Then... Russia does, what Russia always does: Reverts to their Historical Incompetency.

Yes. Russians has their special view of history.

Russian rulers and their closest colleagues have felt for centuries that they were in competition with their neighbors. In fact, the Russian words for "competition" and "jealousy" — "sorevnovaniye" and "revnost" — have the same root. Senior Russian officials have always been jealous of the successes and achievements of those in the West and looked down on everyone else.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/kremlin-sees-russians-as-expendable/539793.html

Another wierd view of the Russian people.

Thirty-six percent of Russians blame the U.S. and its actions for Middle Eastern immigrants and refugees pouring into the European Union, a survey by the state-run pollster VTsIOM revealed Monday.
Only 16 percent assigned the blame to Middle Eastern leaders and war in the region, and just 5 percent said the Islamic State extremist group and terrorists were responsible, the poll showed.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/more-than-one-third-of-russians-blame-us-for-eu-migrant-crisis--poll/539774.html

Video from Russian drone shows fighting in outskirts of Damascus.
MUST-SEE Drone footage shows fierce clashes between Syrian Army & US-backed islamic terrorists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ELAa02TUY&feature=youtu.be

Syria. Latakia. The deserted streets after fights.
https://youtu.be/ZXaVD5dITRI

Almost 80 percent of Russia's' declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Islamic State, a Reuters analysis of Russian Defense Ministry data shows, undermining Moscow's assertions that its aim is to defeat the group.
Instead it belonged to the forces fighting against the Syrian incumbent President Bashar al-Assad.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fvarlden%2Fnya-analyser-ryssland-bombar-andra-an-is%2F&edit-text=
The conflict in Syria has gone from peaceful anti-government protests over domestic conflict into something that touches a world war. Russia's entry into the war has raised tensions in an already highly explosive region.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fnyheter%2Fvarlden%2Foroligheterna-i-syrien-tangerar-ett-varldskrig%2F

Thank you very much Vova Putin!

Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking part in a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on Thursday.

The english edition of Sputnik.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151022/1028914471/putin-valdai-club-speech.html#ixzz3pKYVgsLC

The swedish edition of Sputnik.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fse.sputniknews.com%2Fpolitik%2F20151022%2F758150%2Fvaldaj-putin-tal.html

How come the editions are so different from each other?

What Russia’s Own Videos and Maps Reveal About Who They Are Bombing In Syria
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/26/what-russias-own-videos-and-maps-reveal-about-who-they-are-bombing-in-syria/

Meanwhile...
Iraqi Parliament May Discuss Request for Russian Military Aid This Week
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151027/1029170437/iraq-parliament-russian-military-aid.html#ixzz3pm7sZiWA
Russia and Iraq, alongside Iran and Syria, created the Baghdad Information Center to coordinate military actions against the ISIL extremist group in late September.
So when will Russia start military actions against the ISIL extremist group?

What Russia’s Own Videos and Maps Reveal About Who They Are Bombing In Syria
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/26/what-russias-own-videos-and-maps-reveal-about-who-they-are-bombing-in-syria/

Meanwhile...
Iraqi Parliament May Discuss Request for Russian Military Aid This Week
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151027/1029170437/iraq-parliament-russian-military-aid.html#ixzz3pm7sZiWA
Russia and Iraq, alongside Iran and Syria, created the Baghdad Information Center to coordinate military actions against the ISIL extremist group in late September.
So when will Russia start military actions against the ISIL extremist group?

When Putin believes it is in Russia's best interest.
My hope.
That neither Assad, nor Iran, understand that Putin has no friends.
Just temporary allies. To be destroyed when/if he wins.

Mayby Donald Trump will become friend with Putin:)
At very least thats what Russian media says.

Wait a Second, Trump is Actually Right on Russian Airstrikes in Syria.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151027/1029181676/donald-trump-russian-airstrikes-syria.html#ixzz3pmRsKwhs

What Russia’s Own Videos and Maps Reveal About Who They Are Bombing In Syria
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/10/26/what-russias-own-videos-and-maps-reveal-about-who-they-are-bombing-in-syria/

Meanwhile...
Iraqi Parliament May Discuss Request for Russian Military Aid This Week
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151027/1029170437/iraq-parliament-russian-military-aid.html#ixzz3pm7sZiWA
Russia and Iraq, alongside Iran and Syria, created the Baghdad Information Center to coordinate military actions against the ISIL extremist group in late September.
So when will Russia start military actions against the ISIL extremist group?

When Putin believes it is in Russia's best interest.
My hope.
That neither Assad, nor Iran, understand that Putin has no friends.
Just temporary allies. To be destroyed when/if he wins.

Mayby Donald Trump will become friend with Putin:)
At very least thats what Russian media says.

Wait a Second, Trump is Actually Right on Russian Airstrikes in Syria.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151027/1029181676/donald-trump-russian-airstrikes-syria.html#ixzz3pmRsKwhs

He is correct.

Should have been The West.

However... Western Europe's 'influence'. Meaning capable of using extreme, and effective force (killing civilians, as is always necessary to win a war), is nonexistent.

The USA is unwilling to use the force necessary to win.

Putin isn't.

Kasparov claims Putin is a lot of bluster and doesn't actually have a strong hand. So, Syria could become Russia's second Afghanistan? We might not learn, but it seems USSR/now Russia might not learn from the past, either.

Kasparov claims Putin is a lot of bluster and doesn't actually have a strong hand. So, Syria could become Russia's second Afghanistan? We might not learn, but it seems USSR/now Russia might not learn from the past, either.

Russians dwells in history.
There was delegation of swedish officers visiting Russia some years ago and one met one Russian officer.
The russian officer said that the Swede officer was guilty of his fathers death.
He said it was because Sweden exported iron to Germany during WWII and that they build tanks from it and that was that killed him.

Russia's second Afghanistan?
Who knows? There are now so many parties in the conflict...

He is correct.

Should have been The West.

However... Western Europe's 'influence'. Meaning capable of using extreme, and effective force (killing civilians, as is always necessary to win a war), is nonexistent.

The USA is unwilling to use the force necessary to win.

Putin isn't.

When was the last time you won a guerrilla war with 'extreme and effective' force? Oh right, never.

Right now a viral video are spreading that is said to show how Swedish state TV Childrens Channel glorifies the terrorist group Islamic State.

"Swedish state TV airs children's program glorifying ISIS"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L83rA4FAScA&feature=youtu.be&a

The gesture with the index finger has nothing to do with the IS.
It's been around long before the IS. It is a testimony of monotheism in Islam, says Mohammed Fazelhashemi, professor of Islamic theology and philosophy at Uppsala University.
The index finger is used by Sunni Muslims during prayer and is linked to the Muslim creed.

The children are singing "We are one", "We have one voice" hence the index finger.

It's strange that the video even have been commented by one Pamela Geller in the US and now many thinks we have IS-propaganda on TV:)
http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/video-swedish-state-tv-airs-childrens-program-glorifying-isis.html/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Мишель...

Never did use that force.

So why ask?

Edit: Sorry. We did use 'Great Force' (beyond Vietnam) two times. Against a Guerrilla Insurrection. And won.

Since you apparently believe you have a great knowledge of American History, and American Military History:

Which two times, may I be referring to?

And why would I be incorrect?

Edit 2: To help you. Both were against believers in Islam.

Against a guerrilla insurrection? Nah, America has never won one of those. The examples you want me to cite don't exist.

Oh and you did use 'extreme and effective' force in Vietnam. It just never worked out well.

Wrong.

Which part of the World, and what eras, may I be referring to?

You said you are talking about after Vietnam and given that you said it was against Muslims its somewhere between the Balkans and South East Asia. You also said it was against a guerrilla insurrection. Well, I'm telling you, in this time frame, in this geographical area, the United States has not fought and won from Muslim insurrectionists. The few wars that were fought in that area and that the US actually won have all been against functional states (first Gulf War, Yugoslav War, Libya) meaning it was a conventional war.

But by all means, do name the conflicts you're talking about.

Wrong.

Which part of the World, and what eras, may I be referring to?

You said you are talking about after Vietnam and given that you said it was against Muslims its somewhere between the Balkans and South East Asia. You also said it was against a guerrilla insurrection. Well, I'm telling you, in this time frame, in this geographical area, the United States has not fought and won from Muslim insurrectionists. The few wars that were fought in that area and that the US actually won have all been against functional states (first Gulf War, Yugoslav War, Libya) meaning it was a conventional war.

But by all means, do name the conflicts you're talking about.

Beyond means outside of, not after.

Wrong.

Which part of the World, and what eras, may I be referring to?

You said you are talking about after Vietnam and given that you said it was against Muslims its somewhere between the Balkans and South East Asia. You also said it was against a guerrilla insurrection. Well, I'm telling you, in this time frame, in this geographical area, the United States has not fought and won from Muslim insurrectionists. The few wars that were fought in that area and that the US actually won have all been against functional states (first Gulf War, Yugoslav War, Libya) meaning it was a conventional war.

But by all means, do name the conflicts you're talking about.

Beyond means outside of, not after.

The dictionary disagrees with you.

Besides would be 'outside of'.

Unless you were playfully pointing out Clyde's somewhat dubious use of the English language.

Мишель...

Never did use that force.

So why ask?

Edit: Sorry. We did use 'Great Force' (beyond Vietnam) two times. Against a Guerrilla Insurrection. And won.

Since you apparently believe you have a great knowledge of American History, and American Military History:

Which two times, may I be referring to?

And why would I be incorrect?

Edit 2: To help you. Both were against believers in Islam.

Against a guerrilla insurrection? Nah, America has never won one of those.

Wrong.

Which part of the World, and what eras, may I be referring to?

BTW: Sorry for reverting back to my time as a Professor. When I would ask my 'Participants' (never liked the diminutive 'Students'), who would make a similar statement, as yours.

Easy to give the correct facts. But, if they truly wished to be a Student of History, as I believe you wish: It was up to them to find the facts. Then return later, with correct information.

BTW 2: Sometimes, I would not be correct, and it was a 'Learning Experience' for both.

Unless one has a 'Closed Mind': Learning does not stop, until death.

Clyde you made an assertion would you please back it up.

---

Wrong.

Which part of the World, and what eras, may I be referring to?

You said you are talking about after Vietnam and given that you said it was against Muslims its somewhere between the Balkans and South East Asia. You also said it was against a guerrilla insurrection. Well, I'm telling you, in this time frame, in this geographical area, the United States has not fought and won from Muslim insurrectionists. The few wars that were fought in that area and that the US actually won have all been against functional states (first Gulf War, Yugoslav War, Libya) meaning it was a conventional war.

But by all means, do name the conflicts you're talking about.

Beyond means outside of, not after.

The dictionary disagrees with you.

Besides would be 'outside of'.

Unless you were playfully pointing out Clyde's somewhat dubious use of the English language.

Please. Stop. This serves nothing. Your own link includes:

1. Farther along or away.
2. In addition; more:

...

A place that is remote ...

So, beyond this side show ("in addition to" and "more than" this side show and "further long" and "away" from this side show) let us return to "a place" of the discussion where the real points are.

Clyde you made an assertion in response to Message 1738016. Would you please back it up. If you are unable to you should control your keyboard better.

---

Beyond, means outside of.

Doesn't include The Near East, Mid-East, Indochina, the America's, Africa.

One clue. Last century.

So you are claiming you haven't won just one, but TWO wars against Muslim insurrectionists in Europe?

Beyond, means outside of.

Doesn't include The Near East, Mid-East, Indochina, the America's, Africa.

One clue. Last century.

So you are claiming you haven't won just one, but TWO wars against Muslim insurrectionists in Europe?

Negative. Not in Europe either.

Another clue: Early last century, and middle last century.

Note: For some inexplicable reason. These two victory's are neither taught, nor noted in American History courses. I did at times, to make a point.

The first time was very, very, very bloody. It did result in a new weapon. Which was/is very effective in killing. Probably the most effective weapon, of its type, ever conceived. Still in use today, and legal.

Hmm, conflict in the Philippines, in particular that little fight with the Moro's? It wouldn't surprise me if America avoids talking about its role in the Philippines. You guys come out of that one looking like Nazis. Putting people in concentration camps, starving them to death.

And that little conflict with the Moro's is hardly an insurrection, let alone a guerrilla war.

No boots on the ground?

"Special advisors" ring any bells Yanks?