[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]

Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. That's only because Russia has veto right in the UN. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. Source?

There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable.

If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region.

Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. Russia does have other detterents, but the nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest one, and I doubt Russia would even be a permanent UN member if the didn't have nukes.

deeliman

Source? Can't people google anymore? So, you don't have one.

So if France and the UK didn't have Nukes they wouldn't be on the council as well? You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Microwave them both ! No hesitation, do it, just do it !

LexLas

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...

Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.

There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.

And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.

Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough. 

deeliman

Syria has been a no fly zone all these years thanks to the Russians, the very fact that Syria hasn't been attacked by the west is due to Russia. That's only because Russia has veto right in the UN. Syria has Russian "Advisors" on the ground, Russian personnel operating AA batteries, radars and god knows what else they are doing over there. Source?

There are other types of missiles besides ICBMs you know, and having inter-range missiles close to the enemy is very favorable.

If you think that the US is getting involved in Syria because of the EU I am just going to stop responding to your posts, this just shows blatant ignorance on the topic, and whats really going on in the region.

Nukes are a detterant, Russia has plenty of other forces that it uses for offense. Saying that all Russia has is nukes just further proves how ignorant you are. Russia does have other detterents, but the nuclear arsenal is by far the biggest one, and I doubt Russia would even be a permanent UN member if the didn't have nukes.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...

Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.

There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.

And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.

Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough. 

chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] Now it's packing up and leaving last time I checked. And yeah, that's what the EU did for when Russia is being a bully, and you don't constitute that as resistance, while when Russia does it it's being a big brave hero by your logic. Notice how Russia won't bully anything that's affiliated with the EU or NATO but only it's former slave states. If NATO invades Syria Russia will pull out and run away with it's tail between it's legs. If Georgia is accepted into NATO or something along those lines Russia will pack up and leave. 

And no not really, EU is pretty equal with the US in the alliance, just because the US has more "troublesome" international relationships doesn't really mean much. What would the US care about some third world country in the middle of the Balkans if the EU didn't care about it? 

chaplainDMK

That's some hardcore support for a supposed ally...

Also when did it spit? Didn't notice apart from Putin's daily dose of bullcrap.

There is a difference between political bullying and Chechnya and Georgia/South Ossetia.

And that's gonna do what? ICBM's are called "inter-continental" for a reason, this isn't the 1960's, ballistic missiles have the range to travel from Russia to the U.S.. You would just pointlessly waste a lot of resources moving nukes around. All of Russia's power relies on the fact that it has nukes, nothing more, nothing less. This virtually proves it, all Russia can do against the fact that Georgia would be protected by NATO is threaten with nukes. They have no conventional military leverage against the NATO or even just the EU.

Like I said, the US was involved in the Balkan wars, what the hell do you think was the reason? Oil? The US is getting involved in a lot of very local European crap, hell, Syria is utterly insignificant to the US, and it's sending aid to the rebels because the EU is close enough. 

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] The US and the EU/Europe are in a pretty tight alliance for half a century, they will help each other. Also a few days ago NATO started flexing it's muscles to invade Syria and Russia doesn't seem to offer much resistance even though it supports the Syrian regime. So yeah.

chaplainDMK

And no not really, EU is pretty equal with the US in the alliance, just because the US has more "troublesome" international relationships doesn't really mean much. What would the US care about some third world country in the middle of the Balkans if the EU didn't care about it? 

[QUOTE="consoletroll"]
Yes, it's not like the EU has winter fighting ability or anything right?
And Sino-Soviet split, China giving support to the Mujaheddin in the Soviet Afghan War, increasing cooperation between the West and China etc. etc. etc., while Vietnam is barely worth mentioning.

[QUOTE="consoletroll"]chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]
Absolutely nothing that you said in your post was factual.Barbariser

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="deeliman"]

deeliman

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"]First off I find the source suspect. Never mind the way the two seem to talk to each other is surreal. The wiki leaks docs I've read of Saudi isn't anything like this article depicts. Lastly Saudi doesn't have direct/indirect control of the Chechen jihadists. SaudiFury

show me where the Chechens take their orders from Saudi's then i'll believe you. individual wealthy Saudi's or even isolated princes do not constitute controlling them either, nor Saudi government endorsement of it either.

Saudi would have a better time trying to buy off Russia in some deal on oil or some sort of political deal, but threats of terrorism isn't what Saudi does. The Saudi government is opaque purposely so because of the culture and being an absolute monarchy with various half-brothers with different agendas (the King may have final say but he cannot control their every waking moment either).

The best way to understand how the Saudi's operate internationally is to apply game theory, whilst bearing in mind occam's razor "that which asks more questions then answers is most likely not true".

What i'm seeing here is mostly confirmation bias on the part of GS OT crew. "Ofcourse the Saudi's are behind it, why is anyone surprised".

and before someone says it. I'm not saying Saudi doesn't or hasn't ever supported Jihadists / terrorists, they were patrons to the then Taliban government of Afghanistan, and are - openly so - to the Salafi Jihadist groups in Syria running amok right now.

but in this one case, i think it's false.it rings false to me. That's why i said it before, i've followed and read as much as i've can get my hands on how the Saudi monarchy operates, and these sort of threats isn't their way of dealing with opposing nations. Think Jabba The Hut more, less Osama Bin Laden.

If Saudi wants to get back at Russia for upsetting it, it won't be through terrorism, it'll be through economics or politics.