[ahab]

i'd say that based on iraq as a model, the way that the admin is talking to syria, they are bullying them. it's almost a 'cut and paste' of the warnings given to iraq by bush et al. no ultimatium yet. but i think syria will comply and cooler heads will prevail.

My thoughts exactly. The parallels between how the US is dealing Syria and dealt with Iraq should scare the shit out of Syria and they should cooperate, might even get the UN behind forcing Syria's cooperation.

[sokath]

Please stop quoting entire posts in your messages. Learn the art of selecting what is essential and using it. Less, in this case, is more.

Thank you.

S./

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Uhhh... seriously, Fox News, The on Colonel on there (that sounds like he smoked too much and I would like to see beaten for other reasons) kept repeating that the Iraqis were going to try "a Soviet style defence" consisting of tank ditches radiating out from the city with the Iraqi's own military at the inside of it.

When did that become "soviet style defense"? I don't recall the Soviets defending Moscow in that way...

But than again...HOW ELSE do you defend a city???

The point here is that it was NOT the Iraqi tacticks or strategy that failed...it was the fact that the entire Iraqi military leadership either deserted...or was payed off by the US to offer no resistance. The fact is...Iraqi soldiers were armed with Ak-47s...and they faced M1A1 tanks...they had nothing else!! 1950s technology in the hands of 50 year old volunteers...facing the most modern equipment in the most well-trained army...and being completely outnumbered by them...and on top of that having a leadership that ran away or was bought off.

Probably also the largest supply, Russia might have more missiles that are less effective, I'm not certain.

Yes it is the largest in the world...but that still doesn't mean it is enough. Russia has probably about 1000 cruise missiles of the same type as the Tomahawk...but in Russia nearly all of them are to be used with a nuclear warhead..simply beacause the USSR did not consider crusie missiles as a weapon for conventional attacks.

I know about the Sunburn. Do you know how much they cost? Do you know how many the Russian military has? Do you know how many older models the Russian military has?

I don't know how much they cost...but it doesn't matter since Russia isn't really producing them that much. As for how many they have...I have heard they have about 1500-2000 Sunbrun missiles...which should be more than enough for the ships that carry them. (Sunburn is an anti-ship missile BTW...not necessarly a cruise missile). AS for other types of anti-ship missiles...they probably have far too many than they will ever need...

The US Navy has about 6000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles...the Russians should have a LOT more than that....But again this is just about anti-ship missiles.

[Seven]

Tovarish,

What is the current state of the Russian Navy? I saw reports that due to the state of their economy, that a large percentage were rusting away at their moorings....enlighten me if you would.

7

[Alhazen Al-Rashid]

well they havent had their carrier to sea for 3 years due to lack of funds if that tells you anything...

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

But, lets see the end result for the Iraqi people. They are obviously glad Saddam is out. I would prefer having the USA rather than Saddam being my government.

Hmm...the Kuznetsov carried out excercises in 2001 I believe...in the same incident when the Kursk was lost...

Besides...Soviet and Russian practice is never to have many excercises...just once in a while...

They are not rusting...being at port does not mean rusting....for that matter most of the USN is always at port...

From what I can see...recently some improvements have been made. In the past 2-3 years...some new ships have been completed...like 1 Gepard submarine...ane Gepard frigate which had been building for some 10 years...at least one Typhoon SSBN has been modernized with a new engine system and new missiles...and some other ships which had been under construction for a while are continuing building after a pause. 2 Sovremannyys for example have resturted building...and may come into service in a couple of years...

Either way...this is peace time...so in peace time navies usually lie dormant...

[Delphi]

I found this and found it quite hilarious!



Anyways, now onto my response. According to a 1999 State Department report titled, 'Patterns of Global Terrorism', "...there is no evidence that Syrian officials have been directly involved in planning or executing international terrorist attacks since 1986..."

If this was the official stance of the State Depar6tment in 1999, I wonder what changed to have made such a severe attack of words upon Syria. At this point in time I am not sure whether I would support or not support action in Syria. I think they no longer support terrorism. However if my nation has evidence proving otherwise....I can't wait to see it. Although, I hope unlike the Iraq incident all diplomatic means will be attempted. It most likely will be done that way. Syria has little oil, and a well equipped army.

[uglygoat]

yeah, they support 'terrorist' groups like hamas, islamic jihad, and anyone else who'll chuck a bomb or bullet isreal's way. the report says they don't encourage 'miltanitism' over seas, but 'poltical opposition' i suspect that they don't excactly have the tightest leash on every radical group though. sorta like yemin, where the gov. was openly supporting washington, but didn't have control of the countryside, where the radical elements gather. it's still very much the rule of the warlord in the ME in general. the syrian regime has been courting washington since 9/11, and suposedly helping with the round up of those responsible for 9/11. i still don't think we'll go in there.

[Armée Rouge]

I found this and found it quite hilarious!

lol

[KurtFF8]

First off, i dont belive that we will go to war with Syria, and 2nd off I seriously seiously doubt that this is an imperalistic war (and if you think afganistan was a war of agression than i will just take your response less seriously anyway)