EPTAnd also, when was the last time france won a war
(just kidding)Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 122
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
And also, when was the last time france won a war (just kidding) | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On September 06 2013 01:20 farvacola wrote: This is what I keep telling those I get in arguments with; many are vastly overestimating Russia's interest in entering into geo-political conflict. Their domestic situation is shit, they practically have the support of only Iran, and only God knows what their dilapidated military is actually capable of (this ain't Chechnya). I can't help but feel that many who are suggesting that Russia is oh so willing to enter into war are making such statements out of purely political rather than pragmatic estimations. It is in the interest of those against intervention to talk up Russia's proclivity for action. The Russian military is entirely beside the point. They are never going to enter into direct ground (or even air) warfare with the US. It'll always be by proxy... unless shit really hits the fan, in which case it'll be nuclear fallout for everybody! Neither Russia nor anybody else wants the latter, but a return to a cold war situation where all diplomatic ties between Russia and the US break down is a possibility if the US keeps stomping around in Russia's back yard. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On September 06 2013 06:09 dsousa wrote: Are you sure they opposed it? Russia signed the Dayton Agreement and there was unanimous vote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_913 that aurhorized air strikes. But i see your point, you can win friends. Just remember, in this case we are aiding the Islamist potentially Al-quaida faction. So there's that. Russia and China both opposed the airstrikes that led to the serbs negotiating. If I recall right a chinese embassy was even hit by a bomb during the airstrikes (on accident). | ||
|
SkelA
Macedonia13086 Posts
so gooooood | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
so gooooood I think President Obama answered the question well. He could have looked like a total hypocrite but instead turned it around. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 06 2013 06:25 Warlock40 wrote: I'm guessing France will definitely not act if the US doesn't. I don't understand - why does France need the US to act first? Is it because the French do not want to be seen as taking a unilateral action? Because you think they can do something alone ? lol | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
Neither Russia nor anybody else wants the latter, but a return to a cold war situation where all diplomatic ties between Russia and the US break down is a possibility if the US keeps stomping around in Russia's back yard. Other countries aren't Russia's back yard They are other countries This whole idea that large and powerful countries have "back yards" seems kind of imperialist to me There are practical considerations like no country wants to see the countries around it hosting soldiers from a rival or enemy country but big powerful countries having "back yards" has usually meant the big country pushing around the little country for exploitative trade deals and bribes and stuff | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On September 06 2013 06:34 Derez wrote: Russia and China both opposed the airstrikes that led to the serbs negotiating. If I recall right a chinese embassy was even hit by a bomb during the airstrikes (on accident). That was during the Kosovo crisis a few years later. Dayton was about Bosnia and technically Serbia wasn't even in the conflict (thought in practice they provided support to the Serbian faction in Bosnia). | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On September 06 2013 07:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: Other countries aren't Russia's back yard They are other countries This whole idea that large and powerful countries have "back yards" seems kind of imperialist to me It is not just kinda imperialist, it is down right imperialist. But it's also realistic. The Cuban missile crisis speaks volumes to that. Anything the US would like to do to NK yet doesn't because China would see it as an act of aggression against them... same for any thought of intervention when Russia decided to invade Georgia. Syria is sufficiently near to Russia, and a close enough ally that it might as well be Russia's back yard, and if the aggression spills over to Iran, then it will literally be Russia's back yard. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On September 06 2013 07:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: Other countries aren't Russia's back yard They are other countries This whole idea that large and powerful countries have "back yards" seems kind of imperialist to me There are practical considerations like no country wants to see the countries around it hosting soldiers from a rival or enemy country but big powerful countries having "back yards" has usually meant the big country pushing around the little country for exploitative trade deals and bribes and stuff You mean like the US did all over South America in the 70s and 80s? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
But it's also realistic. There are non-imperialist considerations but when you read news stories about Russia telling the Ukraine or Moldova not to get too close to Europe and the USA or about how the US is messing around on Russia's turf or whatever what it means is that Moscow is mad that these countries are acting like independent nations and not client/puppet states. If Russia doesn't like us making deals with their former vassals then tough shit Russia. You mean like the US did all over South America in the 70s and 80s? No country was singled out or excluded from my statement so your question is pointless rabble rabble rabbling Also I think you mean the early 1900s the USA wasn't doing exploitative trade deals south of the border in the 70s and 80s we were spreading guns and money around to fight commies and Pablo | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On September 06 2013 06:33 Acrofales wrote: The Russian military is entirely beside the point. They are never going to enter into direct ground (or even air) warfare with the US. It'll always be by proxy... unless shit really hits the fan, in which case it'll be nuclear fallout for everybody! Neither Russia nor anybody else wants the latter, but a return to a cold war situation where all diplomatic ties between Russia and the US break down is a possibility if the US keeps stomping around in Russia's back yard. A more realistic response is to finance or support actions that directly hurt US interests. It could mean pressuring Central Asian republics to get rid of US bases, selling weapons to Iran, supporting cyber-attacks against US companies or state agencies or even messing with European gas supplies. Russia is riding on the waves of the commodity boom and doesn't need to threaten war or the end of diplomatic relations. Its options are much wider than they were 10 or 15 years ago. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
#symbolicgesture http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/05/the-real-case-for-syria-strikes-makes-sense-so-why-isnt-anyone-making-it/ This actually makes sense to me. Don't actually try to sway the civil war, just cripple chemical weapons and punish the Syrian government. Of course, I'm trusting US/France intelligence on this one. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On September 06 2013 07:19 TanGeng wrote: Probably the strongest case for missile strikes against Syria #symbolicgesture http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/05/the-real-case-for-syria-strikes-makes-sense-so-why-isnt-anyone-making-it/ This actually makes sense to me. Don't actually try to sway the civil war, just cripple chemical weapons and punish the Syrian government. Of course, I'm trusting US/France intelligence on this one. I don't think it's possible to cripple the government's ability to use chemical weapons without swaying the civil war. I've read reports that it would take 75,000 soldiers to secure Syria's WMD stockpiles, that implies there's 1) a lot of them and 2) they're spread somewhat widely over the country. I'm sure they've been dispersed even more since the Israeli air strikes in the spring and especially since the Ghouta massacre. If we're going to spend my taxpayer money and kill people with my taxpayer money I'd prefer we not just shoot ten billion dollars' worth of missiles that will kill a few hundred people and accomplish little if anything else. If we're going to do something then we should not do what we did in Libya which was throw bombs around then dip out look how well that worked out. We should go big or not go at all. And since going big is not worth it over such a useless country in an increasingly useless region of the world that pretty much no one else in the world likes or wants to have anything to do with except when they have to, we shouldn't go. | ||
|
Domus
510 Posts
Also, the video above is nice, Obama has a nice way of deflecting the issue. But Obama showing himself as a man of principle when we know all the other shit the NSA is pulling is hypocritical to say the least. And the human rights situation and hunger strikes in Guantanamo Bay, I don't know Obama, selling bombing people as a moral action isn't really doing it for me, maybe read up on how Gandhi did things a bit, because that was truly a man of principle, willing to take some personal hurt for the greater good. Where the US would like the world to take the greater hurt for their personal good (I am not anti USA tbh, but Obama is being very hypocritical, playing the good guy here). | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Again #symbolicgesture | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On September 06 2013 07:19 TanGeng wrote: Probably the strongest case for missile strikes against Syria #symbolicgesture http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/05/the-real-case-for-syria-strikes-makes-sense-so-why-isnt-anyone-making-it/ This actually makes sense to me. Don't actually try to sway the civil war, just cripple chemical weapons and punish the Syrian government. Of course, I'm trusting US/France intelligence on this one. I agree. This makes sense. It made sense at first (although at the time I had a hard time believing the CW, if they were fired at all, were fired by Assad), and it still makes sense now. There is very little external influence can do to solve the Syrian conflict. But tossing some cruise missiles their way and blowing up a couple of military airports and communication centers will do enough to at least deter future use of CW (even if you don't take out the stockpiles of it. Additionally, there's also no real rush and there's a decent chance of getting the Russians onboard once the UN taskforce publishes their report, and you present the cumulative evidence that points to Assad having actually fired the bombs and not the rebels. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
A lot of the Middle East's best and brightest hothead jihadis took themselves off to Iraq to get killed by the US Army and it took a few years for them to bolster their ranks again to go pouring into Libya (and after Mali) and then Syria, I'd rather they and the Syrian government keep bleeding each other white than handing the Sunni jihadis a victory and a base in Syria with which to go after the Hezbollah Shiite jihadhis in Lebanon and the Jordanian royal family's rule and Israel as well. That's just more war in more countries and at least some of it will happen if the rebels win. At the very least a rebel win in Syria means Lebanon's going into the fire, Hezbollah and Sunni al-Qaeda types are jihading against each other that's not gonna stop any time soon. But there's really probably nothing that can prevent even more Muslim-on-Muslim violence in more Muslim-majority countries in the coming years... | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On September 06 2013 06:25 Warlock40 wrote: I'm guessing France will definitely not act if the US doesn't. I don't understand - why does France need the US to act first? Is it because the French do not want to be seen as taking a unilateral action? One (of several) reasons is that they don't want to embarrass Obama. If France goes in first to enforce Obama's Red Line it will look painfully embarrassing for the US. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 06 2013 08:06 zatic wrote: One (of several) reasons is that they don't want to embarrass Obama. If France goes in first to enforce Obama's Red Line it will look painfully embarrassing for the US. You must be out of your mind. It will look painfully embarrassing for France if they go first and the US don't follow up lol. And that's the main reason. | ||
| ||
