fate

You miss one tiny little point: Russia is attacking the Syrians our CIA has been training and equipping

All five of them?

fate

Iran is not a Russian client?

What is a client state?

A client state is a state that is economically, politically, or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs.[1] Types of client states include: satellite state, associated state, puppet state, neo-colony, protectorate, vassal state, and tributary state

Buying weapons from another nation doesn't make it a client state.
Doing what the more powerful nation wants it to do .... is not the relationship between Iran and Russia.

If anything Iran would claim that Russia is doing what Iran wants Russia to do in interceding in Syria.

Ray, the part that is baseless is the part where you claim that there is an outcome that would please Putin...
His goal in Syria is what? Relevance? Influence?
The problem is that Russia is less relevant in the world as energy prices plummet and Iran starts to compete for their energy markets. Adventuring in Syria is not making Russia more relevant in the long or even midterm.
Even a flat out victory by Assad and Iran in Syria will not allow Russia to dictate to anyone in the Middle East. It should be pretty obvious by now, that a decade of occupation by the US didn't turn Iraq into a client state of the US. It simply opened the doors for the Shia governments in Iran and Iraq to fully engage Why would being Assads' air force grant the Russians more than a full scale occupation of Iraq did for the US?

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russia- ... -iran-deal

The above is a good analysis of the situation from Russia's point of view.
Its conclusion:

This was a small yet revealing illustration of Russia's declining position in the Middle East. For many years, the Middle East was a rose garden for the Russians, filled with both sweet-smelling opportunities to lure Washington into negotiations and ample thorns to prick their American adversary when the need arose. Russia's support for the Syrian government is still relevant, and Moscow will continue to court countries in the region with arms deals out of both political and economic necessity. Even so, bringing down the Syrian government is not on Washington's to-do list, and countries like Egypt will still end up prioritizing their relationship with the United States in the end.
Russia's influence in the Middle East is fading rapidly at the same time Europe is starting to wriggle out of Russia's energy grip. And as Russia's options are narrowing, U.S. options are multiplying in both the Middle East and Europe. This is an uncomfortable situation for Putin, to be sure. But a narrow set of options for Russia in its near abroad does not make those options any less concerning for the United States as the standoff between Washington and Moscow continues.

Putin is blundering badly. There's no way that he'll gain relevance from his Syrian adventure. Relevance today s about economic, and technological might. The lack of which can't be compensated for by wasting lives and money in a religious war in the middle east. The Arabs and the Iranians aren't going to cooperate with outsiders.

rickyp wrote:fate

You miss one tiny little point: Russia is attacking the Syrians our CIA has been training and equipping

All five of them?

Again, showing you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

The "five" (or 8) were trained by the military. That was the $500M program that was a bust.

The CIA training is a different matter entirely. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10 ... ervention/

Learn SOMETHING before you post.

rickyp wrote:fate

Iran is not a Russian client?

What is a client state?

A client state is a state that is economically, politically, or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs.[1] Types of client states include: satellite state, associated state, puppet state, neo-colony, protectorate, vassal state, and tributary state

Buying weapons from another nation doesn't make it a client state.
Doing what the more powerful nation wants it to do .... is not the relationship between Iran and Russia.

If anything Iran would claim that Russia is doing what Iran wants Russia to do in interceding in Syria.

Right. HOWEVER, I never said "client state." I never meant they would be dependent upon Russia. What I showed is the deals they are cutting with Iran. Iran is going to PAY Russia for quite a bit: weaponry, nuke plants, etc., so it is a CLIENT.

You, of all people, should stop trying to parse words.

For example, if you actually wanted to KNOW whether I meant "client state," you could have asked "Do you think Iran is a client state of Russia?"

But, that would take effort--something you're too busy to bother with.

So clarify for me Fate.
Its your contention that Russia is bombing in Syria so that they can sell more weapons and technologies to Iran, Iraq and Syria?
You realize that the Russians had to forgive Syria's debts on previous weapons purchases? I'm pretty sure they can find lots of customers who aren't able to pay them...Not much of a revenue generator ...
You realize that Iran were customers for Russian arms and nuclear technology long before Russia went in and bombed in Syria?

May be you didn't know this. I did, So when you said Iran will be clients of Russia I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you ,meant "client state. "
But explain, if they already were trade partners, why did Russia need to bomb to keep them as trade partners?

Sassenach wrote:I tend not to buy into conspiracy theories. If it was genuinely a suicide bomber then I tend to think it would have been difficult for the Turkish government to rustle up a volunteer.

I also tend to dismiss conspiracy theories. On the campaign trail the Turkish PM is now saying that the PKK (Kurds) and ISIS met in secret and decided to do this as a joint operation. He's even suggested that Assad representatives were in the room when the decision was made. The notion that these 3 warring parties all ganged up against Turkey is bizarre. (I am a bit surprised that he didn't say that Mossad was also in the room.) Time will tell ...

rickyp wrote:So clarify for me Fate.
Its your contention that Russia is bombing in Syria so that they can sell more weapons and technologies to Iran, Iraq and Syria?

No, they are doing it to get a foothold they have not had in the Middle East since the 1970's. Only Obama could undo something that Jimmy Carter cemented at Camp David.

You realize that the Russians had to forgive Syria's debts on previous weapons purchases?

They are enhancing their rep in Syria. On the other hand, Obama has destroyed ours over the entirety of the Middle East.

I'm pretty sure they can find lots of customers who aren't able to pay them...Not much of a revenue generator ...
You realize that Iran were customers for Russian arms and nuclear technology long before Russia went in and bombed in Syria?

You do realize this is all about having influence and power, right?

May be you didn't know this. I did, So when you said Iran will be clients of Russia I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you ,meant "client state. "

You do realize that Putin is all about making Russia a Great Power, right? You do that by expanding your influence into new regions of the world. Putin is doing that and Obama is retreating.

But explain, if they already were trade partners, why did Russia need to bomb to keep them as trade partners?

I never said Syria was a money-maker. If it was a profit/loss calculation, Putin would not have gone in.

Domestically, this is a win for him. Obama retreats and Putin is the strong man. Internationally, he will be able to keep Assad in power--and maybe even force the UN to support Assad when the war turns to ISIS in a serious way.

Obama looks weak. Putin looks strong.

Obama gives Iran the bomb. Putin builds it for them.

Obama gives Iran money to fund terror. Putin sells them the means to commit it.

Looks like Fate (and others) called it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272611/Iran-broadcasts-footage-underground-missile-base.html

fate

No, they are doing it to get a foothold they have not had in the Middle East since the 1970's.

Really what about the naval base at Tartus?

The facility was established during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy fleet in the Mediterranean.[5] During the 1970s, similar support points were located in Egypt, Ethiopia, Vietnam and elsewhere. In 1977, the Egyptian support bases at Alexandria and Mersa Matruh were evacuated and the ships and property were transferred to Tartus, where the naval support facility was transformed into the 229th Naval and Estuary Vessel Support Division. Seven years later, the Tartus support point was upgraded to the 720th Material-Technical Support Point.[6]

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and its Mediterranean fleet, the 5th Operational Squadron composed of ships from the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet, ceased to exist. Since then, there have been occasional expeditions by Russian Navy vessels and submarines to the Mediterranean Sea. The naval logistics support facility in Syria is now part of the Black Sea Fleet. It consists of two floating piers, a floating workshop, storage facilities, barracks and other facilities.[6]

fate

They are enhancing their rep in Syria

I think you are right that they think this is enhancing their rep.
But with whom?
The Saudis'/ Egypt? Any of the Sunni nations?
With European nations? With Asian nations?
How does it genuinely affect their reputation, and in what way?

fate

You do realize this is all about having influence and power, right?

Yes. But I don't think it provides what Putin and you think it does...

hacker

Looks like Fate (and others) called it

Called what?
Isn't it a good thing that Iran doesn't have nuclear war heads to go with their missiles? (Whoch would threaten not only Tel Aviv but Moscow)
And isn't it a good thing that they are at least 10 to 15 years away from being able to make any.?

What's amusing is that here DF et al. are trying to say bad a nuclear deal we made with Iran yet Iran is busy trying to reassure its people that they did not taken advantage of. "Look, at all of our missiles, we're still strong after the nuclear deal". Opponents of the Iran deal point to this as some kind of proof Iran is going to cheat on the nuclear when in reality these missiles are being shown to reassure a domestic audience. It's kind of an indication that Iran gave up a lot.

rickyp wrote:fate

No, they are doing it to get a foothold they have not had in the Middle East since the 1970's.

Really what about the naval base at Tartus?

Oy. A diplomatic foothold.

fate

They are enhancing their rep in Syria

I think you are right that they think this is enhancing their rep.
But with whom?
The Saudis'/ Egypt? Any of the Sunni nations?

No, but what is our rep with the Sunnis?

With European nations? With Asian nations?

Europeans need them too much to care about rep. If they really cared, they would have said something when the teeming masses began flooding into Europe from Syria.

This is all about reestablishing Russia as a superpower. Putin is intent on it.

How does it genuinely affect their reputation, and in what way?

As the anti-Obama. He's the pathetic coward, cowering in the corner. Putin is the strong horse.

Putin wants to build Russian power. Obama wants to destroy American power.

fate

You do realize this is all about having influence and power, right?

Yes. But I don't think it provides what Putin and you think it does...

You're welcome to your opinion. However, it's as wrong as it was on the Iran deal.

Obama thinks Putin is entering a quagmire. Well, here's the thing: Putin won't play pattycake. He'll kill whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes. In other words, he will fight to win. Again, contrast that with Obama who fights to "a responsible ending." He's the first leader in history to have that as a goal.

freeman3 wrote:What's amusing is that here DF et al. are trying to say bad a nuclear deal we made with Iran yet Iran is busy trying to reassure its people that they did not taken advantage of. "Look, at all of our missiles, we're still strong after the nuclear deal". Opponents of the Iran deal point to this as some kind of proof Iran is going to cheat on the nuclear when in reality these missiles are being shown to reassure a domestic audience. It's kind of an indication that Iran gave up a lot.

How long until Iran cheats?

Forgive my intemperance, but Good God: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts as if it has no interest in keeping its agreements with the other ducks, then we shouldn't have made a treaty with this duck in the first place! How hard is it to grasp the concept that we've made a deal with a government that has no intention of keeping that agreement???

Are you really interested in peace? Or will you just support whatever Obama does, because he isn't W?

Do not trouble us to insist you do not take sides in US politics, or that you are a disinterested or neutral observer, Ricky. You typically demonstrate that you are not.

I don't care if Mother Teresa rose from the grave and made this treaty herself. It was a bad idea and it has no hope whatsoever of preventing war.

Fate, don't even try to use reason. Either he doesn't want to admit he's wrong, or it's because he'll support anything Obama does. I'm sorry Ricky but it's looking that way.