Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"For the second time this month, Russia moved to expand its political and military influence in the Syria conflict and left the United States scrambling, this time by reaching an understanding, announced on Sunday, with Iraq, Syria and Iran to share intelligence about the Islamic State.

Like Russia’s earlier move to bolster the government of President Bashar al-Assad by deploying warplanes and tanks to a base near Latakia, Syria, the intelligence-sharing arrangement was sealed without notice to the United States. American officials knew that a group of Russian military officers were in Baghdad, but they were clearly surprised when the Iraqi military’s Joint Operations Command announced the intelligence sharing accord on Sunday.

It was another sign that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was moving ahead with a sharply different tack from that of the Obama administration in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, by assembling a rival coalition that includes Iran and the Syrian government.

The effort, which Mr. Putin is expected to underscore in his speech at the United Nations on Monday, not only puts Moscow in a position to give military support to Mr. Assad, its longtime ally in the Middle East, but could also enable the Kremlin to influence the choice of a successor if Mr. Assad were to eventually leave power.

Russia’s moves are raising difficult questions for the Obama administration, which remains deeply conflicted about American military involvement in the Syria conflict. Ensuring that the Russian military and the United States-led coalition, which is carrying out airstrikes against the Islamic State, “deconflict” and avoid running into each other is only part of the problem: The Obama administration and the Kremlin do not appear to agree even on the main reason for the conflict.

American officials, who have long cast Mr. Assad as the primary source of instability in Syria, assert that the Syrian leader’s brutal crackdown provided an opening for jihadist groups and that the crisis cannot be resolved until a political transition is negotiated that requires him to leave power. But Russian officials see the Syrian government as a bulwark against further gains by groups like Islamic State and Nusra Front and sometimes suggest that the defeat of the Islamic State should come before a negotiated solution for the Syrian conflict.

Even as the United States has banked on a diplomatic strategy of trying to enlist Russia’s cooperation in Syria, the Kremlin has continued to jolt the White House with its unilateral military and political moves."
"



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/world ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Putin, as expected, is crushing it against weak US leadership.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why leaving al-Assad in power is a bad thing. As learned in recent history, having a predictable nut-job dictator in power <<< nut-job Muslin theocracy in power. Am I missing something here?

SDHornet wrote:Putin, as expected, is crushing it against weak US leadership.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why leaving al-Assad in power is a bad thing. As learned in recent history, having a predictable nut-job dictator in power <<< nut-job Muslin theocracy in power. Am I missing something here?

Yeah, we want a pipeline going through Syria...and Assad wasn't playing along well enough.

Cluck U wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Putin, as expected, is crushing it against weak US leadership.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why leaving al-Assad in power is a bad thing. As learned in recent history, having a predictable nut-job dictator in power <<< nut-job Muslin theocracy in power. Am I missing something here?

Yeah, we want a pipeline going through Syria...and Assad wasn't playing along well enough.

Meh, we don't need their fucking oil if we drill our own...and start building nuke plants again.

Putin on the ritz!

Cluck U wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Putin, as expected, is crushing it against weak US leadership.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why leaving al-Assad in power is a bad thing. As learned in recent history, having a predictable nut-job dictator in power <<< nut-job Muslin theocracy in power. Am I missing something here?

Yeah, we want a pipeline going through Syria...and Assad wasn't playing along well enough.

That pipeline is your spandos moment, cluck.

Where's the to-from on this pipeline? Oil companies are pulling chocks in places like Nigeria due to operating costs, and yet we want to build (and then guard) a pipeline in the Levant?

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

TheDancinMonarch wrote:Putin on the ritz!

Charlie Rose did a long softball interview of Putin last night on 60 Minutes. The old phart took forever to ask a question. It was obvious from Putin's facial expressions that he thinks he pwns Obama.

Ivytalk wrote:Charlie Rose did a long softball interview of Putin last night on 60 Minutes. The old phart took forever to ask a question. It was obvious from Putin's facial expressions that he thinks he pwns Obama.

That whole interview was Putin smugly spiking a football and dancing in the endzone.

What's even funnier is that at the time of the interview, Putin had a completed airbase and Russian fighter jets on the ground in Syria and Rose didn't even know it yet.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

What's the story on this? Looks hilarious, but I don't know what Obama Umo means. Is that "homo" or "pwned" in Russian?

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

What's the story on this? Looks hilarious, but I don't know what Obama Umo means. Is that "homo" or "pwned" in Russian?

At first I thought it said "Obama -- 4 mo(nth)s" -- we should be so lucky -- but then I realized it was a bit of Russkie humor.

Right, Vidav?

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

What's the story on this? Looks hilarious, but I don't know what Obama Umo means. Is that "homo" or "pwned" in Russian?

They weren't finished yet. The "therfucker" will be added when they get more paint.

CAA Flagship wrote:

93henfan wrote:
What's the story on this? Looks hilarious, but I don't know what Obama Umo means. Is that "homo" or "pwned" in Russian?

They weren't finished yet. The "therfucker" will be added when they get more paint.

Funny.

The same Conk assholes on here and in Washington who have been, for decades, whining that the rest of the world does nothing in global conflicts and 'why do WE have to police the world' and, NOW, other powers finally nut up, step up, and try to help........and YOU CLOWNS COMPLAIN!!!!



Anything to sh1t on that Negro president. What a bunch of fucking idiots.

How soon we forget...

Russia broke the bank in Afghanistan before we got their
They flushed billions down the toilet and we laughed all the while
Russia can't afford any kind of extended military anything - pretty much anywhere - they are near bankrupt

We should be laughing at Russia not lauding their collective genius
They are a 3rd world country almost flat broke

Just let the banks foreclose on them - soldiers who don't get paid - don't fight for long
Things break down and need fixing supply lines and air support - it ain't happening

Even the Republican Magazine FORBES says it ain't long till the whole thing folds

Cap'n Cat wrote:Funny.

The same Conk assholes on here and in Washington who have been, for decades, whining that the rest of the world does nothing in global conflicts and 'why do WE have to police the world' and, NOW, other powers finally nut up, step up, and try to help........and YOU CLOWNS COMPLAIN!!!!

I agree with Cap'n, why is anyone complaining about this? Only Neo Militant Conks who embrace the world police status.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Funny.

The same Conk assholes on here and in Washington who have been, for decades, whining that the rest of the world does nothing in global conflicts and 'why do WE have to police the world' and, NOW, other powers finally nut up, step up, and try to help........and YOU CLOWNS COMPLAIN!!!!

I agree with Cap'n, why is anyone complaining about this? Only Neo Militant Conks who embrace the world police status.

Nobody is complaining. Just discussion of how Putin has made Obama look bad at every turn.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Funny.

The same Conk assholes on here and in Washington who have been, for decades, whining that the rest of the world does nothing in global conflicts and 'why do WE have to police the world' and, NOW, other powers finally nut up, step up, and try to help........and YOU CLOWNS COMPLAIN!!!!

I agree with Cap'n, why is anyone complaining about this? Only Neo Militant Conks who embrace the world police status.

Obama needs to attack Iran and ISIS but stay the fuck out of Libya and Syria until Russia beats us to the punch in Syria in which case he's a pussy for not ringing Poland with nukes and defending our borders from ISIS and Guatemalan mules but don't forget to let the hard working Mexican types who are thankful to roll up their sleeves unlike the 47%, in.

чмо = schmuck.

It's pronounced "chmo". The "ch" sounds like the "ch" in "chuck".

Chizzang wrote:How soon we forget...

Russia broke the bank in Afghanistan before we got their
They flushed billions down the toilet and we laughed all the while
Russia can't afford any kind of extended military anything - pretty much anywhere - they are near bankrupt

We should be laughing at Russia not lauding their collective genius
They are a 3rd world country almost flat broke

Just let the banks foreclose on them - soldiers who don't get paid - don't fight for long
Things break down and need fixing supply lines and air support - it ain't happening

Even the Republican Magazine FORBES says it ain't long till the whole thing folds

I like to gently remind my more liberal colleagues sometimes (BTW at DoS, "more liberal colleagues" means everybody) when they talk about the global village- that in this village Russia is the trailer park.

They do have the Camaro and the nice stereo, but they are paycheck to paycheck to keep the tank full and the electricity on.

But that said, they ARE an adversary- solely by choice- and they bring to the table two things: one of the world's most shrewd diplomats in Sergey Lavrov, and a foreign policy which consists of only one litmus test: does this hurt or embarrass the US?

CitadelGrad wrote:чмо = schmuck.

It's pronounced "chmo". The "ch" sounds like the "ch" in "chuck".

Yup. They pretty much nailed it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Photoshop? Or maybe Vlad hand-painted it...

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:How soon we forget...

Russia broke the bank in Afghanistan before we got their
They flushed billions down the toilet and we laughed all the while
Russia can't afford any kind of extended military anything - pretty much anywhere - they are near bankrupt

We should be laughing at Russia not lauding their collective genius
They are a 3rd world country almost flat broke

Just let the banks foreclose on them - soldiers who don't get paid - don't fight for long
Things break down and need fixing supply lines and air support - it ain't happening

Even the Republican Magazine FORBES says it ain't long till the whole thing folds

I like to gently remind my more liberal colleagues sometimes (BTW at DoS, "more liberal colleagues" means everybody) when they talk about the global village- that in this village Russia is the trailer park.

They do have the Camaro and the nice stereo, but they are paycheck to paycheck to keep the tank full and the electricity on.

But that said, they ARE an adversary- solely by choice- and they bring to the table two things: one of the world's most shrewd diplomats in Sergey Lavrov, and a foreign policy which consists of only one litmus test: does this hurt or embarrass the US?

I got no problem with ^ that...
My concern is that regular old Americans not be fooled by FOX News
"Why aren't we fighting a land war against Russia in Syria" nonsense is so stupid it makes me pause

We were far more successful letting Russia do battle with Middle Eastern militants (it bankrupted them)
from 1979 to 1989 The Red Army drained all Russian available funds
and all we had to do was supply the Mujahideen with Stinger missiles

Historically
Every Russian escapade into the relative middle east has been a near catastrophic financial failure

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I like to gently remind my more liberal colleagues sometimes (BTW at DoS, "more liberal colleagues" means everybody) when they talk about the global village- that in this village Russia is the trailer park.

They do have the Camaro and the nice stereo, but they are paycheck to paycheck to keep the tank full and the electricity on.

But that said, they ARE an adversary- solely by choice- and they bring to the table two things: one of the world's most shrewd diplomats in Sergey Lavrov, and a foreign policy which consists of only one litmus test: does this hurt or embarrass the US?

I got no problem with ^ that...
My concern is that regular old Americans not be fooled by FOX News
"Why aren't we fighting a land war against Russia in Syria" nonsense is so stupid it makes me pause

We were far more successful letting Russia do battle with Middle Eastern militants (it bankrupted them)
from 1979 to 1989 The Red Army drained all Russian available funds
and all we had to do was supply the Mujahideen with Stinger missiles

Historically
Every Russian escapade into the relative middle east has been a near catastrophic financial failure

Chechnya, anyone?

Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

That said, Putin's continuing efforts to destabilize Ukraine and the Baltic States will determine whether NATO is anything more than a hollow shell.