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.

purplefood wrote:Did they actually say they are doing things?
I mean...
There are British and American troops in plenty of places but in many cases they are simply passing through...
These Russian fellows may simply stay on their nice big oil tanker type thing and play cards or I-spy or whatever it is Russian people do when they don't drink and act crazy...

The article says that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country. I would take that to mean that even if they aren't involved in direct combat, they are "doing things" in support of the Syrian government.

Hordini wrote:

purplefood wrote:Did they actually say they are doing things?
I mean...
There are British and American troops in plenty of places but in many cases they are simply passing through...
These Russian fellows may simply stay on their nice big oil tanker type thing and play cards or I-spy or whatever it is Russian people do when they don't drink and act crazy...

The article says that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country. I would take that to mean that even if they aren't involved in direct combat, they are "doing things" in support of the Syrian government.

Yeah.... Just like the U.S. just only sent "Advisors" into Vietnam? C'mon, U.S., China, Russia, all just puppets with the same pair of hands up their ass.

warpcrafter wrote:

Hordini wrote:

purplefood wrote:Did they actually say they are doing things?
I mean...
There are British and American troops in plenty of places but in many cases they are simply passing through...
These Russian fellows may simply stay on their nice big oil tanker type thing and play cards or I-spy or whatever it is Russian people do when they don't drink and act crazy...

The article says that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country. I would take that to mean that even if they aren't involved in direct combat, they are "doing things" in support of the Syrian government.

Yeah.... Just like the U.S. just only sent "Advisors" into Vietnam? C'mon, U.S., China, Russia, all just puppets with the same pair of hands up their ass.

Actually a more apt example would be the Russian "advisers" in North Korea. Where it was an open secret that Russian fighter pilots were actively engaged in combat operations against the US.

Yeah, I know. That's why I said "even if they're not involved in direct combat" (emphasis mine), not "they won't be involved in direct combat."

Ouze wrote:Well, what sequel ever lives up the the expectations set by the original?

WWII was way better than WWI. Cooler weapons, more twists, and a way better ending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:We may not particularly like whose side they pick, thier methodology, or thier politics; but it's very encouraging to see Russia and China start to step up to the plate internationally. The West doesn't always have to intervene everywhere all the time. Let China, India, and Russia spend thier money, resources, and lives to "stabilize" nations that don't ask for thier help.

There's dozens of peacekeeping operations going on around the world at any one time, and the armies doing the heavy lifting are nations like Pakistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Why the hell are there suddenly somewhere around FIVE tinfoil hat threads?

Because politics is really dull right now. The right is watching their primary and hoping the whole thing will happen as quietly and quickly as possible because damn its embarressing watch a competent but entirely unlikeble robot struggle to defeat a complete lunatic... while the left is laying low because they don't want to draw any attention away from the shambles that is the above primary contest.

So the people who normally post on 'boo democrats yay republicans' and 'boo republicans yay democrats' don't really have much left to talk about.

So they post crazy stuff instead.

I think you meant Bangladesh Sebs, they have the most troops deployed to blue hat operations.

AustonT wrote:I think you meant Bangladesh Sebs, they have the most troops deployed to blue hat operations.

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't looked at figures on it for a while, so I suspect my information got out of date (makes sense Pakistan would scale back their overseas deployment with the troubles they had at home with floods and terrorism).

I looked at it today for a different thread. I seem to remember Pakistan had an asston of troops in Somolia in the 90s.

AustonT wrote:I looked at it today for a different thread. I seem to remember Pakistan had an asston of troops in Somolia in the 90s.

Yeah, I mean that's where the paying gig was in the 90s.

Do you have the link you used? I'd like to refresh my memory.

Certainly
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2011/oct11_2.pdf

Thanks for that. Now would you dig up a map of the deployments? lol just kidding. kinda. not really.

Look at 'ol Canada eh - less than 200. Hopefully our peacekeeping myth is well and truly dead. We only need one myth - the milita myth. That is that we don't need an army because when the yanks come we will throw down our hockey sticks and pick up rifles, thus instantly creating the toughest army on earth.

It will take us a year to recover from Khandahar and muster another battle group - I would guess to africa this time. Although, who knows, we left hundreds of 'trainers' in Kabul - inside the wire, nice and safe they say. Hmmm....

Way OT, sorry. I'll make a lame attempt to bring it back by pointing out Russia is on there with about 200 as well.

Or maybe I'll say by next year we'll be in Syria wearing blue helmets... again.

Oh wait just checked, we're still there and have been since 1974!

AustonT wrote:Certainly
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2011/oct11_2.pdf

Thanks, made for interesting reading.

Manchu wrote:Cold War's back on.

We kinda of have a second Cold War inbetween China and the US at the moment.

murdog wrote:Thanks for that. Now would you dig up a map of the deployments? lol just kidding. kinda. not really.

Look at 'ol Canada eh - less than 200. Hopefully our peacekeeping myth is well and truly dead. We only need one myth - the milita myth. That is that we don't need an army because when the yanks come we will throw down our hockey sticks and pick up rifles, thus instantly creating the toughest army on earth.

It will take us a year to recover from Khandahar and muster another battle group - I would guess to africa this time. Although, who knows, we left hundreds of 'trainers' in Kabul - inside the wire, nice and safe they say. Hmmm....

Way OT, sorry. I'll make a lame attempt to bring it back by pointing out Russia is on there with about 200 as well.

Or maybe I'll say by next year we'll be in Syria wearing blue helmets... again.

Oh wait just checked, we're still there and have been since 1974!

All that happened to Canada in Somolia was we lost out Paratrooper batallion. =o\ Stupid politicians couldn't even deal with a little army hazing... then again JTF2 I think came out of that mess, and we are one of the few tier one spec ops that Delta will work with.