Regarding your earlier silly comment about Clinton and the Republicans leading into a war with china.
Robin Hood wrote:You mean this comment? “.......if either Clinton or The Duck end up in the White House WWIII will ramp up and a nuclear confrontation with Russia/China could well be the result.” Where did I say that Clinton would start a war with China? But, the rhetoric from both is similar to yours and is all about the lessons Russia (et al?) will learn when they get back into the USA driving seat ...... to make America great again and go in and ‘kick ass’ ... that is what The Duck said, or similar I believe. Compare that with the very low key rhetoric that Putin/Lavrov use! I don’t think I have heard either express a threat to any one ..... just warning that there will be consequences if their western ‘colleagues’ step over the red line.
Yes that's the silly comment I was talking about.
Let's be very clear. We have no plans to "kick Russia or China's Arse" so to speak. The Americans are not into starting a Nuclear Holocaust and I think both USA and Russia are smart enough to keep any possible confrontation non-nuclear.
The game will be up for Pootin the day America lands troops in Syria. That will be the day Pootin will be holding secret discussions to save some face, and the USA will allow him that dignity because we understand that if he is embarrassed then something crazy is likely to happen and that is not what we want.
At the end of the day, our objective is to alter the Status Quo in Syria allowing the removal of Assad from power and a numerically consistent political representation to all the religious creeds and Ethnicities which are even denied Syrian Citizenship according to decree 93.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Syria.htmRussia can still maintain its Strategic Assets and also maintain an alliance with Syria.
We have a much more serious boogey man to deal with in the future and that is North Korea. War with north Korea is entirely possible, but we are not going to start it for now. It's a war that has been brewing since the ceasefire in the 50s.
'
Robin Hood wrote:Serious' .... a joke, right? North Korea is an annoying and theatrical ‘
mosquito’! The only reason the US has not attacked them is because ‘
Blobby Un’ would launch everything he had, plus hundreds of thousands of brain washed ground troops against South Korea. That is all that stops the US.
Are you serious? Of course we are cautious and monitoring these bastards the best we can. We are not prepared to do anything because of the possibility he might incinerate Seoul or Tokyo.
It is more likely they will start something because the "Supreme Leader" is a loose cannon. They have shelled the South Koreans in the past to provoke us, and we maintain and refrain from any retaliation.
But somewhere along the line, they are going to stuff up, and that's when the ceasefire line will move again. North Korea is dangerous, but it is a battle that will be fought in the future unless the regime falls. As the isolation weakens in this day and age, then the possibilities of a major rebellion from within increase. We would have no choice but to bomb all their launch sites within minutes because of the danger for retaliation.
However, several countries, are conducting overflights over the artificially dredged islands in the South China Sea - USA, Australia, Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam are all involved.
Robin Hood wrote:Fair enough but now put the boot on the other foot. Would the US or any of those countries you mention just accept Chinese or Russian aircraft overflying disputed islands in their territory? I think not.
Yes we would have no choice. International Boundaries are drawn as they are and we are aware of them. It just so happens that China is in actual fact violating UNCLOS in the South China Sea which is why the Chinese Navy do not respond to our aircraft once they tell the Chinese that they are "exercising their Freedom of Navigation" rights in International Airspace. The Chinese know they have no leg to stand on legally speaking. It will be a very brave China that decides to engage our aircraft in International Airspace.
They are just trying to assert themselves and we are trying to maintain the Status Quo and current status of the area because there are vital seal lanes to Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Japan, South Korea etc.
In fact recently, an Australian Orion aircraft was warned by the Chinese Navy to withdraw from the area .......
Robin Hood wrote:Previously you made comment about a group of Russian warships approaching Australian territorial waters and, according to your explanation, you then mobilised the might of the RAAF and ground/naval forces to see off the perceived threat. Russia is frequently accused of threatening Europe because they fly in International airspace, as is THEIR right but it’s OK for NATO to make threats. Seems like the west has difficulty in operating using a level playing fields.
We are not making any threats. And yes, Russians planes and Ships near Australian waters or Airspace will instigate a military response and it is considered an act of aggression and provocation. We will throw everything we have against them as no doubt they would do to us if we did the same.
....... it is important for us to undermine any effort against the Chinese who are illegally altering UN accepted International boundaries in an area that is hotly contested and which are vitally important to trade.
Robin Hood wrote:You look after YOUR interests. Fair enough, but does that not apply to those you oppose? The west gets upset with Russia when it moves troops and aircraft WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS as a response to NATO threatening them with missiles right on their borders. In response to a very obvious threat from their missiles/troops/armour/aircraft and yet it is always Russia that is the aggressor ..... and that is just simple bullshit NATO propaganda to frighten people against the ‘evil’ Putin ........ and it works, you are living proof and you are reasonably smart!
Of course it applies to everyone else.
Who said we are doing anything against Russia? We actually tried our very best to accommodate their every whim, and to even develop closer relations. We even supported them joining the PfP - first step to joining NATO. But thengs got nasty over Ukraine and now we are playing in the Syrian Desert. Revenge is a bitch.
If China wants to escalate, they can try and shoot our planes down. We don't believe they will do this under any circumstances.
Robin Hood wrote:I agree.
And why don't they report the "violations" to the UN. That is what we want them to do but they won't do it? Because they know they are in the wrong but won't admit it of course.
If they feel hard done by it is better for them to report the so called "violations" to the UN Security Council and accept the arbitrary decision of the UN which will be in our favour because the Airspace is International and as such the entire world
Robin Hood wrote:Of course it will be in your favour, if it isn’t it will be vetoed in the UNSC! The UN is a toothless (and very expensive) tiger; it is a talking shop that achieves very little in the real world.
Maybe! but at least they will have official confirmation about the Status of the South China Sea which they probably won't accept anyway, forcing all the Nations in the region, Australia and USA to conduct daily overflights to maintain the Status Quo.
Robin Hood wrote:BTW:
I just caught an interview on BBC World News with one of your moderate rebels. He says Russia and Assad are deliberately bombing schools, hospitals, people homes and are deliberately killing civilians mostly women and children. When asked if maybe it could be said that they are just as guilty? Hand-on-heart he stated 'Oh no ..... that is not true, we are there to protect the people, it is the Russians/Assad forces that do ALL the killing!’
Yes it's true. Russia is bombing civilian areas. But the worse of all is Syria's use of Barrel Bombs which level entire suburban blocks.
Robin Hood wrote:He represents the sort of people that provide all the ‘intelligence’ for your friend in Coventry (SOHR) with his claims of massive casualties among civilians due to Russian/Assad actions but surprisingly he doesn’t mention rebel casualties ...... because he treats them as ‘civilians’!
He is not the only one. I read the profile of a very intelligent Sunni Professor who yas taken it upon herself to report on all of Assad's attacks on civilians to the HRW. There are hundreds if not thousands of insider informants where this information is collated and social media is being used as a tool often with video and photographic evidence of the carnage.
Robin Hood wrote:Apply some common sense ...... CUI BONO? Why would Russia or Assad deliberately target civilians ...... it does not make sense ....... it would only create negative opinion and consequences, the very last thing they would want. The Corp. Media never mentions the tons of aid that is dropped by the Russians and, I assume Assad, to entrapped Syrian civilians, nor the fact that the rebels then seize it and then sell it to the trapped civilian population. Trapped because your moderate rebels shoot them down if they try to escape!
The answer is simple. because they want to break the strongholds. If the civilians give up because of their fear for annihilation, then the Opposition loses its purpose. Unfortunately for Assad, when all these civilians don't even exist, they probably think they've got nothing to lose or try to flee for the EU via Turkey.
Robin Hood wrote:It does not make any sense at all but ....... if rebels, supported and armed by the coalition countries hide within a civilian population, then civilians will die, it is tragic but inevitable. Why don’t the rebels get out onto the desert and challenge the SAA to good old fashioned hand-to-hand show down? Because they would lose!
It makes perfect sense to me. And even the siege makes sense where not even food and medicine is getting through apart from Coalition Airdrop in certain areas where we are able to do them. Hence the hundreds and thousands now starting to die off from starvation.
Robin Hood wrote:Sorry but I still think you have backed the wrong horse!
I think you have backed the wrong horse.
I still have no explanation why you would want to deny some Natural Justice and representation to millions of Syrians.
If Syria is about the Alawites alone which comprise 35% of the population, then Pootin and Assad can sign over 65% of Syria with a border to Turkey and Iraq and preferable some coastal access too, and we will leave the tyrant alone after the population exchanges.
