# Iran may receive S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia



## ESay

The president of Russia has signed a decree which allows Iran to get Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems.

The decree lifts a ban on transit transportation through Russia, export to Iran, and passing the systems to Iran outside the Russian territory.
 click (available in Russian)

The ban was introduced in 2010 by Russian then-president Dmitry Medvedev in the wake of the UN Security Council resolution which widened the sanctions against Iran.


----------



## Camp

Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.


----------



## Moonglow

But that should make conservatives happy, since their real he-man Pootin is a leader, a real leader...and he's white...


----------



## ESay

Camp said:


> The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.



Do you have any proof?
If I remember correctly, the US strongly opposed such a deal. Why would they do so if S-300 were a useless pile of metal?


----------



## Camp

ESay said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof?
> If I remember correctly, the US strongly opposed such a deal. Why would they do so if S-300 were a useless pile of metal?
Click to expand...

Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.


----------



## ESay

Camp said:


> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.



S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.


----------



## Camp

ESay said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
> But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.
Click to expand...

It comes down to good old fashioned arms escalation. Great for the weapons industry. The problem isn't with being able to contend with the anti aircraft system. We have means to identify their locations and destroy them. They may knock down some aircraft for awhile, but eventually they are neutralized. The problem with the S-300 is they have a long range, over 120 miles. That means they can target and surprize US aircraft flying over the Gulf, Iraq and even Afghanistan. It give the operator the option of shooting at aircraft outside of their territory. That equates to genuine arms escalation. The Iranians would be getting advanced weapons that allow them to attack outside of their borders.


----------



## ESay

Camp said:


> It comes down to good old fashioned arms escalation. Great for the weapons industry. The problem isn't with being able to contend with the anti aircraft system. We have means to identify their locations and destroy them. They may knock down some aircraft for awhile, but eventually they are neutralized. The problem with the S-300 is they have a long range, over 120 miles. That means they can target and surprize US aircraft flying over the Gulf, Iraq and even Afghanistan. It give the operator the option of shooting at aircraft outside of their territory. That equates to genuine arms escalation. The Iranians would be getting advanced weapons that allow them to attack outside of their borders.



If you can easily locate and destroy them, then I don’t see almost any problem at all. If you send, for example, two F-15’s to fly over Iraq and the Iranians decide to shut them down and they eventually shut them down by means of S-300, then you simply locate the positions of the S-300’s and destroy them. Right? Of course, you will lose two F-15’s and it is a pity. But you will be able to endure it, I hope.


----------



## nat4900

One of the many, mnay reasons whu right wingers on here are trulu stupid...".playing" at war as if they were playing their video games.

Sure, bomb away.....No repercussions, right?

..And then we wonder WHY other countries don't see us as any more than bullies with no morality....and then we call on God to shed his garce on us....

MORONS !!!!


----------



## ESay

nat4900 said:


> One of the many, mnay reasons whu right wingers on here are trulu stupid...".playing" at war as if they were playing their video games.
> 
> Sure, bomb away.....No repercussions, right?
> 
> ..And then we wonder WHY other countries don't see us as any more than bullies with no morality....and then we call on God to shed his garce on us....
> 
> MORONS !!!!



You are nervous, man. I know that tea with mint is good for nervous system. Do you have any mint in your neighbourhood?



nat4900 said:


> ..And then we wonder WHY other countries don't see us as any more than bullies with no morality....



Well, I have to admit that you are right to some extent. And what do you propose?


----------



## Camp

ESay said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to good old fashioned arms escalation. Great for the weapons industry. The problem isn't with being able to contend with the anti aircraft system. We have means to identify their locations and destroy them. They may knock down some aircraft for awhile, but eventually they are neutralized. The problem with the S-300 is they have a long range, over 120 miles. That means they can target and surprize US aircraft flying over the Gulf, Iraq and even Afghanistan. It give the operator the option of shooting at aircraft outside of their territory. That equates to genuine arms escalation. The Iranians would be getting advanced weapons that allow them to attack outside of their borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can easily locate and destroy them, then I don’t see almost any problem at all. If you send, for example, two F-15’s to fly over Iraq and the Iranians decide to shut them down and they eventually shut them down by means of S-300, then you simply locate the positions of the S-300’s and destroy them. Right? Of course, you will lose two F-15’s and it is a pity. But you will be able to endure it, I hope.
Click to expand...


The S-300 is mobile mounted. Not sure your scenario with the F-15's would work unless they were being escorted by a Growler and attack aircraft like the F-35 or strike system that could reach the target within minutes.
Everyone who deems Iran or anyone else with the S-300 aq threat will want the Growler to go along with the F-35. Russia needs money to flow into it's defense industry. The US might like more funds to flow into the US defense industry, but the US isn't in desperate need the way Russia is.
The S-300 has not been battle tested against the west, specifically NATO and the US. Until it is, it will be hotly debated. I'm betting the west will win if and when they do.


----------



## Indofred

This is s defensive system, only used to destroy targets invading Iranian airspace.
There is absolutely no need to care about it ... unless you wish to attack Iran.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Indofred said:


> This is s defensive system, only used to destroy targets invading Iranian airspace.
> There is absolutely no need to care about it ... unless you wish to attack Iran.


 Obama is cutting a nuke deal and they get these? I see an Israel attack coming up,


----------



## Camp

Indofred said:


> This is s defensive system, only used to destroy targets invading Iranian airspace.
> There is absolutely no need to care about it ... unless you wish to attack Iran.


That comment is just dishonesty being used to promote your opinion. Most defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. The S-300 is a perfect example. Your comment that it can only be used on targets invading Iran is a total lie. It can be used offensively to knock down any aircraft within a 120 miles of it's border. That is a new and profound addition to Iran's military capability.


----------



## Indofred

Camp said:


> That comment is just dishonesty being used to promote your opinion. Most defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. The S-300 is a perfect example. Your comment that it can only be used on targets invading Iran is a total lie. It can be used offensively to knock down any aircraft within a 120 miles of it's border. That is a new and profound addition to Iran's military capability.



I understand it's 93 miles, so that's nothing for Israel to worry about, unless they send an invading force of aircraft into Iran.
As for US bases surrounding Iran, don't surround Iran and there's no danger.
After all, Iran has no capability to attack America so, if you fuck off home, there's no danger to American troops.


----------



## Camp

Indofred said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment is just dishonesty being used to promote your opinion. Most defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. The S-300 is a perfect example. Your comment that it can only be used on targets invading Iran is a total lie. It can be used offensively to knock down any aircraft within a 120 miles of it's border. That is a new and profound addition to Iran's military capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it's 93 miles, so that's nothing for Israel to worry about, unless they send an invading force of aircraft into Iran.
> As for US bases surrounding Iran, don't surround Iran and there's no danger.
> After all, Iran has no capability to attack America so, if you fuck off home, there's no danger to American troops.
Click to expand...

The system threatens both military and commercial aircraft flying over the Persian Gulf and all neighbors of Iran, including Afghanistan. As far as bases or facilities around Iran, we have a right to be in any nation that invites us to be in their country.


----------



## nat4900

Camp said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment is just dishonesty being used to promote your opinion. Most defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. The S-300 is a perfect example. Your comment that it can only be used on targets invading Iran is a total lie. It can be used offensively to knock down any aircraft within a 120 miles of it's border. That is a new and profound addition to Iran's military capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it's 93 miles, so that's nothing for Israel to worry about, unless they send an invading force of aircraft into Iran.
> As for US bases surrounding Iran, don't surround Iran and there's no danger.
> After all, Iran has no capability to attack America so, if you fuck off home, there's no danger to American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The system threatens both military and commercial aircraft flying over the Persian Gulf and all neighbors of Iran, including Afghanistan. As far as bases or facilities around Iran, *we have a right to be in any nation that invites us to be in their country*.
Click to expand...

 
Ergo, we had and have a responsibility to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> This is s defensive system, only used to destroy targets invading Iranian airspace.
> There is absolutely no need to care about it ... unless you wish to attack Iran.



and yet the meccaist dogs and bitches complain INCESSANTLY about
the  "IRON DOME"  defense system


----------



## Camp

nat4900 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment is just dishonesty being used to promote your opinion. Most defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. The S-300 is a perfect example. Your comment that it can only be used on targets invading Iran is a total lie. It can be used offensively to knock down any aircraft within a 120 miles of it's border. That is a new and profound addition to Iran's military capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it's 93 miles, so that's nothing for Israel to worry about, unless they send an invading force of aircraft into Iran.
> As for US bases surrounding Iran, don't surround Iran and there's no danger.
> After all, Iran has no capability to attack America so, if you fuck off home, there's no danger to American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The system threatens both military and commercial aircraft flying over the Persian Gulf and all neighbors of Iran, including Afghanistan. As far as bases or facilities around Iran, *we have a right to be in any nation that invites us to be in their country*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ergo, we had and have a responsibility to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

That is an opinion. When it gains enough support it will be accomplished. At the present time the support is for keeping a presence in and around both of those nations.


----------



## irosie91

I am geographically compromised-----93 miles?      seems to me that Iran could
use that rocket system in the inevitable Shiite/sunni conflict heating up right now
in Yemen and spilling into Saudi-arabia


----------



## irosie91

PS----from prophetess rosie------Russia will ally with Iran and the rest of the world's
   Shiite shit----in the war    Yemen/Saudi arabia


----------



## irosie91

Camp said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> It comes down to good old fashioned arms escalation. Great for the weapons industry. The problem isn't with being able to contend with the anti aircraft system. We have means to identify their locations and destroy them. They may knock down some aircraft for awhile, but eventually they are neutralized. The problem with the S-300 is they have a long range, over 120 miles. That means they can target and surprize US aircraft flying over the Gulf, Iraq and even Afghanistan. It give the operator the option of shooting at aircraft outside of their territory. That equates to genuine arms escalation. The Iranians would be getting advanced weapons that allow them to attack outside of their borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can easily locate and destroy them, then I don’t see almost any problem at all. If you send, for example, two F-15’s to fly over Iraq and the Iranians decide to shut them down and they eventually shut them down by means of S-300, then you simply locate the positions of the S-300’s and destroy them. Right? Of course, you will lose two F-15’s and it is a pity. But you will be able to endure it, I hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The S-300 is mobile mounted. Not sure your scenario with the F-15's would work unless they were being escorted by a Growler and attack aircraft like the F-35 or strike system that could reach the target within minutes.
> Everyone who deems Iran or anyone else with the S-300 aq threat will want the Growler to go along with the F-35. Russia needs money to flow into it's defense industry. The US might like more funds to flow into the US defense industry, but the US isn't in desperate need the way Russia is.
> The S-300 has not been battle tested against the west, specifically NATO and the US. Until it is, it will be hotly debated. I'm betting the west will win if and when they do.
Click to expand...


that  "MOBILE MOUNTED"   thing is perfect for the Islamic way of war-----
     to wit >>>   shoot from baby nurseries an mosques  and then RUN


----------



## ESay

irosie91 said:


> that "MOBILE MOUNTED" thing is perfect for the Islamic way of war-----
> to wit >>> shoot from baby nurseries an mosques and then RUN



I don't think this tactic can be used with S-300’s. The S-300 isn’t a homemade mortar which can be easily and stealthily transported. Moreover, the system is precious enough to be left without regret.


----------



## irosie91

ESay said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that "MOBILE MOUNTED" thing is perfect for the Islamic way of war-----
> to wit >>> shoot from baby nurseries an mosques and then RUN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this tactic can be used with S-300’s. The S-300 isn’t a homemade mortar which can be easily and stealthily transported. Moreover, the system is precious enough to be left without regret.
Click to expand...


then why are they mounted on trucks?     The mounted thing was the method
used by Hezbollah  in their attack on Israel in     ???   Uhm   I think it was 2006. 
the launchers mounted on trucks that was located in the area south of the Litani
river were not  "homemade"-----the bombs were of the nail type----devoted to
knocking the brains out of children-----but not really  "homemade"


----------



## ESay

irosie91 said:


> then why are they mounted on trucks? The mounted thing was the method
> used by Hezbollah in their attack on Israel in ??? Uhm I think it was 2006.
> the launchers mounted on trucks that was located in the area south of the Litani
> river were not "homemade"-----the bombs were of the nail type----devoted to
> knocking the brains out of children-----but not really "homemade"



Because the system is very large and has a great weight and therefore can’t be transported without trucks. But it is a completely different thing, considering its ability, from Hezbollah’s launchers.

Here is a link about S-300 S-300 missile - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## irosie91

ESay said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why are they mounted on trucks? The mounted thing was the method
> used by Hezbollah in their attack on Israel in ??? Uhm I think it was 2006.
> the launchers mounted on trucks that was located in the area south of the Litani
> river were not "homemade"-----the bombs were of the nail type----devoted to
> knocking the brains out of children-----but not really "homemade"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the system is very large and has a great weight and therefore can’t be transported without trucks. But it is a completely different thing, considering its ability, from Hezbollah’s launchers.
> 
> Here is a link about S-300 S-300 missile - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




ESay said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why are they mounted on trucks? The mounted thing was the method
> used by Hezbollah in their attack on Israel in ??? Uhm I think it was 2006.
> the launchers mounted on trucks that was located in the area south of the Litani
> river were not "homemade"-----the bombs were of the nail type----devoted to
> knocking the brains out of children-----but not really "homemade"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the system is very large and has a great weight and therefore can’t be transported without trucks. But it is a completely different thing, considering its ability, from Hezbollah’s launchers.
> 
> Here is a link about S-300 S-300 missile - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


thanks for the link-----I still don't like it-----it provides a Shiite advantage in the
coming war


----------



## ESay

irosie91 said:


> thanks for the link-----I still don't like it-----it provides a Shiite advantage in the
> coming war



Do you think the war is inevitable? Between Iran and Israel? Or between Iran and the US?


----------



## Billo_Really

Camp said:


> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.


F-35's are just fighter jets.  They don't have the gas tank large enough to allow them to reach Iran.  You need long range bombers for that and Israel doesn't have any of those.


----------



## Billo_Really

Camp said:


> It comes down to good old fashioned arms escalation. Great for the weapons industry. The problem isn't with being able to contend with the anti aircraft system. We have means to identify their locations and destroy them. They may knock down some aircraft for awhile, but eventually they are neutralized. The problem with the S-300 is they have a long range, over 120 miles. That means they can target and surprize US aircraft flying over the Gulf, Iraq and even Afghanistan. It give the operator the option of shooting at aircraft outside of their territory. That equates to genuine arms escalation. The Iranians would be getting advanced weapons that allow them to attack outside of their borders.


Or defend them from bullshit invaders?


----------



## ESay

Billo_Really said:


> F-35's are just fighter jets. They don't have the gas tank large enough to allow them to reach Iran. You need long range bombers for that and Israel doesn't have any of those.


The F-35 is multirole aircraft.
Can the F-35’s be placed on an aircraft carrier being used by the US Navy and which is able to reach the Persian Gulf?


----------



## irosie91

ESay said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the link-----I still don't like it-----it provides a Shiite advantage in the
> coming war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the war is inevitable? Between Iran and Israel? Or between Iran and the US?
Click to expand...


I do not know where historians will place the start of the war----which  IMO---is
ongoing right now. -------In a very general sense it is a Shiite vs Sunni war. 
The Shiite leader is Iran      Hezbollah is iran ----the objective, for starters,  is
Saudi Arabia  ---the sunni leader


----------



## Indofred

Camp said:


> The system threatens both military and commercial aircraft flying over the Persian Gulf



Please post any threats or actual shooting downs of any civil aircraft in that region by Iran.
I know of one airliner, but the US navy murdered those unarmed civilians.
Perhaps you should moan about the United states, a known offender with anti aircraft missiles, having such weapons.


----------



## ESay

irosie91 said:


> I do not know where historians will place the start of the war----which IMO---is
> ongoing right now. -------In a very general sense it is a Shiite vs Sunni war.
> The Shiite leader is Iran Hezbollah is iran ----the objective, for starters, is
> Saudi Arabia ---the sunni leader



Yes, the war between Shiites and Sunnis is ongoing. I agree with you about it.


----------



## Indofred

ESay said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35's are just fighter jets. They don't have the gas tank large enough to allow them to reach Iran. You need long range bombers for that and Israel doesn't have any of those.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is multirole aircraft.
> Can the F-35’s be placed on an aircraft carrier being used by the US Navy and which is able to reach the Persian Gulf?
Click to expand...


So, the US taxpayer will give very expensive aircraft to Israel, all to stop a threat that's 900 miles short of able to hit Israel, then allow Israel use of an aircraft carrier to get them within striking distance of Iran, making American targets legitimate.
Your post may be a little silly.


----------



## Indofred

irosie91 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is s defensive system, only used to destroy targets invading Iranian airspace.
> There is absolutely no need to care about it ... unless you wish to attack Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet the meccaist dogs and bitches complain INCESSANTLY about
> the  "IRON DOME"  defense system
Click to expand...


Seriously, have you considered talking to a shrink?
You're ill in the head.


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system threatens both military and commercial aircraft flying over the Persian Gulf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post any threats or actual shooting downs of any civil aircraft in that region by Iran.
> 
> why??
Click to expand...


----------



## Indofred

nat4900 said:


> Ergo, we had and have a responsibility to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan?



Actually, you had a responsibility not to invade those places at all.


----------



## Indofred

irosie91 said:


> why??


[/QUOTE]

Because the only case of mass murder by AA missile in that region was committed by America.


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is s defensive system, only used to destroy targets invading Iranian airspace.
> There is absolutely no need to care about it ... unless you wish to attack Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet the meccaist dogs and bitches complain INCESSANTLY about
> the  "IRON DOME"  defense system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, have you considered talking to a shrink?
> You're ill in the head.
Click to expand...


Is that the best you can do?


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo, we had and have a responsibility to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you had a responsibility not to invade those places at all.
Click to expand...


that's what you guys said about Germany and Japan


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why??
Click to expand...


Because the only case of mass murder by AA missile in that region was committed by America.[/QUOTE]

so?     the only act of war is the one YOU decide is an act of war?----you get to decide the  "where and the when and the how"?    -----allah spoke to you in
a dream?


----------



## ESay

Indofred said:


> So, the US taxpayer will give very expensive aircraft to Israel,


Israel is one of the countries which are considering buying the F-35’s.



Indofred said:


> making American targets legitimate.


What? I think that only a mute hasn’t yet cried ‘death to America’ in Iran.


And by the way, why should it be Israeli F-35’s rather than the US’s? In the future it may well be that the goals of Israel and the US will be quite the same.


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35's are just fighter jets. They don't have the gas tank large enough to allow them to reach Iran. You need long range bombers for that and Israel doesn't have any of those.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is multirole aircraft.
> Can the F-35’s be placed on an aircraft carrier being used by the US Navy and which is able to reach the Persian Gulf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the US taxpayer will give very expensive aircraft to Israel, all to stop a threat that's 900 miles short of able to hit Israel, then allow Israel use of an aircraft carrier to get them within striking distance of Iran, making American targets legitimate.
> Your post may be a little silly.
Click to expand...


Iran's threat extends to any place in which a Hezbollah dog exists.   Iran trains
and funds and arms Hezbollah and so is a LEGAL TARGET.   The Hezbollah
infection has spread thruout the middle east and has been implicated in world wide
terrorism.    As is true of the filth of Islamic terrorism----the operatives do not
wear uniforms----<<itself a violation .     Every time the dogs and pigs strike----they
JUSTIFY  return fire at WHATEVER target seems involved


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> F-35's are just fighter jets. They don't have the gas tank large enough to allow them to reach Iran. You need long range bombers for that and Israel doesn't have any of those.
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 is multirole aircraft.
> Can the F-35’s be placed on an aircraft carrier being used by the US Navy and which is able to reach the Persian Gulf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the US taxpayer will give very expensive aircraft to Israel, all to stop a threat that's 900 miles short of able to hit Israel, then allow Israel use of an aircraft carrier to get them within striking distance of Iran, making American targets legitimate.
> Your post may be a little silly.
Click to expand...


Israel has not attacked Iran-----your comment makes no sense at all.   The USA is
a   "legitimate target"    just because Israel has access to ships that are in
striking distance of Iran?        Iran has already attacked Israel via its operative
dog----NUS-KHARAH-ALLAH and friends,  thus Iran and anything related to it is---by your logic----a legal target.    Hezbollah dogs  (Iranian operatives) have been sighted thruout the middle east ----in fact,   even in the shariah cesspit---
INDONESIA.    Do you consider the war between Hezbollah located in southern
Lebanon-----and Israel to be an  "attack on Iran"?


----------



## Indofred

irosie91 said:


> Israel has not attacked Iran



Are you sure?

7 June 1981

Israel, as usual, attacked a country is wasn't at war with, murdering civilians.
Just another in a long list of Israeli terrorist offences.


----------



## Indofred

irosie91 said:


> so? the only act of war is the one YOU decide is an act of war?----you get to decide the "where and the when and the how"?



No, a US ship, illegally operating in Iranian waters, shot down a civilian airliner, murdering a lot of people.

That's pretty clear and, after the lies were busted, admitted by the US.


----------



## Indofred

irosie91 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo, we had and have a responsibility to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you had a responsibility not to invade those places at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what you guys said about Germany and Japan
Click to expand...


There's a difference between Germany, a country that was trying to ally with the US, and Japan, a country the US forced into war by blockading their oil supplies.

Of course, the Pearl harbour attack was a shock - but it wasn't.


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has not attacked Iran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> 7 June 1981
> 
> Israel, as usual, attacked a country is wasn't at war with, murdering civilians.
> Just another in a long list of Israeli terrorist offences.
Click to expand...


what a sick lump of excrement you are,  Freddie.    It was an acknowleged
fact that your hero  ----murdering dog  SADDAM was funding every meccaist slut
willing to tie a bomb to her whorish ass for the Islamic purpose of
murdering Israeli children.       The whole civilized world cheered when Israel
knocked out   Iraq's nuclear reactor.     Saddam began his    "LETS KILL DA JOOOOS"  program way back in the  1960s     He even sent his emissary to the
USA  to drum up support for the Islamic BOMB ON STINKING ASS program.  
way way back in the mid sixties.        People will cheer again......   sit tight


----------



## nat4900

Indofred said:


> No, a US ship, illegally operating in Iranian waters, shot down a civilian airliner, murdering a lot of people.
> 
> That's pretty clear and, after the lies were busted, admitted by the US.



July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was shot down by _USS Vincennes_ on the Bandar Abbas-Dubai rout, which resulted in the loss of life of 290 innocent civilians from six nations including 66 children. There were 38 non-Iranians aboard. 
Iran Chamber Society History of Iran Shooting Down Iran Air Flight 655 IR655 

Imagine how _WE_ would have reacted had this incident been reversed.


----------



## Indofred

nat4900 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a US ship, illegally operating in Iranian waters, shot down a civilian airliner, murdering a lot of people.
> 
> That's pretty clear and, after the lies were busted, admitted by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was shot down by _USS Vincennes_ on the Bandar Abbas-Dubai rout, which resulted in the loss of life of 290 innocent civilians from six nations including 66 children. There were 38 non-Iranians aboard.
> Iran Chamber Society History of Iran Shooting Down Iran Air Flight 655 IR655
> 
> Imagine how _WE_ would have reacted had this incident been reversed.
Click to expand...


The US would get all upset.
Because the US did it, they lied, then tried to ignore it.


----------



## nat4900

irosie91 said:


> what a sick lump of excrement you are, Freddie. It was an acknowleged
> fact that your hero ----murdering dog SADDAM was funding every meccaist slut
> willing to tie a bomb to her whorish ass for the Islamic purpose of
> murdering Israeli children. The whole civilized world cheered when Israel
> knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor. Saddam began his "LETS KILL DA JOOOOS" program way back in the 1960s He even sent his emissary to the
> USA to drum up support for the Islamic BOMB ON STINKING ASS program.
> way way back in the mid sixties. People will cheer again...... sit tight


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo, we had and have a responsibility to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you had a responsibility not to invade those places at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what you guys said about Germany and Japan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between Germany, a country that was trying to ally with the US, and Japan, a country the US forced into war by blockading their oil supplies.
> 
> Of course, the Pearl harbour attack was a shock - but it wasn't.
Click to expand...


blockades and boycotts  FORCE  countries into war?  ----in fact the USA
did not blockade Japan------but carry on--------your theory that  islamo Nazi  
BDS justifies attack is fine with me


----------



## nat4900

irosie91 said:


> what a sick lump of excrement you are, Freddie. It was an acknowleged
> fact that your hero ----murdering dog SADDAM was funding every meccaist slut
> willing to tie a bomb to her whorish ass for the Islamic purpose of
> murdering Israeli children. The whole civilized world cheered when Israel
> knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor. Saddam began his "LETS KILL DA JOOOOS" program way back in the 1960s He even sent his emissary to the
> USA to drum up support for the Islamic BOMB ON STINKING ASS program.
> way way back in the mid sixties. People will cheer again...... sit tight



This picture was taken when Rumsfeld was a closeted-democrat


----------



## irosie91

nat4900 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a sick lump of excrement you are, Freddie. It was an acknowleged
> fact that your hero ----murdering dog SADDAM was funding every meccaist slut
> willing to tie a bomb to her whorish ass for the Islamic purpose of
> murdering Israeli children. The whole civilized world cheered when Israel
> knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor. Saddam began his "LETS KILL DA JOOOOS" program way back in the 1960s He even sent his emissary to the
> USA to drum up support for the Islamic BOMB ON STINKING ASS program.
> way way back in the mid sixties. People will cheer again...... sit tight
Click to expand...




nat4900 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a sick lump of excrement you are, Freddie. It was an acknowleged
> fact that your hero ----murdering dog SADDAM was funding every meccaist slut
> willing to tie a bomb to her whorish ass for the Islamic purpose of
> murdering Israeli children. The whole civilized world cheered when Israel
> knocked out Iraq's nuclear reactor. Saddam began his "LETS KILL DA JOOOOS" program way back in the 1960s He even sent his emissary to the
> USA to drum up support for the Islamic BOMB ON STINKING ASS program.
> way way back in the mid sixties. People will cheer again...... sit tight
Click to expand...


Your point?


----------



## nat4900

irosie91 said:


> blockades and boycotts FORCE countries into war? ----in fact the USA
> did not blockade Japan------but carry on--------your theory that islamo Nazi
> BDS justifies attack is fine with me




You're dumber than usual, rosie (not an easy task).....Are you OK?


----------



## Camp

nat4900 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a US ship, illegally operating in Iranian waters, shot down a civilian airliner, murdering a lot of people.
> 
> That's pretty clear and, after the lies were busted, admitted by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was shot down by _USS Vincennes_ on the Bandar Abbas-Dubai rout, which resulted in the loss of life of 290 innocent civilians from six nations including 66 children. There were 38 non-Iranians aboard.
> Iran Chamber Society History of Iran Shooting Down Iran Air Flight 655 IR655
> 
> Imagine how _WE_ would have reacted had this incident been reversed.
Click to expand...

The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters. The USS Vincennes chased the gunboats back into Iranian waters. The Iranians stopped targeting and firing on American aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf after the shootdown of IR 655.


----------



## irosie91

nat4900 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> blockades and boycotts FORCE countries into war? ----in fact the USA
> did not blockade Japan------but carry on--------your theory that islamo Nazi
> BDS justifies attack is fine with me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dumber than usual, rosie (not an easy task).....Are you OK?
Click to expand...


you said nothing-----you simply farted and spat.   If you imagine that you have something to  "say"----why not say it?


----------



## nat4900

irosie91 said:


> Your point?




Simple question: Were Reagan, Rummy and all neocons, anti-Semites?


----------



## irosie91

Camp said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a US ship, illegally operating in Iranian waters, shot down a civilian airliner, murdering a lot of people.
> 
> That's pretty clear and, after the lies were busted, admitted by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was shot down by _USS Vincennes_ on the Bandar Abbas-Dubai rout, which resulted in the loss of life of 290 innocent civilians from six nations including 66 children. There were 38 non-Iranians aboard.
> Iran Chamber Society History of Iran Shooting Down Iran Air Flight 655 IR655
> 
> Imagine how _WE_ would have reacted had this incident been reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters. The USS Vincennes chased the gunboats back into Iranian waters. The Iranians stopped targeting and firing on American aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf after the shootdown of IR 655.
Click to expand...


it's all they have-----Military error in an arena of conflict that THEY THEMSELVES CREATED


----------



## nat4900

Camp said:


> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters. The USS Vincennes chased the gunboats back into Iranian waters. The Iranians stopped targeting and firing on American aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf after the shootdown of IR 655.



Here's a seldom seen picture of the result of our shooting down an Iranian civilian airline....Again, how would _WE_ have reacted?


----------



## irosie91

nat4900 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple question: Were Reagan, Rummy and all neocons, anti-Semites?
Click to expand...


they were indifferent.     just as lots of people were indifferent in the 1930s.    In fact
the world was indifferent to the Armenian genocide and the Pol Pot
genocides-----too.       Most people in the US were indifferent to lynchings in
the southern part of the USA too.      -------how did you feel about the genocides
that took place in Biafra and East Pakistan in 1971?       Iraqi jews fled Iraq when
Saddam starting lynching jews in Baghdad.    Lots ended up in Israel


----------



## irosie91

nat4900 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters. The USS Vincennes chased the gunboats back into Iranian waters. The Iranians stopped targeting and firing on American aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf after the shootdown of IR 655.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a seldom seen picture of the result of our shooting down an Iranian civilian airline....Again, how would _WE_ have reacted?
Click to expand...


Military error in an arena of conflict created by the Iranian scum


----------



## Camp

nat4900 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters. The USS Vincennes chased the gunboats back into Iranian waters. The Iranians stopped targeting and firing on American aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf after the shootdown of IR 655.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a seldom seen picture of the result of our shooting down an Iranian civilian airline....Again, how would _WE_ have reacted?
Click to expand...

American pilots would have identified themselves as a commercial airliner in response to the half dozen request by a war ship to identify themselves. They also would not be flying over an area where combat was taking place. Air controllers would have warned them away from the area instead of allowing them to fly in a direct path to a war ship under attack from Iranian forces.


----------



## irosie91

Camp said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters. The USS Vincennes chased the gunboats back into Iranian waters. The Iranians stopped targeting and firing on American aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf after the shootdown of IR 655.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a seldom seen picture of the result of our shooting down an Iranian civilian airline....Again, how would _WE_ have reacted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American pilots would have identified themselves as a commercial airliner in response to the half dozen request by a war ship to identify themselves. They also would not be flying over an area where combat was taking place. Air controllers would have warned them away from the area instead of allowing them to fly in a direct path to a war ship under attack from Iranian forces.
Click to expand...


That's good to know------stay out of arenas of conflct-----seems
reasonable but I did not know it is  PROTOCOL


----------



## Indofred

Camp said:


> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters



Helicopters that were fired up by small arms whilst invading Iranian airspace.
Limp excuses and half stories don't excuse mass murder.


----------



## Indofred

Camp said:


> Air controllers would have warned them away from the area instead of allowing them to fly in a direct path to a war ship under attack from Iranian forces.



Except the Iranian controllers didn't know a US warship was invading Iranian waters to attack Iranian boats that had fired on an invading aircraft.
The aircraft had no warnings at all, because the daft murdering US navy didn't use the correct frequencies, nor did they check the fully operating civilian transponder signal the aircraft was using.

Of course, the US reports lied about these minor facts, only admitting them when they ran out of lies and the ability to cover up the murders.


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters that were fired up by small arms whilst invading Iranian airspace.
> Limp excuses and half stories don't excuse mass murder.
Click to expand...


why would Iran fire on US helicopters?.     It does not take much
to bring a helicopter down------were the helicopters engaged in
BOMBING ---Iran?     Firing on a helicopter is INTENT TO KILL


----------



## irosie91

Indofred said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air controllers would have warned them away from the area instead of allowing them to fly in a direct path to a war ship under attack from Iranian forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Iranian controllers didn't know a US warship was invading Iranian waters to attack Iranian boats that had fired on an invading aircraft.
> The aircraft had no warnings at all, because the daft murdering US navy didn't use the correct frequencies, nor did they check the fully operating civilian transponder signal the aircraft was using.
> 
> Of course, the US reports lied about these minor facts, only admitting them when they ran out of lies and the ability to cover up the murders.
Click to expand...


the definition of  "MURDER"  includes  "mens rea"  -----there must be an
EVIL INTENT  sometimes called    Accidental manslaughter is not murder.

The evil intent requirement is as old as the bible.    There is no evidence
at all that the USA  was there for the pre determined purpose of shooting
a plane down


----------



## Indofred

irosie91 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US entered Iranian waters during a response to an attack by Iranian gunboats on US helicopters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helicopters that were fired up by small arms whilst invading Iranian airspace.
> Limp excuses and half stories don't excuse mass murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would Iran fire on US helicopters?.     It does not take much
> to bring a helicopter down------were the helicopters engaged in
> BOMBING ---Iran?     Firing on a helicopter is INTENT TO KILL
Click to expand...


Tell me, what would the US do if an armed Iranian helicopter entered US airspace?
I don't think we need an answer to that one.


----------



## ESay

*nat4900*

If I understand correctly, you are an American citizen (or live there constantly). What would you do if you were the US president and had a limitless power? I mean the current situation – considering Russia, the Middle East, China, and so on.


----------



## nat4900

ESay said:


> *nat4900*
> 
> If I understand correctly, you are an American citizen (or live there constantly). What would you do if you were the US president and had a limitless power? I mean the current situation – considering Russia, the Middle East, China, and so on.


 

Interesting that you're addressing me directly...and YES, I am an American citizen, veteran, older (and semi-retired), white, middle-class and Christian....By all accounts, I should be "conservative" but the good Lord has blessed me with a good dose of objectivity.

"Limitless powers," as the US certainly has, carries with it an extremely heavy burden of responsibility.....What Obama is doing vis-a-vis Iran, is exactly right.....I don't think that, in the long run Iran will accept the proposed deal....and that should actually heave some praise on Kerry since the deal is far, far from "appeasement" to the current Iranian regime.

Nonetheless, were (by some miracle) Iran to acquiesce, Obama could be credited with avoiding yet another devastating conflict that would embroil not only us and our European allies, but would be disastrous to Israel.

Iran will eventually have her nukes......The "dam" toward nuclear armaments was opened when Israel accumulated 300 of her own nukes and the removasl of Hussein from Iraq, was a welcomed "gift" to Iran.

However, if a deal was not ever or even entertained, the drums of war would increase in that region.....now we at least have some much needed dialogue that may show the average Iranian that we are not blindly following the mandates of Israel and that some objectivity by our own governhment exists.


----------



## ESay

nat4900 said:


> Iran will eventually have her nukes......The "dam" toward nuclear armaments was opened when Israel accumulated 300 of her own nukes and the removasl of Hussein from Iraq, was a welcomed "gift" to Iran.


To say the truth, I think that Israel has developed its nuclear arsenal not because of its desire to spend money on wasteful projects. Throughout the period of its independence, it has constantly been threatened by its neighbours with promises to push it into the sea. Considering the size and the number of the neighbours, what would you do if you were one who is responsible for Israel’s security?


If I understand you correctly, you welcome the deal with Iran, but you don’t think that Iran will abide by its provisions.
What do you think the US government should do if Iran refuses to sign a final deal in June and declares its intention to create a nuclear bomb?


----------



## nat4900

ESay said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran will eventually have her nukes......The "dam" toward nuclear armaments was opened when Israel accumulated 300 of her own nukes and the removasl of Hussein from Iraq, was a welcomed "gift" to Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> To say the truth, I think that Israel has developed its nuclear arsenal not because of its desire to spend money on wasteful projects. Throughout the period of its independence, it has constantly been threatened by its neighbours with promises to push it into the sea. Considering the size and the number of the neighbours, what would you do if you were one who is responsible for Israel’s security?
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you welcome the deal with Iran, but you don’t think that Iran will abide by its provisions.
> What do you think the US government should do if Iran refuses to sign a final deal in June and declares its intention to create a nuclear bomb?
Click to expand...

 

Well, that is actually two questions......

Israel, nuclear capabilities have NOT stopped any of the discord in the region....and actually made it worse by beginning an arms race for nukes....Israel was well capable to defend herself with conventional weapons....and the "cost" of building a nuclear arsenal was subsidized by US taxpayers at the tune of 3-6 billions per year.

Second, if Iran decides to pursue her nuclear capabilities, there is nothing that the rest of the world can do...NOTHING.
Sure, Israel can bomb away, but that will only delay the inevitable by months with the ADDED animosity toward her from virtually all other Muslim countries and castigation from most of her current allies.


----------



## ESay

nat4900 said:


> Israel, nuclear capabilities have NOT stopped any of the discord in the region....and actually made it worse by beginning an arms race for nukes....Israel was well capable to defend herself with conventional weapons....and the "cost" of building a nuclear arsenal was subsidized by US taxpayers at the tune of 3-6 billions per year.



Israel hasn’t had any intention to stop any discord in the region. Its very goal was and is to preserve its existence. And yes, you are right about its capabilities to defend itself with conventional weapons and it has done so. It hasn’t used nuclear weapons, has it? But does it mean that it needn’t have developed its nuclear arsenal?

Actually, it was the Israeli’s Muslim neighbours who provoked the race for nukes in the Middle East by attacking Israel from the very beginning and threatening to eventually destroy it.



nat4900 said:


> Second, if Iran decides to pursue her nuclear capabilities, there is nothing that the rest of the world can do...NOTHING.
> Sure, Israel can bomb away, but that will only delay the inevitable by months with the ADDED animosity toward her from virtually all other Muslim countries and castigation from most of her current allies.



Okay, it is nothing that can be done. So, Iran eventually creates a nuclear bomb. What, for example, Saudis reaction will be in this case?

And unfortunately you didn’t answer what you would do if you were America’s ruler.


----------



## nat4900

ESay said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, nuclear capabilities have NOT stopped any of the discord in the region....and actually made it worse by beginning an arms race for nukes....Israel was well capable to defend herself with conventional weapons....and the "cost" of building a nuclear arsenal was subsidized by US taxpayers at the tune of 3-6 billions per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel hasn’t had any intention to stop any discord in the region. Its very goal was and is to preserve its existence. And yes, you are right about its capabilities to defend itself with conventional weapons and it has done so. It hasn’t used nuclear weapons, has it? But does it mean that it needn’t have developed its nuclear arsenal?
> 
> Actually, it was the Israeli’s Muslim neighbours who provoked the race for nukes in the Middle East by attacking Israel from the very beginning and threatening to eventually destroy it.
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if Iran decides to pursue her nuclear capabilities, there is nothing that the rest of the world can do...NOTHING.
> Sure, Israel can bomb away, but that will only delay the inevitable by months with the ADDED animosity toward her from virtually all other Muslim countries and castigation from most of her current allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, it is nothing that can be done. So, Iran eventually creates a nuclear bomb. What, for example, Saudis reaction will be in this case?
> 
> And unfortunately you didn’t answer what you would do if you were America’s ruler.
Click to expand...

 

Nonesense.......Israel's 300 nukes have ONLY started an arms race for comparable destructive weapons.....If Israel has not used them it is because the wrath from Pakistan, China, Noth Korea and Russia would obliterate her and she'd be the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.
Now, it may be different...parity will evetually be reached with Iran's nukes...and soon to follow, Saudi nukes.
No other country  (except for us) has used nukes but the arms race may unleash havoc...an arms race that, regardless of how you like to spin it, was started by Israel in that region.

What would I do if I were the leader of the West???? Exactly what the Obama administration is doing.


----------



## ESay

nat4900 said:


> Nonesense.......Israel's 300 nukes have ONLY started an arms race for comparable destructive weapons.....If Israel has not used them it is because the wrath from Pakistan, China, Noth Korea and Russia would obliterate her and she'd be the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.
> Now, it may be different...parity will evetually be reached with Iran's nukes...and soon to follow, Saudi nukes.
> No other country (except for us) has used nukes but the arms race may unleash havoc...an arms race that, regardless of how you like to spin it, was started by Israel in that region.



Okay, I see your point.

Maybe you know that Iran began developing its nuclear programme it the 1970-s when there was a shah and Iran was an ally of the US and had very good relationship with Israel. I think that a nuclear race would begin even with Israel’s arsenal.

I can’t condemn Israel for developing the nuclear programme, to say the truth. It is the same if someone would condemn a person, whose neighbours are constantly trying to rob and kill him, for trying to buy a riffle instead of knife to protect himself. Of course, he should be prohibited from buying a rifle because it may provoke his neighbours to buy more riffles! 



nat4900 said:


> What would I do if I were the leader of the West???? Exactly what the Obama administration is doing.



Yes, I also think that the Obama administration is going in a right direction by trying to clinch a deal.



Well, thanks for your answers.


----------



## nat4900

ESay said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonesense.......Israel's 300 nukes have ONLY started an arms race for comparable destructive weapons.....If Israel has not used them it is because the wrath from Pakistan, China, Noth Korea and Russia would obliterate her and she'd be the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.
> Now, it may be different...parity will evetually be reached with Iran's nukes...and soon to follow, Saudi nukes.
> No other country (except for us) has used nukes but the arms race may unleash havoc...an arms race that, regardless of how you like to spin it, was started by Israel in that region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I see your point.
> 
> Maybe you know that Iran began developing its nuclear programme it the 1970-s when there was a shah and Iran was an ally of the US and had very good relationship with Israel. I think that a nuclear race would begin even with Israel’s arsenal.
> 
> I can’t condemn Israel for developing the nuclear programme, to say the truth. It is the same if someone would condemn a person, whose neighbours are constantly trying to rob and kill him, for trying to buy a riffle instead of knife to protect himself. Of course, he should be prohibited from buying a rifle because it may provoke his neighbours to buy more riffles!
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would I do if I were the leader of the West???? Exactly what the Obama administration is doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I also think that the Obama administration is going in a right direction by trying to clinch a deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for your answers.
Click to expand...

 

...and thank you for the decent and cordial dialogue without the usual profanity often found on this forum....

My only addition (or different perspective) to what you stated above is that no country...and this is strictly personal for me.....should develop the devastating nuclear weaponry if that country knows full well that use of such weapons is tantamount to a suicidal pact. (and, obviously, that includes the U.S. and Russia and China with the moronic pursuit of nitrogen weapons.)


----------



## Bleipriester

Camp said:


> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.


The S-300 and its successor are the most sophisticated systems. Nothing to "defeat easily".
Iran, however, claims its own system will be better than the S-300 and Iran is a leader in developing missiles.
 Iran Homemade air defense system to be ready in 2 yrs better than S-300 RT News


----------



## skye

Camp said:


> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.





I agree.

I am sure  the Israel Defense Forces will take the  necessary steps  to deal with this challenge, it's not like this is the first time  they  defeat   problems of this nature.

Israel will prevail in the end as it always does!


----------



## rhodescholar

skye said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I am sure  the Israel Defense Forces will take the  necessary steps  to deal with this challenge, it's not like this is the first time  they  defeat   problems of this nature.
> 
> Israel will prevail in the end as it always does!
Click to expand...


I have news for you people, russia held off selling the s-300 not because of obama or western pressure, he did so because israel threatened to go public with the methods they used to defeat it several times in the past (like in syria), which would kill its marketability on the world markets; can't sell a lock that already has a publicly known decryption key...

But now russia needs the money desperately as its economy goes down the tubes, so it has no choice - which will lead to a joint israeli-US attack on iran in the near future which will wipe the system out, assuming iran ever figures out how to use it.


----------



## Camp

skye said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I am sure  the Israel Defense Forces will take the  necessary steps  to deal with this challenge, it's not like this is the first time  they  defeat   problems of this nature.
> 
> Israel will prevail in the end as it always does!
Click to expand...

It's all about rocket science and hacking into systems to block or interfere with a message being transmitted between the radar, the targeting and launch system and the missile. As long as Israel has a few rocket scientist and some good computer hackers they should be OK. If not it will cost a fortune to conduct a successful strike if they have to use plan B. Plan B being the overwhelming of the system with false targets and force the enemy to give away all his launch positions while targeting those false targets.


----------



## Bleipriester

skye said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I am sure  the Israel Defense Forces will take the  necessary steps  to deal with this challenge, it's not like this is the first time  they  defeat   problems of this nature.
> 
> Israel will prevail in the end as it always does!
Click to expand...

Old F-16s are no opponents for the S-300. The S-300 is on its way before the F-16 even takes notice of the threat.

""If the missiles are provided and become operational Israel's entire airspace will become a no-fly zone," Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers."
Israel says it will act to prevent S-300 missile systems from becoming operational in Syria - Israel News Haaretz


----------



## Camp

Bleipriester said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I am sure  the Israel Defense Forces will take the  necessary steps  to deal with this challenge, it's not like this is the first time  they  defeat   problems of this nature.
> 
> Israel will prevail in the end as it always does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old F-16s are no opponents for the S-300. The S-300 is on its way before the F-16 even takes notice of the threat.
> 
> ""If the missiles are provided and become operational Israel's entire airspace will become a no-fly zone," Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers."
> Israel says it will act to prevent S-300 missile systems from becoming operational in Syria - Israel News Haaretz
Click to expand...

The F 16-CJ is specifically designed to take on the S-300. The old F-16's as you refer to them are modified to add to the anti aircraft attack aircraft toolbox. They comprise part of the overwhelming force strategy with the benefit of being able to help in the destruction of all types of anti aircraft systems, including the S-300 and more advanced S-400. 

Here is a really good link to how the S-300 operates and NATO countermeasure options.

myfutureamerica.org/?p=2652


----------



## ESay

Bleipriester said:


> ""If the missiles are provided and become operational Israel's entire airspace will become a no-fly zone," Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers."
> Israel says it will act to prevent S-300 missile systems from becoming operational in Syria - Israel News Haaretz



The article was written two years ago. I don’t think that the issue of the S-300s being possibly delivered to Syria is on the table now.

By the way, I have heard that the Israelis are considering the possibility of supplying the Ukrainian government with lethal arms in response to the possible supplies of the S-300s to Iran. If so, the Russians again have found themselves in a situation where they have to think twice before taking a decision.


----------



## Bleipriester

Camp said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia likes to use the S-300 as a threat and and example of the kind sophisticated high tech weapon system it produces. The last thing they want is to actually have to prove it's worth in battle. The S-300 will easily be defeated and become the latest of Russian embarrassments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I am sure  the Israel Defense Forces will take the  necessary steps  to deal with this challenge, it's not like this is the first time  they  defeat   problems of this nature.
> 
> Israel will prevail in the end as it always does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old F-16s are no opponents for the S-300. The S-300 is on its way before the F-16 even takes notice of the threat.
> 
> ""If the missiles are provided and become operational Israel's entire airspace will become a no-fly zone," Netanyahu told the European foreign ministers."
> Israel says it will act to prevent S-300 missile systems from becoming operational in Syria - Israel News Haaretz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The F 16-CJ is specifically designed to take on the S-300. The old F-16's as you refer to them are modified to add to the anti aircraft attack aircraft toolbox. They comprise part of the overwhelming force strategy with the benefit of being able to help in the destruction of all types of anti aircraft systems, including the S-300 and more advanced S-400.
> 
> Here is a really good link to how the S-300 operates and NATO countermeasure options.
> 
> myfutureamerica.org/?p=2652
Click to expand...

I am sure, the Russian developers were aware of such tactics during the development. And here applies your own argument: Not tested yet against S-300.


----------



## ESay

Iran Deputy Foreign Minister has said that the authorities of his country expect the delivery of S-300 to take place in the nearest future.
“Negotiations have been concluded with a very good result. I hope the delivery will occur at the earliest opportunity. Everything has been done very well.”


Well, there are two possible scenarios.
The first one. Negotiations between Kerry and the Russians failed and there will be the S-300 in Iran and the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine and a new round of anti-Russian measures.
The second. The Iranians are bluffing.

 click (in Russian)


----------



## rhodescholar

You launch several hundred drones that cost a few hundred or a few thousand each that emit sequencing radar reflections, and the s300/s400 is useless.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Moonglow said:


> But that should make conservatives happy, since their real he-man Pootin is a leader, a real leader...and he's white...



Notice we don't shoot people any more. Have I just watched too much tv in my life to wonder why governments don't assassinate problems any more?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Could cut defense spending 99% if we just returned to the practice of paying some local to put a bullet in people's heads. 

...Oh, now I see why we don't do it any more.


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
> But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.
Click to expand...


Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah. There was a time period when Moscow was silent and that resulted in attack on Russian allies like Serbia and Iraq and loss of faith in Russia as an ally by Iran. However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria. 

Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

ESay said:


> The president of Russia has signed a decree which allows Iran to get Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems.
> 
> The decree lifts a ban on transit transportation through Russia, export to Iran, and passing the systems to Iran outside the Russian territory.
> click (available in Russian)
> 
> The ban was introduced in 2010 by Russian then-president Dmitry Medvedev in the wake of the UN Security Council resolution which widened the sanctions against Iran.



And? US and Russia swap back n forth as the planet's no. 1 international arms dealer. If Russia selling arms to Iran is "bad" then isn't who the US sells weapons to equally as bad?


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah.


Not exactly. Khomeini called the USSR as Lesser Satan. Moreover, during Iran-Iraq War the USSR was one of the weapons suppliers to Iraq.



Vikrant said:


> However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria.


Yeah, let’s see what will be in the end of this adventure.



Vikrant said:


> Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.



Unless I am mistaken, the nuclear agreement with Iran prohibits selling weapons to this country for 5 years.
Besides, it is unlikely because of Israel.


----------



## ESay

Delta4Embassy said:


> And? US and Russia swap back n forth as the planet's no. 1 international arms dealer.



I am a recognized Russia hater on this forum. If you don’t believe me, ask our Russian friends here about it. So, everything that is good for Russia is bad for me and vice versa.



Delta4Embassy said:


> If Russia selling arms to Iran is "bad" then isn't who the US sells weapons to equally as bad?



It depends on what you consider “bad” in this context. For example, I don’t think Saudi Arabia is any better than Iran.


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah.
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. Khomeini called the USSR as Lesser Satan. Moreover, during Iran-Iraq War the USSR was one of the weapons suppliers to Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, let’s see what will be in the end of this adventure.
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, the nuclear agreement with Iran prohibits selling weapons to this country for 5 years.
> Besides, it is unlikely because of Israel.
Click to expand...


You are right; I forgot about the closeness USSR had with the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein and that Iran and Iraq were at each other's throat for quite some time. 

Are you suggesting that Russia may refuse to sell Iran S-400 due to Israeli objections?


----------



## Jroc

Vikrant said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
> But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah. There was a time period when Moscow was silent and that resulted in attack on Russian allies like Serbia and Iraq and loss of faith in Russia as an ally by Iran. However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria.
> 
> Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vikrant

Jroc said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
> But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah. There was a time period when Moscow was silent and that resulted in attack on Russian allies like Serbia and Iraq and loss of faith in Russia as an ally by Iran. However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria.
> 
> Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My proxy software blocks videos. If you give me the title of the video, I will search for it on Youtube.


----------



## Jroc

Vikrant said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
> But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah. There was a time period when Moscow was silent and that resulted in attack on Russian allies like Serbia and Iraq and loss of faith in Russia as an ally by Iran. However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria.
> 
> Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My proxy software blocks videos. If you give me the title of the video, I will search for it on Youtube.
Click to expand...



*US Air force unveils S-400 KILLER MISSILES to scare Putin*


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> Are you suggesting that Russia may refuse to sell Iran S-400 due to Israeli objections?



Yes, I am. Obviously, Israel won’t be very happy to see such things.

Several months ago, when Putin lifted a ban on deliveries of S-300s to Iran, Israel made clear that if such deliveries took place it would deliver arms to Ukraine. Since then I have heard nothing about possible supplies. Have you?

In the future the Ukrainian issue won’t have that significance, but I think Israel will find other arguments. Though, the S-300s will eventually be delivered to Iran, I think, but it is doubtful that the same will be with S-400s.


----------



## Sonc

Jroc said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sale of the S-300 to Iran will automatically trigger sale of F-35's to Israel. The F-35 is thought to be able to neutralize the S-300. If nothing else, the S-300, like other anti aircraft systems, can be over burdened and overcome with drones and cruise missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S-300 is able to intercept cruise missiles. And I don’t think that drones are far more complicated thing for it than manned aircraft.
> But a question is not only in S-300’s. Russia is beginning to woo Iran. And I wonder where it will stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia and Iran have always been friends since the departure of Shah. There was a time period when Moscow was silent and that resulted in attack on Russian allies like Serbia and Iraq and loss of faith in Russia as an ally by Iran. However, it seems like Moscow is no longer going to be silent as we are seeing in Syria.
> 
> Actually, Russians have started to produce and sell S-400 which is the best A2/AD weapon in the market right now. I have posted an article about it in the Military forum which details the asymmetric challenges posed by it. Russians have sold S-400s to China. They may decide to sell that to Iran as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Video for amateurs.
Any defense can be destroyed.

There are a lot of tactics.

But the tactics on the video - complete nonsense.
3 types of aircraft.
3 types of ammunition.
Against 1 air defense.
Lol

A beautiful movie, but in reality, the defense system is duplicated.
Around the C-400 has several medium-range air defense.

Should jamming station. The ground station. I hope it is clear that the ground station is much more powerful than what is in the small M.A.L.D.

State can protect fighter aircraft.

Can operate aircraft "Airborne early warning and control"

Add these elements and the film will be interesting =)


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Russia may refuse to sell Iran S-400 due to Israeli objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am. Obviously, Israel won’t be very happy to see such things.
> 
> Several months ago, when Putin lifted a ban on deliveries of S-300s to Iran, Israel made clear that if such deliveries took place it would deliver arms to Ukraine. Since then I have heard nothing about possible supplies. Have you?
> 
> In the future the Ukrainian issue won’t have that significance, but I think Israel will find other arguments. Though, the S-300s will eventually be delivered to Iran, I think, but it is doubtful that the same will be with S-400s.
Click to expand...


I was talking to a friend of mine not too long ago; according to him the Ukraine crisis was created solely to punish Russia for its support of Syria and Iran.


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> I was talking to a friend of mine not too long ago; according to him the Ukraine crisis was created solely to punish Russia for its support of Syria and Iran.



Where does your friend live?

Thinking that the Ukrainian crisis was inspired solely by neo-fascists with the help of the US is fooling yourself. If you want to comprehend the core reason of hostility between contemporary Ukrainians and contemporary Russians, you should look not on the events of the last two years or the last twenty years or so. You should begin with Kievan Rus and other Rus principalities, then take a look at the times after the Mongol invasion when there became to exist significant differences between so-called North-Eastern Rus and so-called South-Western Rus, then try to understand the conception of “Little Russian identity” and the other conception (which is rival to the former) of Ukrainian national identity. And, as an addition, you can read something about “славянофилы” and “западники”.


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to a friend of mine not too long ago; according to him the Ukraine crisis was created solely to punish Russia for its support of Syria and Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does your friend live?
> 
> Thinking that the Ukrainian crisis was inspired solely by neo-fascists with the help of the US is fooling yourself. If you want to comprehend the core reason of hostility between contemporary Ukrainians and contemporary Russians, you should look not on the events of the last two years or the last twenty years or so. You should begin with Kievan Rus and other Rus principalities, then take a look at the times after the Mongol invasion when there became to exist significant differences between so-called North-Eastern Rus and so-called South-Western Rus, then try to understand the conception of “Little Russian identity” and the other conception (which is rival to the former) of Ukrainian national identity. And, as an addition, you can read something about “славянофилы” and “западники”.
Click to expand...


My friend (co-worker) is an American of middle eastern descent. We work together in San Francisco. 

I am aware of the so called animosity between Russians and Ukrainians. However, the timing of Russia's decision to help Syria and fomentation of crisis in Ukraine is quite curious -- nevertheless.


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> My friend (co-worker) is an American of middle eastern descent. We work together in San Francisco.
> 
> I am aware of the so called animosity between Russians and Ukrainians. However, the timing of Russia's decision to help Syria and fomentation of crisis in Ukraine is quite curious -- nevertheless.



Actually, the Ukrainian crisis began almost two years ago. Russia’s combat actions in Syria began a month ago.

When Russia got to help Syria with combat operations, a hot phase of the war in Ukraine began fading.


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> My friend (co-worker) is an American of middle eastern descent. We work together in San Francisco.
> 
> I am aware of the so called animosity between Russians and Ukrainians. However, the timing of Russia's decision to help Syria and fomentation of crisis in Ukraine is quite curious -- nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ukrainian crisis began almost two years ago. Russia’s combat actions in Syria began a month ago.
> 
> When Russia got to help Syria with combat operations, a hot phase of the war in Ukraine began fading.
Click to expand...


That is not correct. Here is the chronological order of events:

a. Propaganda against Assad regime intensified
b. Russia refused to go along with "Western" agenda of removing Assad
c. Bombing of Syria by "West" started
d. Russia got more outraged by it
e. News started to float that Russia was supplying weapons to Syrian government
f. Ukraine crisis started
e. Bombing of Syria by "West" escalated
f. Russians took back Crimea and put Ukrainians on run
g. Once things became somewhat quiet on Russian fronts, Russia started sending direct military support to Syria
h. Russian military is carrying out direct attack on Islamists to support Assad regime

If you look at the order of events, it becomes quite possible to think that Russia was being punished for supporting Assad.


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> That is not correct. Here is the chronological order of events:
> 
> a. Propaganda against Assad regime intensified
> b. Russia refused to go along with "Western" agenda of removing Assad
> c. Bombing of Syria by "West" started
> d. Russia got more outraged by it
> e. News started to float that Russia was supplying weapons to Syrian government
> f. Ukraine crisis started
> e. Bombing of Syria by "West" escalated
> f. Russians took back Crimea and put Ukrainians on run
> g. Once things became somewhat quiet on Russian fronts, Russia started sending direct military support to Syria
> h. Russian military is carrying out direct attack on Islamists to support Assad regime
> 
> If you look at the order of events, it becomes quite possible to think that Russia was being punished for supporting Assad.



Do I understand you correctly that the things have been unfolding in that way: the West began to escalate the Syrian crisis, Russia responded by providing military equipment and diplomatic support to the Assad regime, the West instigated the Ukrainian crisis in order to make Russia withdraw its support, Russia responded by annexing Crimea and supporting the uprising in Donbass and after that by providing direct military support to Assad? In other words, the West has completely screwed up in its strategy?

BTW, when did the West begin to bomb Syria?


----------



## Sonc

Vikrant said:


> it becomes quite possible to think that Russia was being punished for supporting Assad.


You're right.
Justthe scale ofmore.Assadis only a part.
Russiahas been punishedforleadingan independent policy.
Anditcanlead.

US  use Ukraine as a condom.


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not correct. Here is the chronological order of events:
> 
> a. Propaganda against Assad regime intensified
> b. Russia refused to go along with "Western" agenda of removing Assad
> c. Bombing of Syria by "West" started
> d. Russia got more outraged by it
> e. News started to float that Russia was supplying weapons to Syrian government
> f. Ukraine crisis started
> e. Bombing of Syria by "West" escalated
> f. Russians took back Crimea and put Ukrainians on run
> g. Once things became somewhat quiet on Russian fronts, Russia started sending direct military support to Syria
> h. Russian military is carrying out direct attack on Islamists to support Assad regime
> 
> If you look at the order of events, it becomes quite possible to think that Russia was being punished for supporting Assad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I understand you correctly that the things have been unfolding in that way: the West began to escalate the Syrian crisis, Russia responded by providing military equipment and diplomatic support to the Assad regime, the West instigated the Ukrainian crisis in order to make Russia withdraw its support, Russia responded by annexing Crimea and supporting the uprising in Donbass and after that by providing direct military support to Assad? In other words, the West has completely screwed up in its strategy?
> 
> BTW, when did the West begin to bomb Syria?
Click to expand...


What country do you live in?


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> What country do you live in?


Ukraine.
Why do you ask?


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What country do you live in?
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine.
> Why do you ask?
Click to expand...


I was just surprised why you have not heard of aerial attacks on Syria. It was all over the news here in the U.S. The attacks stopped and then about a week or so ago French hinted that the attacks may start again. Then the Russians decided to join the fight against terrorism. Now, things as you know are a bit complicated.


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> I was just surprised why you have not heard of aerial attacks on Syria. It was all over the news here in the U.S. The attacks stopped and then about a week or so ago French hinted that the attacks may start again. Then the Russians decided to join the fight against terrorism. Now, things as you know are a bit complicated.



I did hear about the attacks, of course. And unless I am mistaken the US began bombing Syria a year ago or so. In this case there is a mistake in the order of points in your post 104. The point “c” can’t be before the point “f”.

I don’t know whether it is significant or not in your friend’s theory.


----------



## Vikrant

ESay said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just surprised why you have not heard of aerial attacks on Syria. It was all over the news here in the U.S. The attacks stopped and then about a week or so ago French hinted that the attacks may start again. Then the Russians decided to join the fight against terrorism. Now, things as you know are a bit complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did hear about the attacks, of course. And unless I am mistaken the US began bombing Syria a year ago or so. In this case there is a mistake in the order of points in your post 104. The point “c” can’t be before the point “f”.
> 
> I don’t know whether it is significant or not in your friend’s theory.
Click to expand...


Both c and f happened about a year ago. One thing seems clear that there is connection between Ukraine and Syria crisis.Even if you place f before c, that does not change the curious link between the two crisis. According to my friend, the Ukraine crisis was created to keep Russia busy on its border so that it will not be able to intervene in Syria but unfortunately, the Ukrainians could not put up the fight for long. This defeated the objective.


----------



## ESay

Vikrant said:


> Both c and f happened about a year ago. One thing seems clear that there is connection between Ukraine and Syria crisis.Even if you place f before c, that does not change the curious link between the two crisis. According to my friend, the Ukraine crisis was created to keep Russia busy on its border so that it will not be able to intervene in Syria but unfortunately, the Ukrainians could not put up the fight for long. This defeated the objective.



Actually, in November the will be two years since the beginning of the Ukraine crises. And it is doubtful that the US wasted a year in order to begin bombing Syria.
Moreover, a year ago the first peace agreement was signed.

Also, I think there are other two flaws in the theory.
1. Since the hot phase of the conflict the Ukrainian government has been urging the US to deliver so-called lethal arms (for example the Javelin systems). The US government has been refusing to do so because it may provoke the Russians to do more decisive actions in Ukraine.
2. The US government has refused to train so-called Azov regiment because it mainly consists of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. To tell the truth, if they (the Americans) wanted to prolong the hot phase, they wouldn’t be so squeamish about it, I think, because this regiment is one of the most (if not the most) motivated to fight against the Russians.


----------

