Battlefront's job just got harder?

[Le Tondu]

No politics here guys. Just an observation regarding the game.

With the addition of an entire army to the game, does it look like CMSF will take a while longer to finish? This is BIG news.

Maybe sticking with WWII wouldn't have been a bad idea after all?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20051220/42587105.html

----------------------------------------------

Russia to take Syria's side if conflict with U.S. arises - Russian MPs

20/12/2005 20:41 MOSCOW, December 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will take Syria's side if charges against Syrian officials with involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri cause a conflict between the United States and Syria, two Russian parliamentary members said Tuesday.

"If Russia is to choose between its two strategic allies, it will undoubtedly take Syria's side," said Shamil Sultanov, a coordinator of an inter-faction association, Russia and the Islamic World: A Strategic Dialogue.

Nikolai Leonov, a member of parliament's security committee, who had recently visited Syria along with Sultanov and other MPs, said it was primarily beneficial for the U.S. to accuse Syria of murdering Hariri. "Indeed, Syria is an excellent oil corridor with access to deep-water Mediterranean ports. Besides, this is a good pretext to distract the world community's attention from the events in Iraq," the MP said.

Leonov said earlier that he was concerned that Syria could face the Iraqi scenario.

In October, an international commission chaired by Detlev Mehlis delivered a report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and members of the Security Council suggesting that high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese officials had been involved in the February 14 killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria said the report was politically motivated and inaccurate.

[aka_tom_w]

Wow

nice find

thanks for the news update!

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Poppycock

First of all, "two parliamentary members" out of around 400 is hardly anything to take seriously. We had more than that here in the US practically advocating war with France because of their stance on Iraq

Second, this guy Sultanov appears to come from a long line of distinguished crazed Russian politicians. Anybody that knows anything about Russia's elected officials knows that there are more than a few that would appear insane by Western standards. They make a lot of noise and rabblerouse, but don't appear to have much actual influence on things. They ride bandwagons, not lead them. Here is an interesting article about Sultanov that should show how nuts he is:

US and Israel behind Jordanian and Lebanese bombings

My favorite quote, in relation to his baseless conspiracy theory:

Syrians had nothing to do with the murder. Believe me: I'm a Middle East expert.

Third, even if Russia was to "take Syria's side" it would be akin to the war in Iraq. Russia rants and raves and whips up the masses... but then does nothing different. It still trades with the West, it still accepts money from the West, and it still meets in friendly ways with the West's leaders.

In short... nothing new.

Steve

[Drusus]

The thing Russia could realistically do to make the situation for the USA much worse is supplying Syria with all kinds of equipment. But even doing that would be unlikely. And if I recall correctly the war in CMSF is not about Hariri murder but something else.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

First of all, "two parliamentary members" out of around 400 is hardly anything to take seriously. We had more than that here in the US practically advocating war with France because of their stance on Iraq

So we get the French included as well? Cool! By which I mean totally sweet.

All the best,

John.

[aka_tom_w]

John! you make me Laugh!

Did BFC just say we get to attack the French army as well?

Oh wait let me post this now...

I couldn't resist...

All you French lovers enjoy!!!

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals.

Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.

France has usually been governed by prostitutes."

Mark Twain.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me

than a French one behind me."

General George S. Patton.

"Going to war without France is like going deer

hunting without your accordion."

Norman Schwartzkopf.

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do

something about it."

Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

Jacques Chirac, President of France

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when

the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."

Regis Philbin.

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an

aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to

dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for

it."

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona.

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam

Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and

wears a beret. He is French, people."

Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France

won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all,

France wouldn't help us get Hitler out of France

either"

Jay Leno.

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it

came marching into Paris under a German flag."

David Letterman

"Only thing worse than a Frenchman is a Frenchman who

lives in Canada."

Ted Nugent.

War without France would be like .. uh ... World War

II.

"What do you expect from a culture and a nation that

exerted more of its national will fighting against

DisneyWorld and Big Macs than the Nazis?"

Dennis Miller.

"It is important to remember that the French have

always been there when they needed us."

Alan Kent

Raise your right hand if you like the French ... raise

both hands if you are French.

Q. What did the mayor of Paris say to the German Army

as they entered the city in WWII?

A. Table for 100,000 m'sieur?

"Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend

Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried."

Rep. R. Blount (MO)

"Do you know it only took Germany three days to

conquer France in WWII? And that's because it was

raining." John Xereas, Manager, DC Improv.

The AP and UPI reported that the French Government

announced after the London bombings that it has raised

its terror alert level from Run to

Hide. The only two higher levels in France are

Surrender and Collaborate. The rise in the alert level

was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed

France's white flag factory, effectively disabling

their military.

French Ban Fireworks at Euro Disney

(AP), Paris, March 5, 2003

The French Government announced today that it is

imposing a ban on the use of fireworks at Euro Disney.

The decision comes the day after a nightly fireworks

display at the park, located just 30 miles outside of

Paris, caused the soldiers at a nearby French Army

garrison to surrender to a group of Czech tourists.

Did that cross the line?

Just wondering?

-tom w

[Drusus]

If there would be a module with French forces it could mean that it would be possible to play USA vs France. I hope BFC is going to allow not only playing USA vs USA but also USA vs the other Nato countries introduced later.

[Battlefront.com]

Drusus... I hope so. What we need to do is figure out why the Finns would be involved in a war against Syria. That way everybody can put their forces up aginst the Finns and see how badly the will lose

Steve

[Drusus]

If the European Rapid Deployment Forces would somehow take part in the battle... I don't know what is the current status of the ERDF and in case they would be ready in 2007 there is still two more problems. First the amount of time it would take to make the political decision of committing the forces would take about two years and several national referendums. In 2009 ERDF could then rapidly deploy to Syria... But seriously speaking I think it is going to be impossible to model something like ERDF where every batallion is propably going to have different organization and different equipment. Ofcourse you could cherry pick some nice equipment, like AMOS and 81 krh 71 Y Tampella... One thing is sure, ERDF is going to be logistical nightmare.

[Tarquelne]

Second, this guy Sultanov appears to come from a long line of distinguished crazed Russian politicians.

Crazy like a fox.

You underestimate them, Steve. I'm sure they're well aware that if they want the latest Soviet equipment included in CMSF they're going to have to do something.

[Efraim]

I kinda like french people, actually

France Lawmakers Endorse File-Sharing

I mean, much more than those "intelligent design" american bigots, anyway

Besides the ludicrous and stupid reference

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

General George S. Patton.

is bogus, the correct historical reference (find it, hehe) is that Rommel said -years after Kasserine- he would rather have fought against two american divisions than against a single english one

[M1A1TC]

I would pay over 100$ for a game that lets me pit M1A2 Abrams and AH-64s versus T-90s and KA-50s. Thats would be a real fight.

[hellfish]

Even if Russia did decide to intervene - how would they get anything there? The Turks would assuredly close the Straight and while the Russians could theoretically airlift an airborne division (approx. 6000 men) that division would arrive gutted with the loss of dozens of transports and their escorts.

But like Steve said, Russia ain't stupid, even if some of their politicians (like politicians everywhere) are.

[Andrew H.]

Almost as many people dislike the French as the US. Anyone so unpopular can't be all bad.

[Kip Watson]

Hey, I love the French too - and I *am* one of those Intelligent Design bigots.

Saved the West in WWI (at extraordinary human cost), saved America's a$$* on at least one occasion in WWII, put their guts on the line holding back communism in SE Asia - not bad for a small country.

Plus: some of the world's best movies, hilariously chauvinistic like all great cultures (British and American inculded), take no sh#t from environmentalists.

What's not to like?

Vive La France!

(*Free French broke through the Gustav Line, saved US from potentially their worst military disadster at Anzio)

[juan_gigante]

Ah, crazy Russian politicians. A few of my favorite stories can be found here.

Russian Duma

[Battlefront.com]

Great link! I forgot all about that 1995 brawl. Classic.

Steve

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I would pay over 100$ for a game that lets me pit M1A2 Abrams and AH-64s versus T-90s and KA-50s. Thats would be a real fight.

You can download WinSPMBT for free, granted it is IGO-UGO, but it does allow pretty much any post WWII conflict to be simulated, since there are no "Fulda Gap 1985" modules planned for CMX2 that I am aware of, I guess it stays on my hard drive for a while yet.

if you need a link, email me, or just google it.

[hellfish]

For some reason, I can't stand WinSPMBT. But then, I was playing TacOps when the first Steel Panthers came out (IIRC) and it felt like taking a step backwards to go back to IGO-UGO. I love the effort the guys put into it, but its too slow paced and too retro for me.

[dieseltaylor]

"Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend

Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried."

Rep. R. Blount (MO)

History not his strong point then. It was tried and the answer is 146,000 1870-1871.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I would pay over 100$ for a game that lets me pit M1A2 Abrams and AH-64s versus T-90s and KA-50s. Thats would be a real fight.

You can download WinSPMBT for free, granted it is IGO-UGO, but it does allow pretty much any post WWII conflict to be simulated, since there are no "Fulda Gap 1985" modules planned for CMX2 that I am aware of, I guess it stays on my hard drive for a while yet.

if you need a link, email me, or just google it. </font>

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Even if Russia did decide to intervene - how would they get anything there? The Turks would assuredly close the Straight and while the Russians could theoretically airlift an airborne division (approx. 6000 men) that division would arrive gutted with the loss of dozens of transports and their escorts.

But like Steve said, Russia ain't stupid, even if some of their politicians (like politicians everywhere) are.

The Turks would not "assuredly close the straights." Turkey allowed Soviet overflights to Syria in 1973, and the delivery of Soviet arms to Syria both before and after the Yom Kippur war. It really made Kissinger mad, but it didn't stop the Soviets.

If the Americans invaded Syria, I doubt that the Russians would send weapons direct. Why bother? That's not the Russian way. Lebanon is right next to Syria, and that place is a black hole. Most of the weapons the Syrians need can be smuggled in as legitimate cargo via Beruit. If the Americans complain the Russians will say "prove use wrong". The Americans can't - no one in history has stopped the Lebanese from smuggling.

It is instructive to note that the Israelis, who are no slouches and using force in the region, do not even try.

And even if the Russians get caught to rights, they can just say it's international terrorists using Russia as a cover.

Plus there's the intersting question as to whether Turkey's control of its eastern provinces is capable of halting trucks send from Armenia to Syria. If the Kremlin started handing out bribes to the Turkish Kurds, it would be along time indeed before any one would do anything about shipments like that, except of course deny they were taking place.

The Turkish government right now has serious difficulty collecting tolls and taxes in its eastern provinces; why Ankara would suddenly crack down just because the Americans had invaded Syria is beyond me. A much more likely scenario is Ankara looks the other way and, if Washington complains, the Turks say "Oh, we would love to stop smuggling in our eastern provinces, but you Americans went and made our Kurds uppity, and so what can we poor Turks do?"

And so on. Americans infatuated with slinging American military power abroad very frequently forget that the rest of the world is a pretty lawless and corrupt place, and just because you make a rule or get an agreement with a foreign government, doesn't mean that will change thing on the ground. Syria is right in the middle of a very big vortex of illegality, and the idea that Syria can be "sealed off" assumes every one living in the region suddenly becomes as law-abiding as Americans, or Finns even. (Okay, maybe not Finns.)

The real question is whether Putin and Co. would see it in their interest to provide the Syrians weapons by whatever means. The current Kremlin gang is a pretty nasty bunch of people, so I think the answer is "Yes, if it looks like it will bog the Americans down. The Americans screwed us in Afghanistan by supplying the mujahadin, now's our chance to get even."

A small but steady supply of fourth-generation AT weapons, plus maybe some trainers left over from the KGB, could go a long way towards useful numbers of caskets returning to the U.S. Heck, the Russians could even use their sattelites to take pictures of the caskets being unloaded, seeing as the U.S. media can't.

Here's another fun scenario: The Syrians ask for Russian military advisors, and Russia sends a brigade of infantry and stations it in Damascus, before the Americans invade. Gee, shock and awe just got a lot more complicated, didn't it?

Is every one absolutely certain the former-KGB has nothing to do with the resistance in Iraq? Hehehehehe.

Paranoia and doomsday scenarios aside, Russian intervention in a Syrian conflict ultimately comes down to viability: would the intervention have any effect? And that goes right back to the 64-dinar question: Would the Syrian nation - not just the army but the nation -resist a U.S. invasion?

[ December 23, 2005, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Drusus]

There must be more reason to send arms to Syria than just to tease USA. The people in Kremlin aren't stupid, why would they risk their relations with west? In 1970 the situation was a lot different, USA and Soviet Union were in a war, although a cold one, but still. To send weapons, Russians must think that the gains they are likely to make are big enough. The thing that Syria is where it is might be enough. But Russia doesn't want to make USA angry, it might be that there would be a great amount of fourth-generation AT weapons in Chechenya... I have a feeling that the situation in Russia-USA relations is that both are happy that they can fight their own wars.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I have no doubt that the Russians would try to make a buck and score some points off of a conflict between Syria and the West. It is actually one of the biggest problems with dealing with Russia right now. We're supposedly friends, but they are developing and selling weapons that are specifically marketed as being able to destroy things that only the US and (in some cases) a few chosen allies have. Plus, these governments are by and large nasty people. So we've got a "friend" who is inherently setting us up to get hurt doing something that is probably for the betterment of the world (regardless if the pretext for military action).

But that is not the same as dropping an airborne division in the middle of Syria. That is not something Russia would do. They can't afford to, literally and figuratively. And as BigDuke said, they don't have to. They can wage a proxy war against the US and the West and still eat their cake because the West isn't willing to deal with the basic problem I described above (i.e. we aren't really all that good friends).

I also fully agree that Syria, or any nation for that matter, can be completely sealed off. As long as money motivates people, and the money can be found to fuel that motivation, then things will move around regardless of efforts to stop it. Just look at the southern US border... it is one of the most patrolled and fortified borders in the world and yet people and drugs pass through it in vast numbers every year. However many holes there might be, it is still better than nothing and one can only imagine what would otherwise come through if there were no such border effort. So while the US can't stop illegal migration and drugs from coming across, it can slow it down to a somewhat manageable level. I see that being the case in Syria. Especially for the conventional phase.

Steve

[Drusus]

Hmm, maybe I don't understand something about the relations of Syria and Russia and Iraq and Russia, but why isn't Russia sending weapons to the insurgents? If there were a conflict between Syria and West, why would they then send weapons?

I just happen to think that if Russia waged a proxy war, then Chechenya could be _much_ harder for them. The Russians have seen what can happen when USA starts sending equipment to insurgents... I don't know what you mean by saying governments are nasty people, but if you mean that Russia would send equipment to Syria just to tease USA, then I disagree. If you mean that the thing that sending equipment is a nasty thing to do doesn't weigh much in their decision making, then I agree. But I also think that governments behave usually somewhat rationally (in their context, that is), and for Russia the situation is that they would risk much for little gain.