Ну то есть весь эффект от тех "Калибров", кроме 4 миллионов просмотров на YouTube - как полдня неспешной работы авиабазы в Сирии.

— Хуевая КТО (@ReggaeMortis1) 8 октября 2015

Вангую множество комментариев и постов про падающие "Томагавки" :)))

Маргарита, запускай новость про иранского диспетчера.

— Все Плохо (@sranysovok) 8 октября 2015

Омонимы

Все устремились вперёд за вождём:
K славным победам ведёт нас вошь - ждём!

Лавров добудем мы с ним целый пук: нет,
Так, как мы пукнем - никто так не пукнет!

Враг, ошалев, удаляется вон, и
С ужасом помнит o нашей он вони!

Just consider: A few weeks ago, the Administration warned Russia not to send its forces to Syria. Russia did it anyway. The Administration then tried to block Russia’s access to airspace en route to Syria. It failed. The consequence? U.S. defense officials rushed into talks with Russia’s military to ‘de-conflict’ in Syria. Our Secretary of State called Russia’s actions an ‘opportunity’ to cooperate because we share ‘fundamental principles.’ And President Obama acquiesced to his first formal meeting in two years with Vladimir Putin, undermining international efforts post-Crimea to isolate Russia, exactly as Putin desired. And how did Putin respond? By bombing U.S.-backed opposition groups in Syria.

President Obama is fond of saying there is no military solution to this or any other crisis. This ignores the reality that there is a major military dimension to the problem, and it is getting worse each day. It also ignores history: most civil wars actually do end when one side wins and the other loses.

That is Putin’s military solution, and he is now imposing it with Russian airpower and an anti-American coalition of Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah ground forces. We should expect Russian troops to take the field with them. We should also not be surprised if Putin expands his anti-American coalition’s operations into Iraq, where they have already established an intelligence partnership with Baghdad.

However this conflict ends, it must not involve Vladimir Putin shoring up his partners, crushing ours, destroying our remaining credibility in the Middle East, and restoring Russia as a major power in this vital region, as Putin wants.

We cannot shy away from confronting Russia in Syria, as Putin expects. His intervention has raised the costs and risks of greater U.S. involvement in Syria, but it has not negated the steps we must take. Indeed it has made them more necessary—not least because Putin’s actions will inflame every aspect of this conflict: the refugee crisis, the mass atrocities, and the growth of ISIL.

As everyone from David Petraeus to Hillary Clinton has advocated, we must rally an international coalition to establish enclaves in Syria to protect civilians and our moderate partners—and do what is necessary to defend them. If Assad continues to barrel bomb civilians, we should destroy his air force’s ability to operate. And if Russia continues to attack our opposition partners, we must impose greater costs on Russia’s interests—for example, by striking meaningful Syrian regime targets.

But we should not confine our response to Syria. We must look to impose costs on Russia more broadly, including the provision of arms to Ukraine, the increase of targeted sanctions, and steps to deepen Russia’s international isolation.