If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   US takes steps to interdict a Russian ship carrying missiles and arms to a client state. No, this isn't a repeat from October 1962...yet   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, attack helicopters, Russians, arms embargo, registered owner, Syrians, Business oligarch, strategic partner, Kaliningrad  
•       •       •

11976 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2012 at 10:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-17 01:58:32 PM

RandomAxe: Easier to destroy these helicopters when they're in Syria's possession than Russia's. I'd be tempted to let them unload them while keeping a close eye from well overhead, and then blow them up on the ground with Tomahawks once any Russian personnel were clear.

It's never quite that simple, but it would be a good Fark You to the purchasers, and Russia would still get its money.



Sounds good to me.
 
2012-06-17 02:29:52 PM

vartian: While the Kremlin, which has so far vetoed calls for a United Nations arms embargo against Syria, insists that Mil is merely honouring the terms of an existing business contract, critics point that such helicopters have helped spearhead President Bashar al-Assad's attempts to suppress the uprising against him. Last week it was reported that helicopters had repeatedly fired rockets at a hospital in a rebel enclave outside Aleppo in northern Syria.

Well, that's good to know.


The Russians are supporting Syria and other nations because arms sales are a HUGE part (10% or more) of their GDP. Remember all those factories making weapons for the Red Army when the Soviet Union went bust? Well, now they just export them. Losing Libya was a huge blow to their weapons income - losing Syria too would really hurt.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: US has sold deadly weapons to all kinds of dictators and NOW they grow a conscious?

The US doesn't have a conscious.

It has a "conscience"

I am so humbled. Thank you for correcting me. I owe you my life.
Arsehole

Hey, if you're going to be incorrectly snarky, you probably shouldn't be calling other people arseholes.


wasnt snarky, was pointing out history
 
2012-06-17 03:28:32 PM
Silly Ruskies. Don't they know that killing civies with drones is the approved way to do it these days?
 
2012-06-17 04:15:36 PM

Mock26: The U.S. Government should mind its own damn business on this one.


so you are OK with russia arming one side of a civil war?
LOLOL
 
2012-06-17 04:58:31 PM
This kind of ham-handed diplomacy could end very badly.
 
2012-06-17 05:25:35 PM
There are a lot of reasons for Russia to support Syria. Dictators bromance, Russia's port, arms sales...

I think people are missing the biggest one of all though. Russia is a dictatorship and dictatorships are being overthrown left and right. It's in Putin's best interest (notice I didn't say Russia's best interest) to stop this trend before is spreads north. Even oil wealth doesn't guarantee a dictator's survival these days.
 
2012-06-17 08:12:39 PM

ontariolightning: US has sold deadly weapons to all kinds of dictators and NOW they grow a conscious?


The US is a different country under each administration. So far as I know the Obama incarnation of the US has not sold weapons to bad people. I do know that the Reagan version did.
 
2012-06-17 08:49:29 PM

ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: US has sold deadly weapons to all kinds of dictators and NOW they grow a conscious?

The US doesn't have a conscious.

It has a "conscience"

I am so humbled. Thank you for correcting me. I owe you my life.
Arsehole

Hey, if you're going to be incorrectly snarky, you probably shouldn't be calling other people arseholes.

wasnt snarky, was pointing out history demonstating the quality of my vocabulary

 
2012-06-17 11:06:59 PM

namatad: Mock26: The U.S. Government should mind its own damn business on this one.

so you are OK with russia arming one side of a civil war?
LOLOL


Yes I am. No reason why the different sides of a civil war cannot seek outside aid.
 
gad
2012-06-17 11:27:50 PM

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: nekulor: rummonkey: MaudlinMutantMollusk:... think Patton was right. We should have kept rolling to Moscow after the nazis surrendered. Farking russians.

We wouldn't have been able to sustain a multi-continent empire and the large expansion of territory would have been too much for the US military to hold down against local rebellion. Also, China, seeing an opportunity, would have attacked both Russia and Japan in a bid to retake lost lands from the earlier wars in the 20th century....

The Chinese? then? not damn likely. They were worse than worthless as Allies in WW2


Armchair Generals, like listening to geeks arguing about "who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman" only with even more silly made up facts pulled out of thin air. I also found the comment about China attacking anyone in the 40's as being hilarious since that whole third world country was in a civil war.
 
2012-06-18 12:18:03 AM
It's terrible things that can happen to merchant ships.

They can get hijacked by pirates. Than can hit old unexploded mines from WWII.

Sometimes they just disappear mysteriously and no one ever finds out why. It's crazy.
 
2012-06-18 07:14:17 AM

ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: US has sold deadly weapons to all kinds of dictators and NOW they grow a conscious?

The US doesn't have a conscious.

It has a "conscience"

I am so humbled. Thank you for correcting me. I owe you my life.
Arsehole


I know, right!? What an asshole for pointing out your "word" doesn't exist!
 
2012-06-18 09:20:32 AM

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: nekulor: rummonkey: MaudlinMutantMollusk:... think Patton was right. We should have kept rolling to Moscow after the nazis surrendered. Farking russians.

We wouldn't have been able to sustain a multi-continent empire and the large expansion of territory would have been too much for the US military to hold down against local rebellion. Also, China, seeing an opportunity, would have attacked both Russia and Japan in a bid to retake lost lands from the earlier wars in the 20th century....

The Chinese? then? not damn likely. They were worse than worthless as Allies in WW2


The Chinese were too busy fighting themselves. Kai-Shek might have been willing to do it but Mao's Red troops ran away from anything that fired at them. Had the Nationalist forces pushed north through Manchuria into Siberia Mao's guys would have just taken and fortified the cities they left behind and they would come home to a communist country

/Which is pretty much what happened anyway
 
Displayed 14 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report