Russia deploys advanced anti-missile system to Syria for first time, US officials say

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Agendas. Always some stupid, God forsaken agenda that decimate people, citys, lives.....

Good. Blame god not me.

Proxy wars are fought instead of World Wars, that's why it isn't and wont be WW3 - no one wants it.

Afghanistan in the 1980a was proof, did USSR start war on America when it was common knowledge of the stingers?

Its just a way the big boys can fight without a war that will end one or the other, and no one wants that because they all know WW3 is unwinnable.

Perhaps change the thread title.

a reply to: BlackZodiac

F35 to M.E. 2016 ?

a reply to: Forensick

If Hillary Clinton is elected POTUS, she plans to create a no-fly zone in Syria. That would mean WW3. All the signs I see are that the United States is not backing down but only moving forward.

Instituting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s no-fly zone in Syria would require going to war [with Russia], according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
LINK

Saw on twitter that the Russian Embassy in Syria has been shelled.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Profusion

The part left out is Russia attacking civilians in Aleppo.

Those civilians were given advanced warning to leave over a month ago.
They are there at there own risk.


USA and UK never even gave warning to the citys we bombed in WW2.
Not did the USA give much warning to the villages it decemated in Vietnam.


War sucks people die.

And urban warfare has always been a messy buisness.

a reply to: crazyewok

The UN already stated the demand for civilians to leave violated international law. Civilians arent fair game regardless if they lave or stay.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Then how else do you fight a city infested with terrorists?

The UN is living in a idealistic la la land.

Again the USA and UK never even gave advanced warnings when we wiped citys out.


I dont like it.

But I dont see another option besides the terrorists surrendering.


End of the day? So what if the UN doesn't like it?
UN pretty much proven to be toothless were the USA, Russia and China are involved.

In fact the UN is toothless and irrelevant were any of the security council is involved.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Plus if you have found a way to make urban warfare less bloody and more effective i would contact your Department of Defence cause you would be made a general as you solved a age old problem

originally posted by: Forensick
Proxy wars are fought instead of World Wars, that's why it isn't and wont be WW3 - no one wants it.

Afghanistan in the 1980a was proof, did USSR start war on America when it was common knowledge of the stingers?

Its just a way the big boys can fight without a war that will end one or the other, and no one wants that because they all know WW3 is unwinnable.

Perhaps change the thread title.

I recall the Cold War taking place during that time frame and the many instances of where we almost went at it ith WW3
Proxy Wars between super powers are nothing to wave away with a hand either.

It only takes a mistake or intentional act to get the ball rolling to full scale nuclear war.

What will be interesting is to see how we fare given that all our major manufacturing and industrial know how was shipped to China to make the top wealthy in this country.

No surprise since loyalty or nationalism to this nation first is not in shareholders and execs dictionary.

a reply to: crazyewok

The US nor the UK were intentionally targeting civilians or protected infrastructure. As for the UN I agree its worthless.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think the people of Dresden, Hiroshma and Nagisaki may disagree with you on that one

I think there are some survivors of the Mai lai massacre that may disagree too

a reply to: crazyewok


There is no such thing as a war crime because, simply put, all wars are crimes.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: crazyewok


There is no such thing as a war crime because, simply put, all wars are crimes.

I would agree with you on that 100%

Wars suck.

I think the lable of war crimes is pathetic and everything in a war is pretty much a crime.

originally posted by: crazyewok

I think the people of Dresden,

Bombed in retaliation for Nazis targeting cities. Secondly Germany set that in motion when Hitler decided to take over the world.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Hiroshma and Nagisaki may disagree with you on that one

Then Japan never should have attacked the United States. Secondly the geneva conventions allow the targeting of military units / production facilities. in case you forgot the Japanese defense plan for the home islands required the civilian population to be used in a military capacity. When the guns ran out people were given shovels / spades / other sharp items.

The moment a civilian picks up a weapon and is going to engage an enemy they are no longer protected.

Finally while people want to make arguments about the US using nuclear weapons you guys sure do like to leave out the mass slaughter committed by Imperial Japanese forces toward civilian populations.

Nanking and the Manila massacre comes to mind.

If you wish we can move that debate on countries actions during wwii to its own thread and debate there so we dont run this thread off topic.

a reply to: Forensick
Perhaps we should credit George Orwell here? well, I do.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not debating if what we did was right or wrong.

In fact i agree with the Nuclear bombs as they saved lives in the long run. Still not a fan of Dresden.


But I will turn your arguments around.

You said tbe japanese and germans civilians turn3d there arms on the USA so brought there deaths on themselves.


Well the same can be said of alepo.
The civilians turned there weapons on Assad so useing your logic that made them fair game.


Or does that logic only apply to the USA?

Any building where any terrorist takes refuge becomes a legitimate target under the rules of engagement for the Syrian anti-terrorist coalition. The terrorists intentionally hide in schools and hospitals and other such places for the express purpose of using civilians as human shields. There really is no limit to how horrible these people are.

The dead civilians are on the terrorists. It's that simple. They are monsters and need exterminated. Quickly.

Civilians die in all wars. Quite terrible I agree but it really is rather unavoidable.

a reply to: crazyewok

I said Japan and not Japan and Germany. Near the end of the war Germany pressed civilians into service and armed them so they were also not protected.

As for Alepo if a civilian picks up a weapon and fight then they are not protected as civilians. Not everyone in Alepo is fighting. You still have a civilian population that is protected status.