Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.

Frazzled wrote:Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.

And by arms he means hands.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.

And by arms he means hands.

We support the right bare arms, and legs!

Frazzled wrote:Russia is selling them stuff, and by stuff I mean arms.

yeah, my friend actually thinks its just a conspriacy between American and Russian arms manufacturers. Think about it, Iraq doesn't buy any Russian junk anymore. It wants a 100% American beef Abrams not skinny Russian goat T-55s. If Assad goes down that means megabucks for US arms dealers. My friend, as you can probably tell, is quite insane.

Russia was backing Syria back during Soviet times, I guess they simply continued that relationship into the 21st century with the rest of the furniture.

I look forward to the sudden appearance or US/European arms in the hands of the rebels just after we all agree that we wont intervene.

I still chuckle at there appearance in the hands of Libyan rebels just prior to the sudden rapid advance on the Capital (yes, the planes helped! ).

I look forward to staying the hell out of it.

notprop wrote:I look forward to the sudden appearance or US/European arms in the hands of the rebels just after we all agree that we wont intervene.

I still chuckle at there appearance in the hands of Libyan rebels just prior to the sudden rapid advance on the Capital (yes, the planes helped! ).

Complete with camoflage fatigues.

Frazzled wrote:I look forward to staying the hell out of it.

C'mon you guys are bottling allot of stuff these days, you carry on like this and your boys wont be fit for the Falklands re-match. Plus everyone likes a safe away fixture from time to time.

Eh, I really had no problem with Russia going into Georgia. Saakashvili is an ass. He played his card knowing full well that NATO would come to his aid as a knee jerk reaction, we again should have stayed out of it. Russia and China have different interests but basically it's all about arms sales and stemming global influence. NATO and the UN did kind of screw themselves when China and Russia played along in Libya, they went with a very liberal interpretation on the types of missions that China and Russia agreed to, basically forcing China and Russian to veto any proposal that is not perfectly defined.

" Analysts say political and strategic concerns are Russia's primary motivation: Moscow is pushing back against what it sees as excessive Western interventionism in sovereign states, and fears losing an old ally that is its last foothold in the Middle East.

But economic ties -- valuable military contracts and energy investments that could be lost if the Assad regime fails -- play a key role as well.

"It's a significant economic interest," said Daniel Treisman, a Russia specialist at UCLA. "We're talking about several billion dollars in contracts with Syria may be at risk."

Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.

Here is the whole article http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/

Again I say if anybody should be handling this it is the Arab league. If it is not important enough for them to handle these issues than it's not really important enough for me. I say if Muslims want to blame everything on some grand Christian crusade, then we should just let Muslims handle Muslim problems, let Arabs handle Arab problems.

In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.

Smart move is getting the Turks to intervene. Problem is they have their own difficulties, though I'm sure there are parts of their government that would quite like to intervene.

Joey wrote:Smart move is getting the Turks to intervene. Problem is they have their own difficulties, though I'm sure there are parts of their government that would quite like to intervene.

I don't think Turkey and Iran are as opposed to each other as you think. They see eye to eye on many issues and have been growing closer as of late.

I take that back you meant Turks intervening in Syria not Iran.

Andrew1975 wrote: They see eye to eye on many issues and have been growing closer as of late.

They have been seen taking long walks together, having a picnic in the park, and any day now a video is expected to be 'leaked' to the media of the two of them building a silo together.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Joey wrote:Smart move is getting the Turks to intervene. Problem is they have their own difficulties, though I'm sure there are parts of their government that would quite like to intervene.

I don't think Turkey and Iran are as opposed to each other as you think. They see eye to eye on many issues and have been growing closer as of late.

I take that back you meant Turks intervening in Syria not Iran.

Well yeah, Turkey isn't exactly going to invade Iran any time soon.
Thing is, they really really want entrance into the EU. The liberal elements in the Turkish government would probably be supportive of Western action, they could do with some liberal credentials.

Totalwar1402 wrote:It wants a 100% American beef Abrams not skinny Russian goat T-55s. If Assad goes down that means megabucks for US arms dealers. My friend, as you can probably tell, is quite insane.

The Iraqi army is primarily armed with AK's and and US surplus from the 80's... And almost all their hardware is Russian.

THe US gains nothing from destabilizing what was a stable Mid-East state. More than likely we're looking at Islamic groups arming dissenters against a secular government. Syria isn't exactly a state that can police and control its own borders. It's fairly easy to sneak, bribe, and kill to smuggle goods into a third world country with a corrupt government that doesn't really care for its own laws.

Andrew1975 wrote:Eh, I really had no problem with Russia going into Georgia. Saakashvili is an ass. He played his card knowing full well that NATO would come to his aid as a knee jerk reaction, we again should have stayed out of it. Russia and China have different interests but basically it's all about arms sales and stemming global influence. NATO and the UN did kind of screw themselves when China and Russia played along in Libya, they went with a very liberal interpretation on the types of missions that China and Russia agreed to, basically forcing China and Russian to veto any proposal that is not perfectly defined.

" Analysts say political and strategic concerns are Russia's primary motivation: Moscow is pushing back against what it sees as excessive Western interventionism in sovereign states, and fears losing an old ally that is its last foothold in the Middle East.

But economic ties -- valuable military contracts and energy investments that could be lost if the Assad regime fails -- play a key role as well.

"It's a significant economic interest," said Daniel Treisman, a Russia specialist at UCLA. "We're talking about several billion dollars in contracts with Syria may be at risk."

Russia has long been Syria's primary military supplier and currently has about $4 billion worth of contracts for future arms deliveries to Damascus, according to a report from global analysis firm Oxford Analytica. With the loss of arms sales to Iran following U.N. sanctions and the cancellation of contracts in Libya after the Gadhafi regime's overthrow, the list of Russian arms customers in the region is dwindling. The lost business with Iran was worth $13 billion, according to Treisman, while the Libyan deals totaled $4.5 billion.

Here is the whole article http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/

Again I say if anybody should be handling this it is the Arab league. If it is not important enough for them to handle these issues than it's not really important enough for me. I say if Muslims want to blame everything on some grand Christian crusade, then we should just let Muslims handle Muslim problems, let Arabs handle Arab problems.

In short I see no reason why we would send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Arab boys ought to be doing for themselves.

But if you accept that Russia and China are also geo-political players in the region then, sad as it may be to admit, America can't simply take a back foot on global affairs. otherwise you would simply have the above mentioned powers increasing their regional influence without the US as a counter-balance however unequal that currently is. China is up and coming whilst Russia is the sick man of super-powers and about to be driven out of the region entirely. Muslims will never be allowed to solve Muslim problems any more than Europe was able to sort out European porblems on its own during the Cold War ie no united Germany until the US triumphed.

It might be a crass comparison, but if you look at what happened when the US, already the worlds greatest if not sole power after WW1, became isolationist and focused on the economy. All that happened was the expansion of regional players like Japan, Germany, Italy and even the USSR in the Baltic. Not only that but geo-political games certainly continued among the other nations at this time. When Italy invaded Abyssinnia (modern Ethiopia), Britain and France were about to make a secret deal with Mussolini to partition the country until it was uncovered and a public scandal ensued. I'am not saying the world is neccesarily better with the US being a player in geo-politics but its certainly doubtful that it is any worse. It may be gauling and ammoral, but sending troops to war to enahnce your own influence is just standard fare of soveriegn states. Whats wrong is that despite being democracies the West doesn't make this a rational public debate about what is and is not in the nations interest. Instead you get this counter-intuitive argument over 'just war' which is silly since no war is truly just or good.

People following the opportunist who fancies himself Assads replacement.

Its rather simple.

"Fight for me and we will be free" = You fight, I will take over afterwards as your leader.

"Other Arab countries and enjoying their new won freedom" = So why not start a war here, many people will die, who cares so long as I get to be the next president.

LordofHats wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:It wants a 100% American beef Abrams not skinny Russian goat T-55s. If Assad goes down that means megabucks for US arms dealers. My friend, as you can probably tell, is quite insane.

The Iraqi army is primarily armed with AK's and and US surplus from the 80's... And almost all their hardware is Russian.

.

I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.

But if you accept that Russia and China are also geo-political players in the region then, sad as it may be to admit, America can't simply take a back foot on global affairs. otherwise you would simply have the above mentioned powers increasing their regional influence without the US as a counter-balance however unequal that currently is. China is up and coming whilst Russia is the sick man of super-powers and about to be driven out of the region entirely. Muslims will never be allowed to solve Muslim problems any more than Europe was able to sort out European porblems on its own during the Cold War ie no united Germany until the US triumphed.

It might be a crass comparison, but if you look at what happened when the US, already the worlds greatest if not sole power after WW1, became isolationist and focused on the economy. All that happened was the expansion of regional players like Japan, Germany, Italy and even the USSR in the Baltic. Not only that but geo-political games certainly continued among the other nations at this time. When Italy invaded Abyssinnia (modern Ethiopia), Britain and France were about to make a secret deal with Mussolini to partition the country until it was uncovered and a public scandal ensued. I'am not saying the world is neccesarily better with the US being a player in geo-politics but its certainly doubtful that it is any worse. It may be gauling and ammoral, but sending troops to war to enahnce your own influence is just standard fare of soveriegn states. Whats wrong is that despite being democracies the West doesn't make this a rational public debate about what is and is not in the nations interest. Instead you get this counter-intuitive argument over 'just war' which is silly since no war is truly just or good.

Yes I understand what you are saying, but it's Syria. It's not really vitally important to the US. It would just be another gigantic pit to throw troops and money into, for nothing.

Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.

Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.

So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait

LordofHats wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:I thought they were trying to acquire Abrams tanks and that most of the Russian gear was left over from Sadams armouries.

Wanting and having are different. A lot of countries would love to have Abrams tanks but we don't sell that kind of hardware until its obsolete and we've replaced it with something better.

So I guess they can ask Santa- Oh wait

Didn't we sell some to Egypt, or did that get nixed?

I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas. We sold Egypt a lot of our surplus M60's and F14's though.

Politics play into this a little. Even if we did sell them we wouldn't sell them to Egypt. That would upset the Israeli's.

LordofHats wrote:I don't think we've ever sold Abrams overseas. We sold Egypt a lot of our surplus M60's and F14's though.

Politics play into this a little. Even if we did sell them we wouldn't sell them to Egypt. That would upset the Israeli's.

Well I remember there was a lot of press about selling them to Egypt, but maybe it got nixed.

Nope didn't get nixed.




Surprisingly it appears we are handing these out like 1 dollar bills at a strip joint. I was really surprised by this.

Actually here are the numbers.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

Australia has 59 M1A1SAs (hybrids with a mix of equipment used by US Army and Marine Corps tanks, without depleted uranium layers in armor
Egypt has over 1000 M1A1Tanks with a factory co-produced by the US and Egypt for the Egyptian army. Another 125 Tanks have been ordered
Iraq has 140 M1A1Ms (downgraded, without depleted uranium layers in armor)
Kuwait has 218 M1A2s (downgraded, without depleted uranium layers in armor
Saudi Arabia has 373 To be upgraded to M1A2S configuration

What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?

LordofHats wrote: Syria isn't exactly a state that can police and control its own borders. It's fairly easy to sneak, bribe, and kill to smuggle goods into a third world country with a corrupt government that doesn't really care for its own laws.

The first rule of Syria: you do not feth with the Assads.

Otherwise, do what you want.

Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?

Because without the depleted uranium plates in the armour, the tank is very vulnerable against modern anti tank weapons. Which the Israeli army has by the boatload.

Lord Bingo wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?

Because without the depleted uranium plates in the armour, the tank is very vulnerable against modern anti tank weapons. Which the Israeli army has by the boatload.

Yup, without the DU in its hull it's much more vulnerable than say the Challanger 2.

Samus_aran wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?

Because it's none of their business?

Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?

Peace treaty.

Of course, things have changed politically.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote: Syria isn't exactly a state that can police and control its own borders. It's fairly easy to sneak, bribe, and kill to smuggle goods into a third world country with a corrupt government that doesn't really care for its own laws.

The first rule of Syria: you do not feth with the Assads.

Otherwise, do what you want.

Looks like this is just a continuation of that as this uprising is happening in the same place. If this is just another Sunni vs Shiite party, we really need to stay out of it. This is being covered as a popular uprising against an unpopular and brutal government, like Libya and Egypt. This really may just be a Muslim sect uprising in a country with a brutal government. Not that I really care either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Lord Bingo wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:What. Egypt has 1125 Abrams tanks? What for, and why doesn't Israel complain about this?

Because without the depleted uranium plates in the armour, the tank is very vulnerable against modern anti tank weapons. Which the Israeli army has by the boatload.

Yup, without the DU in its hull it's much more vulnerable than say the Challanger 2.

Yeah but it doesn't look like Egypt got the down graded ones. They have the full M1A1 if I am reading correctly. The numbers say others got the downgraded versions, but it didn't say anything about the Egyptian tanks being downgraded. I kind of doubt we would give people the DU armor, but why specifically list it with the others then. Can anybody confirm this?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Looks like this is just a continuation of that as this uprising is happening in the same place. If this is just another Sunni vs Shiite party, we really need to stay out of it.

Its not, nor has it ever been. The Assads are brutal, and conventionally corrupt, no one likes them (except us, kind of).

Andrew1975 wrote:
This is being covered as a popular uprising against an unpopular and brutal government, like Libya and Egypt. This really may just be a Muslim sect uprising in a country with a brutal government. Not that I really care either way.

Its both.