[davep]

Hollande quite clearly said today that we need a global coalition fighting together against ISIS. He was obviously referring to NATO and Russia together (with maybe Damascus, the Kurds, and possibly the FSA).

[davep]

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151116/1030199114/isil-financing-g20-putin.html

ISIL Financed by 40 Countries, Including G20 Member States - Putin

"I provided examples related to our data on the financing of Islamic State units by natural persons in various countries. The financing comes from 40 countries, as we established, including some G20 members," Putin told reporters following the summit.

"I've demonstrated the pictures from space to our colleagues, which clearly show the true size of the illegal trade of oil and petroleum products market. Car convoys stretching for dozens of kilometers, going beyond the horizon when seen from a height of four-five thousand meters," Putin told reporters after the G20 summit.

MBS, your white knights are the ones with the "pakt" with ISIS.

And the next day the US finally bombed the convoy (I heard they struck 100 trucks). It only took them 18 months to spot it.

[Sixstrings]

And the next day the US finally bombed the convoy (I heard they struck 100 trucks). It only took them 18 months to spot it.

And it only took Russia 18 months to spot it, too, and show pictures at the G20?

Putin shows the pictures, US takes care of the problem the next day, so what's the problem?

Putin could do a lot of good for the world, just be a watchdog and criticize Obama for what he's not doing and show the pictures and then somebody at the WH will get right on it and the thing will get done.

[davep]

Putin shows the pictures, US takes care of the problem the next day, so what's the problem?.

Do you seriously believe the US didn't know about it before? Get a grip .

[Sixstrings]

Do you seriously believe the US didn't know about it before? Get a grip .

I'm just saying -- DON'T ASSUME CONSPIRACY.

Don't assume the Obama administration is really on the ball about things -- because they aren't.

It's not like there's a general in charge and Washington has given him command and he doesn't have one hand tied behind his back, and can just handle things.

Rather, Obama has all these directives and red tape and its meant so that "we don't get too involved."

Now, one can think like Russians do and then say "ISIS is a US pet" or one can have another view that this is just Obama not wanting to fight ISIS. They aren't his pet, he just won't fight anybody, and always did the least possible about standing up to Russia in Ukraine too, he just won't do anything about anything.

Anyhow -- Russia should keep taking pictures, I'm all for the truth and Obama admin held to account to fight this war fully and effectively.

And then, Washington can take pictures of the Russians, and what they do and don't do, and show the pictures at G20s.

Everyone can show pictures of what everyone else isn't doing, and then maybe added up then everyone will start doing what they should be doing.

edit: seriously, Obama's military doctrine is "do the least possible." Former sec def Gates even wrote about this in his book, saying all Obama ever cares about is doing the least possible about anything, that Obama "just wants to pull out" and that's what he's always talking about. Obama's focus is not on actually winning wars.

Obama only does as much as Republicans and his own party -- Democrats -- have to jump up and down yelling and screaming and demanding he do, and then finally maybe he'll do a little something.

That's just his policy, "do as little as possible" and he only does what he absolutely has to.

So I'm all for it, Russia should take more pictures, and the press should hound Obama too and Democrats need to speak up and Republicans need to keep the pressure up.

If nobody speaks up, Obama and John Kerry won't do anything except ship Syrian refugees to the middle of Michigan.

NATO could fall apart and a caliphate take over half the world and Obama would just go golfing, if nobody complained about it.

It's a lot like old Jimmy Carter, it's a really different way of looking at things, it's "General McClellan" "do as little as possible, don't get too involved, don't actually win this thing" kind of thinking. And that's really so WRONG, because the problems just get worse. Ukraine worked out okay, but "do as little as possible" is not working regarding ISIS.

Obama's own people have described it as "leading from behind," that's a direct quote, THEY said that of themselves. It's like up is down, black is white opposite-world over there in the white house.

[Sixstrings]

Another reality about things, regarding the coalition air campaign not being effective enough, is just that the US and Western forces are always concerned about civilian casualties.

And ISIS uses this fact to their advantage. They hide AMONG the people in the cities. So the coalition can't get at them without just carpet bombing / hitting civilians too, which the West is never going to do.

And that's the ultimate reason why the air campaign can't work.

You need boots on the ground. Door to door, house to house, city to city.. root ISIS out, without leveling innocent civilians either.

[Cog]

The reason that the fuel trucks weren't bombed previously is that Obama would not approve targeting them. The US military knew about them.



On the same day of the French air strikes, the U.S. military destroyed 116 ISIS fuel trucks Sunday in Abu Kamal, Syria in the Euphrates River basin near the Syrian-Iraq border, according to the latest strike report from the U.S. Central Command released Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11 ... -in-syria/

A military official with knowledge of the strikes said that recently-arrived U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthogs from Incirlik Air Base, in Turkey, carried out the strikes on the fuel farm.

The official said previously the fuel trucks were off limits to U.S. military strike aircraft. When asked if the Paris attacks would bring about a change in the U.S. military’s rules of engagement, the official said that the truck drivers were warned first before the bombs fell.

[AgentR11]

And the next day the US finally bombed the convoy (I heard they struck 100 trucks). It only took them 18 months to spot it.

And it only took Russia 18 months to spot it, too, and show pictures at the G20?

err... again?
Russia started blowing up these convoys and collections of tanker trucks on day 1 of the Russian operation.
Its why we went bat-s777878 crazy when they began ops. That was our oil, our money, for our operations, and Putin blew it up.

Russia's ground attack capabilities do also have a fairly hard cap on level; and they have higher priority targets in assisting Assad in expanding the Latakia / Tartus corridor up to Alleppo. So they aren't going to get them all in a month or two.

Russia's point is that we'd been "bombing" ISIS for a year, yet ISIS was still easily making millions upon millions of dollars selling oil into Turkey; oil stolen from Iraq. And we were doing nothing to stop them. The reason we were doing nothing to stop them is that we were profiting as well, off budget, and getting a tool to beat up on Assad. Tool got lose and killed some friendlies, now tool will be obliterated, hopefully along with most of the evidence! lol.

Not a conspiracy, just a regular, foreign grey-area kind of operation.

What is true, is that once Russia entered the fray; the profit on that oil trade went to zero, and probably from there quickly negative. ISIS as a state, died on that day. Now they're just a bunch of bandits in need of stomping on.

[Sixstrings]

LIndsay Graham explaining things, Graham says Assad has to go so that the arab allies would join the coalition to defeat ISIS. Graham says they won't join the coalition unless Assad goes.

So basically, we can't think about Russia on this one, if we go the Russia route then we wouldn't have any arabs in the coalition. Would Russia contribute a hundred thousand troops, to make up for not having arab allies? No, heck no, of course Russia wouldn't.

We just have to handle this thing, NATO defense cannot be dependent on Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asrh0olpq6o

[Sixstrings]

Russia's point is that we'd been "bombing" ISIS for a year, yet ISIS was still easily making millions upon millions of dollars selling oil into Turkey; oil stolen from Iraq. And we were doing nothing to stop them. The reason we were doing nothing to stop them is that we were profiting as well, off budget, and getting a tool to beat up on Assad. Tool got lose and killed some friendlies, now tool will be obliterated, hopefully along with most of the evidence! lol.

Well agent.. if that were all true, then that would sure be a pulitzer-prize winning blockbuster investigation for someone like the new york times.

So what do you think, are all journalists just blind or corrupt or in a conspiracy or something?

There's got to be more complexity than how you lay it out, the way you say it sounds like iran contra or something.

[AgentR11]

That's fine. If you say Assad has to go, that means we're attacking Latakia / Tartus. Which means sunk US Navy ships, lots of down aircraft; thousands of dead Russians, thousands of dead NATO troops, and a dangerous dance with WW III.

If you think otherwise, please explain the sequence of events that results in Assad leaving, while his Army is in the middle of defeating everything and everyone in Alawitistan. You can't defeat his army without deleting Latakia; and you can't delete Latakia without going to war with Russia. In essence, its really that simple.

Now, if you're ready to go to war with Russia over a couple piddly bases in Syria and Assad comfortably presiding over a sea side resort; then just say so; be content to pay for it in blood and money, and we should win, and if Obama can keep his ego in check, and not overreach, we could win without ending up exchanging nuclear weapons and ending industrial civilization.

Win or not, I just don't see the payoff, when just ignoring Assad and his sea side resort lets us go after the guys we want to kill; and might even give us enough passage space to build our pipeline against Syria's wishes.

e be a pulitzer-prize winning blockbuster investigation for someone like the new york times.

Turkey's already indicated that they will kill journalists who mess with their business. Not even all that sneaky about it. And if Turkey didn't kill you, ISIS guys would. And what are you going to write? ISIS guys steal oil? known. ISIS guys sell oil to shady brokers in Turkey? known. That ISIS has enough funds to wage war on Syria? known. That ISIS receives weapons from Saudi Arabia? known. That US,France,Italy, etc all pump weapons into Saudi Arabia for distribution to their allies? known. External operations always skim money on transaction points? known. Its not a conspiracy. Its not even a story. No one cares. And if you try to make the non story, into a story, you'll rapidly find yourself committing convenient suicide in an airport bathroom.

This is the mess that happens when you want to go to war with a country (Syria), and not actually use your armed forces to do it.

[Sixstrings]

That's fine. If you say Assad has to go, that means we're attacking Latakia / Tartus. Which means sunk US Navy ships, lots of down aircraft; thousands of dead Russians, thousands of dead NATO troops, and a dangerous dance with WW III.

Agent -- what makes you so sure that Putin wouldn't back down or readjust his position, if NATO were resolute?

If you think otherwise, please explain the sequence of events that results in Assad leaving, while his Army is in the middle of defeating everything and everyone in Alawitistan. You can't defeat his army without deleting Latakia; and you can't delete Latakia without going to war with Russia. In essence, its really that simple.

Russia doesn't even care enough about the whole thing to go in big, in the ME, and just defeat ISIS on their own.

They're too cautious / unwilling to have even put in major troop levels into Syria.

If they won't even do that, then you really think they'd take on NATO for WWIII? It doesn't add up Agent, I'm sorry. Russia hasn't even been bold in Syria, much less ready to take on NATO in WWIII.

Now, if you're ready to go to war with Russia over a couple piddly bases in Syria

No, it's not about Assad, he's just collateral. If ISIS is attacking NATO then ISIS has to go and if that means Assad has to go then Assad has to go.

France has been attacked, Agent. Europe is swamped with refugees. Hollande should invoke article 5 and hold a vote, let's get the armies together, time to solve this thing before it gets worse and we can't let a caliphate run us over because we're worried about russians.

I'm more worried about the caliphate than the russians. That ISIS is priority #1, the 3 alarm natl security fire, and we can't screw around with Moscow when it comes to our national defense.

This is the mess that happens when you want to go to war with a country (Syria), and not actually use your armed forces to do it.

Well I agree with that. Farming things out, "leading from behind," it actually doesn't work.

[AgentR11]

The only thing that doesn't add up is you keep typing "Assad must go" and never post any physical sequence of events that would lead to such.

I've posted numerous scenarios of how it could play out physically. Based on what is there now, and what that stuff is doing now.

And you reply, "Assad must go" and "Putin must surrender... because reasons".

Putin believes if he yields to NATO pressure, we'll roll him all the way back to Western-loyal oligarchs running and looting Russia. This is not an unreasonable analysis. OTOH, he's been very careful to not put us into a position where we must force the issue; we can kill ISIS just fine with or without Russian assistance. Russia has done nothing to stop US jets from dropping bombs on ISIS; and they will do nothing to stop us from dropping bombs on ISIS, and they cheer when we do it. But they aren't going to stop dropping bombs on ISIS either, nor on FSA, nor on Nursa(AlQaeda).

What we can't do without rolling the dice on WW III, is take out Assad.

Give me a physical play book, acknowledging whats there, the capabilities we have, the Russians have. Do you even understand what it means when I say, "cargo, ro-ro, and lsts" running laps from Tartus to Novosybrisk? SAA is getting logistical support on a vast scale; and they're using it inside an air defense bubble that only the F22's have any chance of working inside. And even then, if they were in there working against SAA for any length of time, I'm pretty sure we'd lose some.. at $150 million each (and we don't even make the things anymore), killing tanks that were destined for the scrap heap. Ground attack's not really their purpose of existence, so high $$ risk, low impact on combat effectiveness, high likelihood of getting in that irritating "oooh oooh, fly boy on the ground, oh so much more horrible than infantryman on the ground" bs.

Game it out.

When you define defense policy, you have to assume your adversary will make all the choices you do not want them to make; while giving them positive incentive to make choices you want them to make at each step in the puzzle.

That's what Putin has done. Evil Varmint that he is, each branching has had choices we could (and did) take that gave us some positive gain over what we started with at low cost in money and blood, even though it failed to deprive Putin of his prizes. (Crimea, and now the Syrian bases). So we got most of Ukraine, disaster that it is; we have free access to kill as many ISIS twerps as we want...

We sent a community organizer against a set of guys who'd spent their entire lives essentially preparing for this moment in history. It just worked out that way. It sucks, but it is what it is. We can still get most of what we wanted, and we should take it, and call it a day.

Sometimes its just best to step away from the table.

[Subjectivist]

LIndsay Graham explaining things, Graham says Assad has to go so that the arab allies would join the coalition to defeat ISIS. Graham says they won't join the coalition unless Assad goes.

So basically, we can't think about Russia on this one, if we go the Russia route then we wouldn't have any arabs in the coalition. Would Russia contribute a hundred thousand troops, to make up for not having arab allies? No, heck no, of course Russia wouldn't.

We just have to handle this thing, NATO defense cannot be dependent on Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asrh0olpq6o

Graham couldn't find his own behind if you let him use both hands to search for it. Russia has had a relationship with Syria going back 50 years including port rights which allows them influence in the Mediterranean basin. Anyone who thinks they are going to all this trouble because they have some deep love for Assad is truly delusional.

Russia doesn't give a rip what NATO or America think of Assad, he and his father before him have been excellent partners with the USSR/Russia. Even though Russia was having hard times from 1989-2005 Syria never went back on their alliance, and unlike America, Russia remembers who their friends and enemies are.

[ROCKMAN]

Syn - As I've said before I'm smart enough to know what I don't know. So not predicting but I wouldn't be shocked if when Assad becomes too much of a liability to Putin he and the family will retire somewhere in Russia with the $billions he's stole. He'll be replaced by a "democratically elected" Syrian winning 94% of the vote in an election the Russian will oversee to make sure it's run fairly. LOL

[dissident]

Syn - As I've said before I'm smart enough to know what I don't know. So not predicting but I wouldn't be shocked if when Assad becomes too much of a liability to Putin he and the family will retire somewhere in Russia with the $billions he's stole. He'll be replaced by a "democratically elected" Syrian winning 94% of the vote in an election the Russian will oversee to make sure it's run fairly. LOL

Whereas squeaky clean, goody two shoes America will just keep on supporting head-chopping dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. Don't even try to chirp about democracy in the Middle East. America has fought tooth and nail to kill it. Iran is Exhibit A. Saddam was installed into power by the USA because the previous Iraqi government bought too many weapons from the Soviets. America decided that it could install a loyal junta in Afghanistan during its frenzy of regime changes in the 1970s focused on Latin America but extending around the globe. Big bad USSR tried to stop it, but America and its lunatic leaders decided to succor Salafi nutbars, like ISIS, to do their dirty work. Back in the 1960s the Middle East was authoritarian but not stuck in a medieval toilet. Thanks to America and its imperial ambitions it has been set back by a couple of centuries. America has the reverse Midas touch, everything it touches turns to shit.

[AgentR11]

don't hold back now, tell us how ya feel!
just pokin ya.

America's kinda like 'The Borg'.. "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Russians need to get back to feeding us their oil and gas, and shush!
i kid i kid.

[davep]

The official said previously the fuel trucks were off limits to U.S. military strike aircraft. When asked if the Paris attacks would bring about a change in the U.S. military’s rules of engagement, the official said that the truck drivers were warned first before the bombs fell.

It's of course just one hell of a coincidence it happened the day after Russia publicly talked about it.

[Cog]

The official said previously the fuel trucks were off limits to U.S. military strike aircraft. When asked if the Paris attacks would bring about a change in the U.S. military’s rules of engagement, the official said that the truck drivers were warned first before the bombs fell.

It's of course just one hell of a coincidence it happened the day after Russia publicly talked about it.

Obama was embarrassed into putting them on to the target list. That is my explanation. Which is why community organizers should not be playing commander in chief.

[davep]

The official said previously the fuel trucks were off limits to U.S. military strike aircraft. When asked if the Paris attacks would bring about a change in the U.S. military’s rules of engagement, the official said that the truck drivers were warned first before the bombs fell.

It's of course just one hell of a coincidence it happened the day after Russia publicly talked about it.

Obama was embarrassed into putting them on to the target list. That is my explanation. Which is why community organizers should not be playing commander in chief.

That and the fact the US/UK had been actively supporting them due to their fixation with overthrowing Assad (which is why nothing happened during 18 months of coalition bombardment).