Russian fighter jet shot down in Syria's Idlib province

[Bleipriester]

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

"By-product" in this usage means an unintended consequence. Weakening Assad benefited many, including ISIS but it wasn't intended to help them.

by·prod·uct
ˈbīˌprädəkt/
noun
noun: by-product
an incidental or secondary product made in the manufacture or synthesis of something else.

"zinc is a byproduct of the glazing process"​

a secondary result, unintended but inevitably produced in doing or producing something else.

"he saw poverty as the byproduct of colonial prosperity"​

Worse enough but the wording is confusing anyway because the active "bolstering" cannot be a by-product. In fact, the US is the puppet of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the region. There is no advantage the US could gain from what it is doing in the ME.

 

[Bleipriester]

Otherwise, we will have to admit that the US (as the head of the West) is leading a very primitive, short-sighted and erroneous policy. And I do not think that America, which has achieved such great success in politics and the economy, is so stupid. This makes us suspect the intent behind the outwardly "erroneous" moves of the United States.

Don't give us too much credit. We blew everything up in the region by our overthrow of Sadam. He was ruthless but kept Iraq together and was a check on Iran. Removing him was a stupid idea, not because he was a good ruler but because he was contained and we should have known the consequences would be disaster for us and just about everyone else.

Consider that splitting up Iraq was the ultimate goal behind the "liberation". The Kurds became independent and ISIS declared its caliphate in 2006 as Islamic State of Iraq (see the wikipedia article above). They were around with their caliphate largely unnoticed.

 

[alang1216]

Worse enough but the wording is confusing anyway because the active "bolstering" cannot be a by-product. In fact, the US is the puppet of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the region. There is no advantage the US could gain from what it is doing in the ME.

When I cut my grass I let in light so weeds can grow. I do not cut my grass because I want weeds.

US is not a puppet but we do share interests with both countries. Are our actions directly advantageous to us? Not directly but the same could be said about ensuring the independence of West Germany after WW2 and that was the right decision.

 

[alang1216]

Otherwise, we will have to admit that the US (as the head of the West) is leading a very primitive, short-sighted and erroneous policy. And I do not think that America, which has achieved such great success in politics and the economy, is so stupid. This makes us suspect the intent behind the outwardly "erroneous" moves of the United States.

Don't give us too much credit. We blew everything up in the region by our overthrow of Sadam. He was ruthless but kept Iraq together and was a check on Iran. Removing him was a stupid idea, not because he was a good ruler but because he was contained and we should have known the consequences would be disaster for us and just about everyone else.

Consider that splitting up Iraq was the ultimate goal behind the "liberation". The Kurds became independent and ISIS declared its caliphate in 2006 as Islamic State of Iraq (see the wikipedia article above). They were around with their caliphate largely unnoticed.

We did NOT want to split up Iraq, we wanted to 'liberate' it and naively assumed we'd be welcomed as heroes and all would be well and Kurd, Sunni, and & Shiite would live together happily.

 

[Bleipriester]

Worse enough but the wording is confusing anyway because the active "bolstering" cannot be a by-product. In fact, the US is the puppet of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the region. There is no advantage the US could gain from what it is doing in the ME.

When I cut my grass I let in light so weeds can grow. I do not cut my grass because I want weeds.

US is not a puppet but we do share interests with both countries. Are our actions directly advantageous to us? Not directly but the same could be said about ensuring the independence of West Germany after WW2 and that was the right decision.

Arming Germany directly aided the US, economic, politically and militarily. On the other hand it is solely up to the US, if their stance towards countries like Iran or Syria is hostile.

 

[Bleipriester]

Otherwise, we will have to admit that the US (as the head of the West) is leading a very primitive, short-sighted and erroneous policy. And I do not think that America, which has achieved such great success in politics and the economy, is so stupid. This makes us suspect the intent behind the outwardly "erroneous" moves of the United States.

Don't give us too much credit. We blew everything up in the region by our overthrow of Sadam. He was ruthless but kept Iraq together and was a check on Iran. Removing him was a stupid idea, not because he was a good ruler but because he was contained and we should have known the consequences would be disaster for us and just about everyone else.

Consider that splitting up Iraq was the ultimate goal behind the "liberation". The Kurds became independent and ISIS declared its caliphate in 2006 as Islamic State of Iraq (see the wikipedia article above). They were around with their caliphate largely unnoticed.

We did NOT want to split up Iraq, we wanted to 'liberate' it and naively assumed we'd be welcomed as heroes and all would be well and Kurd, Sunni, and & Shiite would live together happily.

If a country needs liberation then it is Saudi Arabia.

 

[alang1216]

Arming Germany directly aided the US, politically and militarily. On the other hand it is solely up to the US, if their stance towards countries like Iran or Syria is hostile.

Many things were done during the Cold War out of fear rather than cold hard logic. On the other hand Stalin was a pretty scary guy and had the best and largest army in the world.

Iran got caught up in it and we installed a puppet there, the Shah. They never did thank us. Short-term thinking. Syria was a Soviet ally and attacked our ally, Israel. I think it safe to say the hostility was mutual.

 

[alang1216]

If a country needs liberation then it is Saudi Arabia.

I doubt the Saudis would agree. They may not love the ruling family but Saudis are so all rich they prefer stability to all else.

 

[Balancer]

I doubt the Saudis would agree. They may not love the ruling family but Saudis are so all rich they prefer stability to all else.

The wealth of the people means little. GDP PPP per capita in the Libya before the revolution was at the level of Spain, about $33 thousand, Russia is just approaching this level. With enough dollars allocated for the protest movement, any regime with internal contradictions can be extorted. And in Saudi Arabia, there are many such contradictions. Remember the recent arrest of 11 princes.

 

[Bleipriester]

Arming Germany directly aided the US, politically and militarily. On the other hand it is solely up to the US, if their stance towards countries like Iran or Syria is hostile.

Many things were done during the Cold War out of fear rather than cold hard logic. On the other hand Stalin was a pretty scary guy and had the best and largest army in the world.

Iran got caught up in it and we installed a puppet there, the Shah. They never did thank us. Short-term thinking. Syria was a Soviet ally and attacked our ally, Israel. I think it safe to say the hostility was mutual.

Stalin´s army was not very effective. They won because of their large numbers, not because they acted smart.

Why should people thank you for a puppet? The Shah was not all that bad but America should start to deal with non-puppets. You can´t change the system and there is no reason for tensions. The US could use its influence to calm the waves.
Syria attacked Israel but Israel also attacked Syria and Lebanon and everyone. Syria has been a peaceful and stable neighbor for decades now, nonetheless Israel wants it gone for the sake of Greater Israel.

 

[Bleipriester]

If a country needs liberation then it is Saudi Arabia.

I doubt the Saudis would agree. They may not love the ruling family but Saudis are so all rich they prefer stability to all else.

The Saudis are not so rich. Only few are. Many live in poverty. People who reported the poverty rot in jails. Another thing is that a "regime-change" would not make the oil go away.

Poverty in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - The Borgen Project

 

[Bleipriester]

I doubt the Saudis would agree. They may not love the ruling family but Saudis are so all rich they prefer stability to all else.

The wealth of the people means little. GDP PPP per capita in the Libya before the revolution was at the level of Spain, about $33 thousand, Russia is just approaching this level. With enough dollars allocated for the protest movement, any regime with internal contradictions can be extorted. And in Saudi Arabia, there are many such contradictions. Remember the recent arrest of 11 princes.

Libya had Africa´s highest HDI prior to the war in 2011.

 

[Balancer]

Stalin´s army was not very effective. They won because of their large numbers, not because they acted smart.

A common misconception. The total losses of the Soviet army and Germany with the allies were related somewhere like 1.3 : 1. Considering that the army of Germany was at that time the best in the world, it is not so bad. What is the main loss - this is the beginning of the war, when the army of the USSR was completely defeated. Already in Stalingrad, the losses were approximately equal. By the end of the war Germany's losses were up to 10 times higher than those of the USSR. For example, the assault of Koenigsberg - Germany's loss of 50 thousand people killed (and another 80,000 prisoners), the loss of the USSR - 3,700 people.

Battle of Königsberg - Wikipedia

 

[Bleipriester]

Stalin´s army was not very effective. They won because of their large numbers, not because they acted smart.

A common misconception. The total losses of the Soviet army and Germany with the allies were related somewhere like 1.3 : 1. Considering that the army of Germany was at that time the best in the world, it is not so bad. What is the main loss - this is the beginning of the war, when the army of the USSR was completely defeated. Already in Stalingrad, the losses were approximately equal. By the end of the war Germany's losses were up to 10 times higher than those of the USSR. For example, the assault of Koenigsberg - Germany's loss of 50 thousand people killed (and another 80,000 prisoners), the loss of the USSR - 3,700 people.

Battle of Königsberg - Wikipedia

Thanks for that Soviet "information". We can assume that the numbers are both far from reality the more so as the Soviet casualties are for one assault only while the German are overall. Also, it seams that the city was shot to trash killing many soldiers in the process. Stalingrad is also not a good example. Traitor Paulus told Berlin Stalingrad is firmly in German hands although he was outnumbered by a multitude. The resulting kettle, the lack of supplies, food and reinforcements combined with the winter was not an advantage for the Wehrmacht.

The actual number is about 2:1 in fatal losses with allies. We can see it slightly changed in favor of the Red Army in 1944 and we maybe have a 1,3:1 in 1945 but it is rather still 1.6 or 7 to 1.

What I meant was actually not the fire power or fighting spirit but the doctrine imposed on the Red Army. How does it come that the Red Army, well equipped with excellent infantry and tank force as well as a huge airforce, suffers such big casualties? It was because the soldiers were send to death. When storming a defensive position, the soldiers were hooked into each other and screaming Urrä!. German bullets and mortar grenades flew into them. Mountains of dead bodies and the following soldiers climbed over them and were shot and so on until the attack either collapsed and would be repeated later or the soldiers flooded the German lines and used their bayonets.
Those carnages happened all the time. Unthinkable for the Wehrmacht to launch such attacks.

 

[Bleipriester]

Syrian soldiers do often carry a grenade with to avoid being tortured and massacred by "rebels". So did Filipov.

'This is for our guys!' Footage allegedly shows Russian pilot's last stand

 

[Balancer]

Thanks for that Soviet "information".

Nice picture. But your numbers do not coincide with the generally accepted ones (not only in Russia). The losses of the USSR in this table are greatly exaggerated. Or are they included in the captivity? Then Germany's losses are greatly understated.

 

[Bleipriester]

Thanks for that Soviet "information".

Nice picture. But your numbers do not coincide with the generally accepted ones (not only in Russia). The losses of the USSR in this table are greatly exaggerated. Or are they included in the captivity? Then Germany's losses are greatly understated.

Only KIA. These are the internationally accepted numbers.

World War II casualties - Wikipedia

 

[Balancer]

Only KIA. These are the internationally accepted numbers.

World War II casualties - Wikipedia

World War II casualties of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

 

[Bleipriester]

Only KIA. These are the internationally accepted numbers.

World War II casualties - Wikipedia

World War II casualties of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

German casualties in World War II - Wikipedia

 

[Balancer]

The body of the pilot was taken to Moscow.