval and approved intervention anyway they will finally have an excuse to impeach him.

3: if we don't condemn use of chemical warfare, we can start using it too.

4: the rebels are god hating conservative muslims.

5: the rebels are god hating liberal hippies.

6: Putin is our kind of right wing religious, gay hatin', family values, conservative authoritarian, and he supports Assad.

7: If we let it get bad enough, Israel will nuke Iran, and Iran will nuke Israel, then Jesus comes.

*Some of these are literal, some are summaries.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am very disturbed by the amount of support I've seen for Putin amongst conservatives.

[Owlbread]

Well Putin is a conservative after all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Even so, Putin's views are extreme by US political standards. The fact that some American conservatives are doing a 180 on their view of Russia because of him is concerning. The last thing anybody needs is the GOP getting warm to somebody like Putin.

[MonkeyHead]

Is it simply a function of a bipartisan system, with people not liking Obama therefore simply alligning themselves with his apparent opposite?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd like to think that, but when it comes to the GOP these days there is no telling for sure. Putin is fairly aligned with a lot of the issues they care about. There's the gay thing of course, and the Republican establishment has a desperation to hold onto that which is unmatched. Both they and Putin seem determined to exploit the fossil fuels for all they are worth, consequences be damned. There's the religious angle as well. Putin has supported a fairly brutal justice system and has a hawkish attitude, which is the kind of thing the Republicans like in elected officials.

Really, the only big issue is the standing geopolitical order, but now that I think about it the GOP tend to be very anti-Europe, which means that being pro-Russia would not be a huge leap.

[LordSlowpoke]

so what you're saying is

if republicans get chummy with putin they are going to befriend russia and leave europe alone for once?

pardon the question, but can you donate to them from abroad, and how does a man like me make sure putinxgop otp becomes an us navy carrier

[Dutchling]

Putin and GOP, sittin' in a tree~

[10ebbor10]

So Syrians are now the largest group of refugees in the world. Also, crisis of this century

Also, Al-Jazeera is coming under fire. Egypt continues as Military dictature.