The Threat Within NATO

[Vanoi]

So, if Quatar is not helping ISIS, why is it under economic blockade?

Saudis don't like how close to Iran they are. Its a pure political dispute regarding the two rivals in the area, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I really think that they have both the time and money to throw cash at a bunch of jihadists to do various things.
In fact, they have already done so:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...in_the_Balkans

Fun fact, Izetbekovic asked the foreign fighters to leave, in return for US peacekeepers. Why waste good islamic manpower and funds when you can get those US marines and the US taxpayer to pick up the financial tab (as well as the blood tab)?

You notice who supported them? Iran and Saudi Arabia. They are ideologically different powers and hate each other and yet they supported the same groups. This hate to do with the war, and how it really got out of hand. Of course they are supporting religious fanatics. Muslims were being targeted, it became easy to make it a holy war.

How does this compare to Albania though? They had a benefit there in supporting Islamists in Bosnia because of the war. What benefit is there in Albania? Al-Qaeda in Yemen and the IS attack the Saudis there all the time. Why support jihadists who end up joining their groups? so more of the Saudi's own soldiers can die?

How about alliance with Turkey, the US enemy within NATO? And the most interesting fact is that Albania doesn't even have to do it itself. They can always use the proxy that the US policy has given them, Kosovo:

Turkey isn't a US enemy and that still doesn't show the Albanians are going to betray the US.

And yet the Greek troops proved their worth both in WW2, and in the Korean war, time and time again. But if you don't want Greek troops because of "poor quality" why complain about Greece not sending troops in the first place?

Afghanistan isn't WW2 or Korea. Greece has no experience in fighting a large insurgency like the Taliban. And it looks like Greece did send troops. Less than 200 though and mostly in security or training. Meanwhile the Albanians have circulated about 5000 or more soldiers through Afghanistan. Completing over 120 missions and actually participating on the ground against the Taliban.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Alban...t-against-ISIS

Greece couldn't even be bothered to send more than 200 soldiers.

Yeah, about that. It doesn't work like that. This "Oh we can't stoop to the bully's level" is interpreted by the bully (as well as onlookers) as weakness. And weakness is not the sign one wants to send out in foreign relations.

Tarnishing the US's image around the world and making themselves look like thugs is worse.

No, the flourishing of Wahhabism in Kosovo doesn't show a thing.

Thats the Saudis.

Yeah, and Albania doesn't even spend the cash to patrol its air space, and Italy picks it up.
Greece (it may seem strange to you) IS actually doing its part. In fact, Greece is one of the ONLY FIVE NATO countries that are meeting defense budget obligations. We are second in defense budget spending only to the US (I'm pretty proud of my country for this):

http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense...-budget-trump/

The other 4 are the US, UK, Esthonia, and Poland.

No Albania, and no Turkey.

Albania's air force is too old and they are getting rid of it and attempting to modernize it. Thats why Italy patrols their space. Greece is second in military spending in terms of GDP. In terms of dollars, they are behind 11 other countries in military expenditure and don't have the same military capabilities as other countries even if they spend below 2% of their GDP on defense.

[kyrtgr]

And it looks like Greece did send troops. Less than 200 though and mostly in security or training. Meanwhile the Albanians have circulated about 5000 or more soldiers through Afghanistan. Completing over 120 missions and actually participating on the ground against the Taliban.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Alban...t-against-ISIS

Greece couldn't even be bothered to send more than 200 soldiers.

You understand that you're using the post of a random guy in quora, right? But let's try to reach his figures.
I went on and opened the first report of each of the 8 years (2007-2014) of the ISAF placemat archive (I didn't go through the Resolute Support Mission).
The most of Albanian personnel I found at one time was 286 with an average of about 175 over all the years. They must be on a 3 month rotation to sum up to (175 personnel * 4 tours per year * 8 years) = 5600 different personnel
Of course you understand that it is not fair to compare the amount of different personnel that toured in the duration of ISAF with the amount of personnel stationed there at one time. What if they had a 2 month tour? You would compare 8400 total personnel that stepped in Afghanistan with 200 that was there at one time?

Greece is second in military spending in terms of GDP. In terms of dollars, they are behind 11 other countries in military expenditure and don't have the same military capabilities as other countries even if they spend below 2% of their GDP on defense.

Lets be reasonable here. You can't expect Greece (or any country) to spend more, in absolute value, than bigger and richer countries. There is a reason the requirement is a pct of GDP. And of course bigger and richer countries that spend more than Greece in absolute value, but less than the requirement, will have more personnel and more equipment thus greater military capabilities but still not carrying their weight.

[Vanoi]

You understand that you're using the post of a random guy in quora, right? But let's try to reach his figures.
I went on and opened the first report of each of the 8 years (2007-2014) of the ISAF placemat archive (I didn't go through the Resolute Support Mission).
The most of Albanian personnel I found at one time was 286 with an average of about 175 over all the years. They must be on a 3 month rotation to sum up to (175 personnel * 4 tours per year * 8 years) = 5600 different personnel
Of course you understand that it is not fair to compare the amount of different personnel that toured in the duration of ISAF with the amount of personnel stationed there at one time. What if they had a 2 month tour? You would compare 8400 total personnel that stepped in Afghanistan with 200 that was there at one time?

Actually i think my link adds in Albanian troop deployments to Afghanistan so its actually probably more like 3500 or so who circulated through Afghanistan but if you compare it to the Greeks thye are deploying more troops than they are. Albania's military expenditure is quite low compared to Greece so it says something when they are contributing more than the Greeks who definitely have the capability to deploy more troops if they wanted but i guess that goes down to politics.

Lets be reasonable here. You can't expect Greece (or any country) to spend more, in absolute value, than bigger and richer countries. There is a reason the requirement is a pct of GDP. And of course bigger and richer countries that spend more than Greece in absolute value, but less than the requirement, will have more personnel and more equipment thus greater military capabilities but still not carrying their weight.

I was just making a point that its not as simple as meeting the recommended GDP spending on defense. You could meet that target and still not be pulling your weight (Estonia is a good example) while you could also be below that number but still be contributing a lot to the alliance.

[ioannis76]

Saudis don't like how close to Iran they are. Its a pure political dispute regarding the two rivals in the area, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

LOL, Quatar was characterised by US diplomats as the club Med of terrorists. I don't doubt that the deeper reason is what you're stating (particularly given that Saudi and Iran are no saints, quite the contrary), but Quatar IS a terrorist hotspot. This is undeniable.

What benefit is there in Albania?

Good God, just look at a map. Albania is right next door to the heartland of Europe. Don't you think that it would be good for terrorist/rogue states to have a base of operations right there?
They need basis in or near their target areas, just like that. What benefit is there in Belgium?
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...k-isis/416235/

What’s the Matter With Belgium?

The small nation has become a major source of violent jihadists, both in Syria and Iraq and also inside Europe.

Why would the Saudis and other fanatics invest so much on "radicalising" (again, I disagree with the term) over there? Well, because it's the European heartland.

Greece has no experience in fighting a large insurgency like the Taliban.

Nor is it necessary. We primarily need to be able to engage a regular army.

And, as kyrtgr said, you're just quoting some random guy on quora. I actually showed you evidence about how vulnerable the Albanian military is to defection and bribery.

Greece couldn't even be bothered to send more than 200 soldiers.

Our troops are meant to defend Greece, they are not US troops. We entered the alliance to have a win-win relationship, not a win for the US and lose for us. You're not going to buy glory (again) with Greek blood.
Albania, on the other hand doesn't have to worry about such things. Send your F22s here, to conduct Combat air patrol against our enemies, send your marines to patrol our borders, and then ask for our troops to be sent there and be put into harm's way.

Tarnishing the US's image around the world and making themselves look like thugs is worse.

I would argue that bombing sovereign countries (Serbia) on behalf of known terrorist drug dealing groups (KLA) would tarnish the US image even more. I mean, seriously, nobody would blame the US for kidnapping turkish troops in order to rescue an innocent US citizen. For God's sake, the US has done far, far worse (remember how the first Gulf war started, with a "nurse" claiming that Iraqi troops had taken newborn babies out of the incubators and smashed them on the floor, and the "nurse" turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaitian ambassador, telling a big fat lie. Not to mention the Second gulf war and the "weapons of mass destruction". I mean, SERIOUSLY man.

Greece is second in military spending in terms of GDP.

LOL, the quota is in GDP. NOT absolute numbers. This is ridiculous, if it was in absolute numbers it would either be ridiculously high or ridiculously low depending on which country we're talking about.

You could meet that target and still not be pulling your weight (Estonia is a good example) while you could also be below that number but still be contributing a lot to the alliance.

And you would be wrong, but let's play it your way. If there are countries that aren't "pulling their weight" despite making the GDP quota, then what business does the US have admitting countries that CAN'T POSSIBLY PULL THEIR WEIGHT into the alliance? That's what I'm talking about when I say "overexpansion", thank you for making my point.

[Vanoi]

LOL, Quatar was characterised by US diplomats as the club Med of terrorists. I don't doubt that the deeper reason is what you're stating (particularly given that Saudi and Iran are no saints, quite the contrary), but Quatar IS a terrorist hotspot. This is undeniable.

And yet The Emir of Qatar just visited Donald Trump at the White House not weeks ago.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43724576

Donald Trump praised them in their fight in combating terrorist financing. They are no IS hot spot.

Good God, just look at a map. Albania is right next door to the heartland of Europe. Don't you think that it would be good for terrorist/rogue states to have a base of operations right there?
They need basis in or near their target areas, just like that. What benefit is there in Belgium?
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...k-isis/416235/

Yes to conduct terror attacks against Western European targets. Albania is in the Balkans, the arm pit of Europe. And the Saudis aren't funding these people it would be IS recruiters and sympathizers. So i don't get your point at all.

Why would the Saudis and other fanatics invest so much on "radicalising" (again, I disagree with the term) over there? Well, because it's the European heartland.

Except its not the Saudis doing it. Your own damn link says the leader is Moroccan. Saudi Arabia is not even mentioned in your article.

Nor is it necessary. We primarily need to be able to engage a regular army.

And, as kyrtgr said, you're just quoting some random guy on quora. I actually showed you evidence about how vulnerable the Albanian military is to defection and bribery.

Kyrtgr's own sources show circulating Albanian forces. It also shows the Greeks having measly 4 soldiers for months at a time.

I would argue that bombing sovereign countries (Serbia) on behalf of known terrorist drug dealing groups (KLA) would tarnish the US image even more. I mean, seriously, nobody would blame the US for kidnapping turkish troops in order to rescue an innocent US citizen. For God's sake, the US has done far, far worse (remember how the first Gulf war started, with a "nurse" claiming that Iraqi troops had taken newborn babies out of the incubators and smashed them on the floor, and the "nurse" turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaitian ambassador, telling a big fat lie. Not to mention the Second gulf war and the "weapons of mass destruction". I mean, SERIOUSLY man.

Blah blah blah. Serbia doesn't get to commit ethnic cleansing regardless of of the KLA. I'm sorry but kidnapping people for blackmail is not the same as bombing Serbia for committing ethnic cleansing.

First Gulf War started because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Not because of the Iraqi nurse's claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

It never mentions an Iraqi nurse as a reason why the US invaded. Do try to not talk out of your ass.

LOL, the quota is in GDP. NOT absolute numbers. This is ridiculous, if it was in absolute numbers it would either be ridiculously high or ridiculously low depending on which country we're talking about.

GDP is not an accurate reflection of military spending.

[ioannis76]

Blah blah blah. Serbia doesn't get to commit ethnic cleansing regardless of of the KLA. I'm sorry but kidnapping people for blackmail is not the same as bombing Serbia for committing ethnic cleansing.

First Gulf War started because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Not because of the Iraqi nurse's claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

It never mentions an Iraqi nurse as a reason why the US invaded. Do try to not talk out of your ass.

Well, Hmmm made most of the points I would have so I would like to thank him for doing that.

So Serbia was comitting ethnic cleansing (really, now?) and that's why the US intervened. Saudi Arabia is committing ethnic cleansing in Yemen and the US is doing what, exactly?

https://www.mintpressnews.com/saudi-...-media/230552/

Saudi Arabia is wiping out its own Shia minority and the US is doing what, exactly?

Turkey is commiting ethnic cleansing of its own Kurdish population (whole villages have been wiped out) and the Syrian Kurds, collectively calling them terrorists, and bombing even hospitals, and the US is doing what, exactly?

First Gulf War started because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Not because of the Iraqi nurse's claim.
It never mentions an Iraqi nurse as a reason why the US invaded. Do try to not talk out of your ass.

You're either trolling, or you didn't bother to so much as do a simple google check. But I guess this is a reflection of how US decision making is made.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/o...itol-hill.html

Mr. Lantos is co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. An article last week on The Times's Op-Ed page by John MacArthur, the publisher of Harper's magazine, revealed the identity of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl who told the caucus that Iraqi soldiers had removed scores of babies from incubators and left them to die.

The girl, whose testimony helped build support for the Persian Gulf war, was identified only as "Nayirah," supposedly to protect family members still in Kuwait. Another piece of information was also withheld: that she is not just some Kuwaiti but the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S.

That's from way back in 1992.
A simple google search would have shown it for you but nooooooooo!

Except its not the Saudis doing it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/w...-for-isis.html

Since then — much of that time under the watch of American officials — Saudi money and influence have transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists.

They were radicalized and recruited, Kosovo investigators say, by a corps of extremist clerics and secretive associations funded by Saudi Arabia and other conservative Arab gulf states using an obscure, labyrinthine network of donations from charities, private individuals and government ministries.

And FFS, please do a research on Izetbekovic (leader of the Bosniaks, America's other friends, thank God you didn't bring them into NATO, too) and his link to political islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Declaration

This guy spoke of an Islamic State even in the late 60's, for crying out loud.

To sum up, IMHO, the problem with NATO is that we have Islamists even within it, in the form of Turkey and Albania, both of which can act in some cases via their non-NATO proxy if they don't want to openly do it themselves. Not that Turkey is not openly defying the US, with the US just taking it. Furthermore, we have the leader of the Alliance constantly getting slapped around by what should be one of the biggest enemies of the alliance (Saudi Arabia). No, you can't have a proper alliance that will work like that.

Your claim on the GDP is ridiculous, as I said Hmmm answered many of your "points", and as a final answer to your "gdp" load I give you this:



Seriously, if you want to have an alliance that will have countries that will just offer the US troops, money and bases, ignoring their own needs, while the US introduces their enemies into said alliance, refuses to speak out/intervene when said enemies threaten, and even accuses their traditional allies of "ethnic cleansing", at the same time looking the other way while US friends commit actual ethnic cleansing, then it's no wonder this alliance is going to start cracking.
The US is a relatively young superpower, and already you are showing signs of waning. Russia is basically dominating the mid East, Turkey is defying the US and NATO, and even China is pulling the rug:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/w...ed-states.html

Pick your allies and your fights carefully, don't go Gung-Ho.

[Love Mountain]

If the US does reward Greece for its involvement in the Korean War, why shouldn't it also reward Luxembourg, Colombia, Turkey, Thailand, South Africa, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Canada, the Philippines, New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom given that all of these countries had also fought along with the US in the Korean War.

We've helped and "rewarded" the majority of the countries listed. We've deployed a carrier to the Philippines to aid with disaster relief. We're still aiding Ethiopia and South Africa. I don't agree with playing overlord in the Aegean but you've picked a poor point.

[PointOfViewGun]

We've helped and "rewarded" the majority of the countries listed. We've deployed a carrier to the Philippines to aid with disaster relief. We're still aiding Ethiopia and South Africa. I don't agree with playing overlord in the Aegean but you've picked a poor point.

And, we/you orchestrated multiple coups in Turkey, issued an arms embargo after the Turkish intervention in Cyprus for 4 years and gave safe haven to head of a cult that infiltrated and tried to take over the Turkish government. I'm not sure how USA rewarded Turkey either.

[RandomPerson2000]

Could someone delete this post please as its no longer relevant to this thread here.

[Vanoi]

Well, Hmmm made most of the points I would have so I would like to thank him for doing that.

So Serbia was comitting ethnic cleansing (really, now?) and that's why the US intervened. Saudi Arabia is committing ethnic cleansing in Yemen and the US is doing what, exactly?

Who are the Saudis ethnically cleansing in Yemen? The Houthis who overthrew government of Yemen and occupied half the country? Your damn source is not even referring to Yemen but a region in Saudi Arabia. Do you even read your own sources?

Turkey is commiting ethnic cleansing of its own Kurdish population (whole villages have been wiped out) and the Syrian Kurds, collectively calling them terrorists, and bombing even hospitals, and the US is doing what, exactly?

What do you want hem to do? It sees you are just pissed that the US attacked Serbia but isn't attacking everyone who commits ethnic cleansing. If you hate so much get your country to go off and fight multiple wars around the world.

You're either trolling, or you didn't bother to so much as do a simple google check. But I guess this is a reflection of how US decision making is made

Thanks ignoring my source and not even reading your own. It says right in your own source that the incident was only one reason for the support of the Gulf War and it was temporary. Oil was way more of a reason for that war and my own source talks about other reasons you did not bother to read.

And FFS, please do a research on Izetbekovic (leader of the Bosniaks, America's other friends, thank God you didn't bring them into NATO, too) and his link to political islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Declaration

This guy spoke of an Islamic State even in the late 60's, for crying out loud.

To sum up, IMHO, the problem with NATO is that we have Islamists even within it, in the form of Turkey and Albania, both of which can act in some cases via their non-NATO proxy if they don't want to openly do it themselves. Not that Turkey is not openly defying the US, with the US just taking it. Furthermore, we have the leader of the Alliance constantly getting slapped around by what should be one of the biggest enemies of the alliance (Saudi Arabia). No, you can't have a proper alliance that will work like that

Your sources do not claim that Albania is an Islamist country nor does it say the Albanian government works with Islamists. The only obvious thing here is that you don't like Albanians or Turks. In fact I just don't think you like Muslims at all.

Your claim on the GDP is ridiculous, as I said Hmmm answered many of your "points", and as a final answer to your "gdp" load I give you this:



Seriously, if you want to have an alliance that will have countries that will just offer the US troops, money and bases, ignoring their own needs, while the US introduces their enemies into said alliance, refuses to speak out/intervene when said enemies threaten, and even accuses their traditional allies of "ethnic cleansing", at the same time looking the other way while US friends commit actual ethnic cleansing, then it's no wonder this alliance is going to start cracking.
The US is a relatively young superpower, and already you are showing signs of waning. Russia is basically dominating the mid East, Turkey is defying the US and NATO, and even China is pulling the rug:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/w...ed-states.html

Pick your allies and your fights carefully, don't go Gung-Ho.

Serbia has never been an American Ally. You have not answered anything and gave excuses. Just because Greece meets the GDP doesn't mean it contributed more than Albania or France who is actually able to help the US in anti-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria unlike Greece. The excuse you used was so it's hilarious. "Oh man if we send even a couple hundred troops to Afghanistan those big bad Turks will invade!!!"

Russia dominating the Middle East is hilarious. They can't stop Israel or the US bombing Syria. They can't force the Turks out of Afrin. They can't even touch rebels at Al-Tanf. But they are winning?

[ioannis76]

Vanoi, read the post I wrote again (or just read it, cause I don't think you bothered).
The link I gave you about Saudi Arabia refers exactly to their own Shia population. I even say so, but you never bothered, it seems:

So Serbia was comitting ethnic cleansing (really, now?) and that's why the US intervened. Saudi Arabia is committing ethnic cleansing in Yemen and the US is doing what, exactly?

I never said that Serbia was a US ally, I merely responded to what you said ie that "the US attacked Serbia because they were commiting genocide". So, why not attack Saudi Arabia too? Are US allies allowed to commit genocide?

It says right in your own source that the incident was only one reason for the support of the Gulf War and it was temporary.

LOL, everyone knows that the reason was oil. What the "nurse incident" goes to show is US hypocrisy in that war.

Greece contributed to the war in Korea, and other wars. Previously, you were saying that it's all about who pays the bills. Now that I showed you that Greece pays the bills, you turn it around.

Russia dominating the Middle East is hilarious.

What was hilarious was the epic failure of the first US Cruise missile attack in Syria:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04...hot-down-.html

https://southfront.org/decisive-failure-of-us-forces/

US air attacks are largely ineffective, because the US won't support it with ground forces or even attack helis. Russia, however, will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_KnT2yTsLI

Face it, Russia is dominating the situation in Syria. At least, let's hope that the US won't sell the Kurds cheap in Manbij.

And that's about as far as I'm willing to take this conversation. You apparently don't want to read what the other people are telling you. Furthermore, the idiotic arrogance displayed in some of your previous posts is quite insulting.

[Love Mountain]

Nobody is dominating in Syria. While US is on the backfoot due to the current administration, Russians face a serious challenge and dilemma in the Northern half of the country. Russia is certainly in a strong position in Syria, but they're not in position to call Syria a decisive victory and Syria is the only country Russia has a foot in. US is well established in several different countries in the Middle East. Most notably, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

[ioannis76]

Nobody is dominating in Syria. While US is on the backfoot due to the current administration, Russians face a serious challenge and dilemma in the Northern half of the country. Russia is certainly in a strong position in Syria, but they're not in position to call Syria a decisive victory and Syria is the only country Russia has a foot in. US is well established in several different countries in the Middle East. Most notably, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

This is true, but the challenge is even grater for the US. What will they do if Turkey goes for Manbij? Sell the Kurds off and kiss Syria goodbye? Or stick with them, and face off with Turkey? Russia is already lodged with the Assad regime, which doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, due to Russian presence there.
You are correct about Israel, but Israel is wisely also reaching out for Russia:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKBN1I41AB

Israel to Russia: We sat out Western sanctions, so help us in Mideast

[ioannis76]

Btw, this is from back in 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KdUjZ1Reb8

Fox News: Albanian Muslim Terror In America

The US assisted them, and they were planning on killing US soldiers. Usama, anyone?

But hey, there's also enterpreneurship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVhYCvjga3w

Inside the Albanian village that makes Europe's weed

[Vanoi]

Vanoi, read the post I wrote again (or just read it, cause I don't think you bothered).
The link I gave you about Saudi Arabia refers exactly to their own Shia population. I even say so, but you never bothered, it seems:

I did miss it like you keep missing most of my posts. Where's the evidence for ethnic cleansing in Yemen? Or do you realize you were talking out of ur ass.

I never said that Serbia was a US ally, I merely responded to what you said ie that "the US attacked Serbia because they were commiting genocide". So, why not attack Saudi Arabia too? Are US allies allowed to commit genocide?

Ethnic cleansing isn't genocide and the Saudi problem is no where near as bad. But you answered your own question. Serbia was not an ally. The Saudis are though.

LOL, everyone knows that the reason was oil. What the "nurse incident" goes to show is US hypocrisy in that war.

Greece contributed to the war in Korea, and other wars. Previously, you were saying that it's all about who pays the bills. Now that I showed you that Greece pays the bills, you turn it around.

You claimed the Gulf War was started over that incident. And now you are backtracking on that claim.

This isn't 1950. What Greece did almost 70 years ago doesn't matter in 2018. What matters is reality. And reality is that Greece may meet GDP requirements but they use excuses to not support current NATO operations while trying to drag the US into it's disputes with Turkey, Macedonia, and Albania.

[What was hilarious was the epic failure of the first US Cruise missile attack in Syria:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04...hot-down-.html

https://southfront.org/decisive-failure-of-us-forces/

US air attacks are largely ineffective, because the US won't support it with ground forces or even attack helis. Russia, however, will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_KnT2yTsLI

Face it, Russia is dominating the situation in Syria. At least, let's hope that the US won't sell the Kurds cheap in Manbij.

And that's about as far as I'm willing to take this conversation. You apparently don't want to read what the other people are telling you. Furthermore, the idiotic arrogance displayed in some of your previous posts is quite insulting.

Both of your sources are biased and their comes from Russian Ministry of Defense. The only people claiming the attack failed is Russia and Syria. Syria changed its story from shooting down only 13 missiles to claiming 71 the next day.

Most of Syria's air defense are Vietnam-era S-200s. The idea they could shoot down even one of third of the missiles is ridiculous.

[Love Mountain]

Both of your sources are biased and their comes from Russian Ministry of Defense. The only people claiming the attack failed is Russia and Syria. Syria changed its story from shooting down only 13 missiles to claiming 71 the next day.

Most of Syria's air defense are Vietnam-era S-200s. The idea they could shoot down even one of third of the missiles is ridiculous.

The issue is not really the SAMs but the air defense system. Syrians likely have neither the training nor full radar coverage to adequately defend themselves against Tomahawks. Tomahawks are subsonic missiles, while they are small they are not particularly fast. I'd say the main issue with Syrian air defense is most likely personnel. Air defense is not exactly 100% automated. I doubt Syrians have the experience or know how on how to deal with a missile strike. The majority of the equipment to neutralize or minimize the damage from a tomahawk strike is probably there.

[ioannis76]

I think Russia is already operating Pantsir systems missiles in Syria with Russian personnel. They should be able to deal with Tomahawks. Even if S-400 are present in the area, I doubt they would operate the radars as they wouldn't want the US or Israel to record the radar's signature just yet.

[ioannis76]

https://counterjihadreport.com/categ...ayyip-erdogan/



It's already starting, it seems...

[PointOfViewGun]

https://counterjihadreport.com/categ...ayyip-erdogan/
It's already starting, it seems...

Because someone wrote about it?

[ioannis76]

It's not starting because someone wrote a book about it, someone wrote a book about it, because it's starting. And it's not just "anyone" writing the book...