Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Russia sends anti-ship missiles to Syria. The rebels have ships now? Ooooh, it's for the American and NATO navies that will probably intervene at some point. Way to be a dick, Putin   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 28
    More: Scary, anti-ship missile, Russia, Bashar, Aleppo, Syrian refugees, Erdogan, Foreign Secretary, peaceful protest  
•       •       •

7017 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2013 at 10:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-17 10:22:28 AM  
3 votes:
If we intervene, we deserve to get our shiat shot up.

We have zero national interest in intervening. No more wasted blood and treasure in that farking sandy shiathole.
2013-05-17 10:27:30 AM  
2 votes:
Everyone is missing the important detail; Russian anti-ship missiles look awesome, like some kind of 1950's spaceship.
2013-05-17 10:22:33 AM  
2 votes:
So you're saying that these missile are useless for influencing Syria's civil war one way or the other but could chew up imperialists that try to intervene?

Imokwiththis.png
2013-05-17 10:16:42 AM  
2 votes:

jylcat: Russia supports a dictatorship? Shaddup.


Let's not get into a game of what kitchenware we are calling black.
2013-05-17 01:13:31 PM  
1 votes:

NostroZ: [i1.kym-cdn.com image 850x601]

I actually had a boss who had this map up in his office... suffice it to say, we did not get along.


Because he had a sense of humor? Imagine that.
2013-05-17 12:24:35 PM  
1 votes:
It's funny, I remember awhile back when certain people went bonkers because it was suggested that maybe Russia was basically still our enemy for all intents and purposes.
2013-05-17 12:14:07 PM  
1 votes:

Psylence: If we intervene, we deserve to get our shiat shot up.

We have zero national interest in intervening. No more wasted blood and treasure in that farking sandy shiathole.


Problem is, WE created this mess, so we may have to clean it up as well?  The Syrian Rebels? A large  percentage of them are militant Salafists whose leaders Assad's father locked up in  his jails.   Back in 2003 when Iraq was looking like it was all smiles and Top Gun Montages and Mission Accomplished banners, a lot of the architects of the Iraq war were pointing Babe Ruth Style at Syria, essentially telling Assad "you got next".  Assad decided the longer we were busy with Iraq, the less likely he was to be invaded so he went to those miltant Salafist guys and struck a deal with them,  He'd let them out of jail and give them their guns back and  a one-way ticket to the Iraqi border where they could go Jihad to their heart's content against the American infidels there.  Thus "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" was born...Syrian fighters backed by Saudi cash fighting the Iraqi shiate majority during the Sunni-shiate civil war.     After the "anbar Awakening" when the local Iraqi Sunnis decided these guys were more trouble than they were worth, and things in Iraq starting claming down, these were basically rebels without a country.    At that point Syria looked like a softer target than Iraq which was still backed by the US military....so they decided to go home and start a revolution.  So basically we've really got  no one to root for in this fight, but we more or less made it happen
2013-05-17 11:54:56 AM  
1 votes:

PC LOAD LETTER: Conservatives who blame Obama for doing nothing in Syria need this fact drilled into their heads: there are countries who we would go to war with Russia over. This is not one of those countries.


As a totally libby liberal - I'm in favor of an intervention. I don't side with the rebels nor do I side with the regime. They're both doing terrible things to each other. Someone needs to be the goddamned parent.

Aside from the argument of ethical roles and obligations (in which there are no winners) - it's going to spark an international problem. You've got more than 1 million refugees that have fled Syria and the conflict is spilling outside of the border.
2013-05-17 11:50:57 AM  
1 votes:

NostroZ: Remember, this America's version of a world map is satirical:
[ct.fra.bz image 604x341]
It's funny because it's true that American's oversimplify the world...


Oh right and people don't do that, like say the way Europeans or Middle-Easterners see America and Americans.
2013-05-17 11:48:01 AM  
1 votes:
If Sryians want to kill each other, why does the US care? Whoever wins won't be out friend.
2013-05-17 11:39:51 AM  
1 votes:

amoral: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

You have no idea what Aegis is. It is an anti ballistic missile system. It is not effective against cruise missiles like the p-800 that russia is accused of having delivered to Syria. There are several variants, but none of them can track more than 100 targets, and none of them can engage more than 4.

The Aegis system has never successfully defended a US ship from hostile attack, although it did help USS Vincennes shoot down a passenger liner.


Unfortunately, you have no idea what Aegis is either.  It's an integrated defense system consisting of many layers (VLS/Phalanx are two.)  It is designed to shoot down standoff threats from aircraft, ships, subs, land cruise missiles and AFTER A TEST YESTERDAY AND A NEW MODEL SM (:standard missile" RIM 161) it will hopefully shoot down ballistic missile threats.  The ACS/AWS system even goes so far as to control torpedo launches from helos, ship's guns, harpoon anti-ship missiles and tomahawk land attack missiles as well as basically every other weapon system in the fleet.

You also seem to somehow imply it isn't effective because we haven't had a major naval conflict.  In fact it has tested superbly and the Vincennes incident was a result of a failure on the part of the Captain, not the system.

I'm also not sure where you got able to track "100" targets and engage "4."  That's ridiculous.  As for the P-800, Syria has had them since 2010.  From Defense Update speaking of the P-800 and AEGIS "AEGIS systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the European PAAMS, used by the Royal Navy, French and Italian navies and Israel's new Barak 8 ship air defense system are designed to match such treats."http://defense-update.com/20100920_yakhont_in_syria.html
2013-05-17 11:21:49 AM  
1 votes:

amoral: jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.

You have no idea what Aegis is. It is an anti ballistic missile system. It is not effective against cruise missiles like the p-800 that russia is accused of having delivered to Syria. There are several variants, but none of them can track more than 100 targets, and none of them can engage more than 4.

The Aegis system has never successfully defended a US ship from hostile attack, although it did help USS Vincennes shoot down a passenger liner.


YOU have no idea what Aegis is. Anti-ballistic missile capability is only part of what Aegis does. Aegis equipped destroyers are used to protect carrier battle groups from incoming missiles and aircraft. This includes cruise missile defense. The relevant paper from the Rand Corporation can be found here

You are correct about the 100 target limitation.
2013-05-17 11:08:41 AM  
1 votes:
If we are to intervene in Syrian civil war, Congress should vote for it and then vote to raise taxes to pay for it. No more wars on plastic!
2013-05-17 11:04:39 AM  
1 votes:
US military industrial complex ships weapons all over the world..... just sayin'
2013-05-17 10:57:32 AM  
1 votes:

Voiceofreason01: Tatsuma:
And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.

Israel is not "the west"


Pish posh, it's west of lots of things!
2013-05-17 10:57:16 AM  
1 votes:
Those Syrians carry the Exocet anti-ship missile. They can fire them from 100 miles away. Gentlemen, this is the real thing.
2013-05-17 10:56:17 AM  
1 votes:
Tatsuma:
And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.

Israel is not "the west"
2013-05-17 10:53:54 AM  
1 votes:
It is no more of a dick move than what we did in Libya.
2013-05-17 10:53:20 AM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: ginandbacon: *note to self: read more better*

We'll just assume that you started your day in a fashion consistent with your Fark handle. Lord knows I wouldn't mind similar.


Not gonna lie--I'm stuck here waiting for the cable guy and I *might* have had an Irish coffee...
2013-05-17 10:52:53 AM  
1 votes:

Tatsuma: Mr_Fabulous: Just to be clear... you are not suggesting that the U.S. military needs to get involved in Syria, or else Al-Nusra is going to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States of America, killing lots of U.S. citizens, right?
......

yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West.


You're not fooling anyone with this coy shiat. Just stop.
2013-05-17 10:49:15 AM  
1 votes:

Mr_Fabulous: Just to be clear... you are not suggesting that the U.S. military needs to get involved in Syria, or else Al-Nusra is going to detonate a weapon of mass destruction in the United States of America, killing lots of U.S. citizens, right?

Because if you are suggesting that, please piss off.


I listed one of the interests America had to intervene in Syria. This is one of them. That does not mean that I in fact favor intervention.

And yes chemical weapons in the hand of Al-Nusra means they will eventually be detonated in the West. That's their whole endgame.
2013-05-17 10:45:30 AM  
1 votes:

jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.


What percentage of US ships carry the Aegis systems? how many are based in the Med fleet? Aegis is built to defend battle groups, not to stop rogue attacks on commercial shipping or the such. The chance of Syria attacking an Aegis guarded battle group is slim to none, the chance of them hitting Turkish, Israeli or commercial shipping is a bit higher
2013-05-17 10:35:44 AM  
1 votes:

Tatsuma: Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening

Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...


we want Assad dead but we don't want terrorist groups taking over either

but that's the problem - the longer this civil war goes on the deeper any opposition group gains traction - including people we don't want to deal with

maybe had we intervened in the first 3-4 months we could've gotten our cake and eaten it too, but the Russians blocked that from happening as well as preventing another Libya-esque quick escalation in rebel control (thus causing a drawn-out conflict)

with the Russians still wanting influence there, the best route out of a never-ending civil war is for Assad to step down and leave the country - appoint a more democratic-friendly successor who signs a peace treaty and during that that weapons stockpiles are accounted for, terrorists get dispatched, a year goes by and maybe people start returning home
2013-05-17 10:30:06 AM  
1 votes:

jwilson07: Um, we have had the Aegis anti missile system in place on our ships for 20 years. It can track and shoot down 1000 targets at the same time. Give me a call when the Syrians can master things like personal hygiene and self government without killing thousands of people, then they might be a threat to someone besides themselves with anti ship missiles.


See, you had a post that was spot on for the most part, but you just had to throw some racist shiat in there. Shape the fark up, man, and drop the bigotry.
2013-05-17 10:25:36 AM  
1 votes:

Psylence: We have zero national interest in intervening


Well that's simply false. It absolutely is in the interest of the West to prevent Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliates) to get their hands on chemical weapons and spread them all over the Middle-East until they are eventually detonated in the West.

Then again, that would mean intervening to help Assad, so...
2013-05-17 10:25:29 AM  
1 votes:

ginandbacon: hubiestubert: In fairness, Syria really is essentially a Russian issue. And have been for a long while. NATO isn't going into Syria without Russia's support. Plain and simple. Were Syria NOT under the Russian sphere of influence, things would have been put into place some time ago, but folks really don't want to admit that.

And for some strange reason,  Subby

McCain & Lindwey Grahamseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?

I know, I know...welcometofark.jpeg.


FTFY
2013-05-17 10:16:45 AM  
1 votes:

ginandbacon: Subbyseems to think the Russians are on the side of the rebels?



Russia sends anti-ship missiles to Syria. The rebels have ships now?
2013-05-17 09:07:25 AM  
1 votes:
In fairness, Syria really is essentially a Russian issue. And have been for a long while. NATO isn't going into Syria without Russia's support. Plain and simple. Were Syria NOT under the Russian sphere of influence, things would have been put into place some time ago, but folks really don't want to admit that.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report