EPTIts not like the nation is ready for a democratic election.
Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 125
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21852 Posts
Its not like the nation is ready for a democratic election. | ||
|
Zyufin
United States85 Posts
Why risk intervention if you don't control the outcome? Which begs the questions, who is it they plan to leave in charge? I think they have to have planned it that far. The (nested) spoiler below has a link to the "Joint Resolution To authorize the limited and specified use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria," authored by the Committee on Foreign Relations, which was posted earlier in the thread. + Show Spoiler + On September 06 2013 03:42 Zyufin wrote: It opens for me, and I read it, but I'm still not 100% sure what the result of it is. It seems to me to just put some restrictions on the duration and nature of the engagement: a) 60 days, plus 1 30 day extension that Obama can choose to enact with the proper paperwork b) No ground troops And requires a justification of and explanation of how the engagement will support the goals listed in the document, as well as regular progress reports once the engagement is underway. What I'm wondering about is what is the procedure after this, before Obama gets his desired 'go-ahead'? Is this just a resolution describing what hoops will have to be jumped through if the Senate and House vote to support the attack? Also, lol@Kwark's post on the Revolutionary Guard. Here's what I view as the relevant section towards your question: SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF POLICY. (a) CHANGING OF MOMENTUM ON BATTLE FIELD.— It is the policy of the United States to change the momen- tum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the con- flict and leads to a democratic government in Syria. (b) DEGRADATION OF ABILITY OF REGIME TO USE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.— A comprehensive United States strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabili- ties of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruc- tion while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military ca- pabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army. I don't know squat about the Free Syrian Army, but it's the only place where I've seen US officials refer to a specific party that they're looking to bolster. The other word that surprised me in that sentence is lethal. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
The FSA fighting force is primarily made up of former regime soldiers that defected. Perhaps they are looking to negotiate a deal that integrates the regime's armed forces into the FSA (their former colleagues), which would leave a faction strong enough to engage the Islamist groups? | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
Conspiracy theory or not this sure predicted the use of chemical weapon and USA military intervention in Syria . | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2639 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:34 hzflank wrote: But they cannot leave the FSA in charge unless they are also willing to engage in military action against other rebel groups. Then there is the possibility of Hezbollah attacking the FSA, not to mention the chance of Iranian involvement. The FSA fighting force is primarily made up of former regime soldiers that defected. Perhaps they are looking to negotiate a deal that integrates the regime's armed forces into the FSA (their former colleagues), which would leave a faction strong enough to engage the Islamist groups? That solution could actually work. Get most of Assads army to defect to the FSA under condition of amnesty, the rest will scatter, army is now large enough to maintain stability. But I dont think it will happen. Also a clear enough case must be made that the army is 100 / fucked if they dont sell out Assad, and that is not happening yet. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21852 Posts
On September 07 2013 05:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: That solution could actually work. Get most of Assads army to defect to the FSA under condition of amnesty, the rest will scatter, army is now large enough to maintain stability. But I dont think it will happen. Also a clear enough case must be made that the army is 100 / fucked if they dont sell out Assad, and that is not happening yet. Still doesnt fix the situation. Your just installing another military Dicatorship and hoping they do "the right thing". Plus your leaving them in a probably protracted war with the other rebel factions which will claim more lives and grind the country further down unless you bomb everyone off and then your still looking at an influx of jihadiss from everywhere around. | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
On September 07 2013 04:00 Gorsameth wrote: There is no possible scenario for intervention and deposing of Assad while leaving a stable nation. If you leave the rebels they will have another Civil War. If you kill them off aswell then who do you put in charge? Its not like the nation is ready for a democratic election. I don't think majority of the people in syria or other muslim nations want a democratic election anymore. People don't understand how pivotal the events in Egypt were when the "champions" of democracy and human rights stood by silently when hundreds if not a thousand were mowed down in a single day by the army and the elected president was removed. There is a major shift in the reactions of the Muslim world on twitter in regards to democracy, which includes the people fighting in Syria. Although most rebel fighters are not affiliated with the "boogeyman" al-Qaeda, a very distinct majority of the fighters are calling for an Islamic state and want nothing to do with democracy, or a secular state. Law of unintended consequences I guess | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
An analysis is underway to determine if sarin was used in Syria's chemical attack last month. The lab tests, which will take about two weeks, are being conducted with UN support. The analysis complies with scientific standards, Russia’s FM stated. “As Lakhdar Brahimi said, there are scientific standards the [UN] experts are guided by,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists Friday after a working breakfast with the UN-Arab League envoy for Syria. Chemists from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are using samples taken from the site of the chemical attack staged outside the Syrian capital of Damascus on August 21. Source | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On September 07 2013 05:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: That solution could actually work. Get most of Assads army to defect to the FSA under condition of amnesty, the rest will scatter, army is now large enough to maintain stability. But I dont think it will happen. Also a clear enough case must be made that the army is 100 / fucked if they dont sell out Assad, and that is not happening yet. That could work indeed but If rusia supports assad i dont see the army defecting tbh. It has been tried for like 1-2 years now to achieve this goal (get the army to defect) and like 1 year ago the rebels almost defeated the the syrian army but the syrian army made a strong comeback, probably with rusian support (intel, weapons, training?) and now is the stronger party. If the usa now has to negotiate with rusia and give rusia a (big?) stake then the whole operation might not be worth it for the usa+alies annymore. If going in with ground forces i dont think rusia would dare to get directly involved but their indirect support (weapons+intel) might make the whole operation to dangerous and costly for the usa+alies. Syria is also only a prelude to iran, a sort of test case. But rusias stake in iran is even bigger then its stake in syria. I dont see this going annywhere tbh, and the usa+alies will probably end up doing nothing. Its a no go for now. Maybe better luck in 2014 lol. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Syria is also only a prelude to iran, a sort of test case. Nobody in the US wants a war with Iran except maybe John McCain This is the dumbest crap ever Syria is not a prelude to Iran or a test case or part of a master plan The US from 2005 to today has bent over backwards to have Europe "take the lead" on Iran and keep Israel from attacking Iran and not escalate the situation Barack Obama isn't going to bomb Iran Hillary Clinton isn't going to bomb Iran (but she's the most likely out of the possibilities for the new president in 2017) Rand Paul isn't going to bomb Iran Ted Cruz isn't going to bomb Iran (but he runs a close no. 2 behind Hillary) Unless Iran blows up a nuclear bomb somewhere - a test or an attack - the US is not going to be going to war with Tehran. War with Iran is war war not this detached from the skies war Barack Obama seems to like so much. Obama doesn't have the inclination or the balls to attack Iran, the GOP is going isolationist, if you want more war vote for Hillary in 3 years I guess and even then it's better than 50-50 that President Hillary Clinton would NOT attack Iran. | ||
|
Uvantak
Uruguay1381 Posts
On September 07 2013 00:21 Rassy wrote: So rusia making clear that they also have a stake in this deal, as expected.. Wonder whats next, atm i have no clue but will prob figure something out this weekend. They are just playing around, take it as foreplay, but in this case neither of them really wants to make out, the thing here is that putin wants to give as much bad PR to the Obama administration as possible before the UN reveals his report saying that it was Assad the one that used the chemical weapons, which you will probably never read anything like that in the UN report , but something like we have very good clues that says that Chemical Weapons have been used in Syria. But as i said Putin wants to damage US image as much as possible since that way they may have the chance of it not attacking Syria and taking the diplomatic route instead, since US can't really attack if the entire globe opposes, but the way i see it is that US will attack anyways, it has to at this point, there's no going back because of the words by Obama about the redline/CW and Israel. Now i wonder if it was Israel has a place in making pressure to USA and thus EU of not intervening (of course besides Rusia/iran) since with the civilian war lasting longer siria would be reduced to debris and that would be a really good deal to Israel, so my question is if Israel put pressure to USA to not intervene and now that the chemical weapons have been used they are making US intervene (of course this is just another reason of the pile of reasons that are behind the US/Nato intervention) to settle things out and to avoid that a large stock of CW fall into extremists hands. Also US won't win anything from intervening Syria without helping his people and new army after the war is over, otherwise we will end up with another Afghanistan post USSR invasion, but in this case it will not breed another Al Qaeda but make Al Qaeda stronger than already is, and with Chemical Weapons at their disposal. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
It'll be completely meaningless because even when (and they will) determine that sarin was used, they still can't say who did it because its outside of their mandate, meaning that russia can still say whatever the hell it wants and block any UN resolution authorizing even the smallest sanction. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
BREAKING: Many casualties now in Qaboun area in Damascus, alot of indication that some sort of poison or chemical has been used again #Syria UPDATE: Qaboun already confirmed not a chemical attack but some kind of poisonous gas the confirmed casualties are less than 10 #Syria UPDATE: Qaboun: few casualties confirmed, no Sarin diagnosis, effects: dizziness, nausea, small pupils, lost breath, unable to interact. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4341 Posts
On September 06 2013 20:06 zatic wrote: How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad. How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. | ||
KwarK
United States43063 Posts
On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. People often make the argument that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. I don't know enough about what it does to say whether or not they are right but chemical weapons are usually defined by their lack of discrimination (as opposed to conventional weapons which have a greater point and shoot element). | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4341 Posts
On September 07 2013 09:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one. ?.... It's in the link i posted in the quote tree.Try expand the quotes. Here is another source http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon. At the time, Italian television broadcaster RAI aired a documentary entitled, "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre," including grim video footage and photographs, as well as eyewitness interviews with Fallujah residents and U.S. soldiers revealing how the U.S. government indiscriminately rained white chemical fire down on the Iraqi city and melted women and children to death. In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 - 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific. Cancer and infant mortality have also seen a dramatic rise in Iraq. According to Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, "These are weapons which have absolutely destroyed the genetic integrity of the population of Iraq." After authoring two of four reports published in 2012 on the health crisis in Iraq, Busby described Fallujah as having, "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied." | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On September 07 2013 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons? Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane. Then he is no better than his predecessor if he does that. People voted for change and ended up getting the same thing again. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2115 Posts
Most stupidest idea as who you going to put into power, Syrians won't accept a puppet made government by the US, And the Syrians themselves will be fighting over each other on who to control the country, if Shia wins Al-Qaeda will have a bitch, if Sunni wins Hezbollah will have a bitch, there is no way in hell they will allow a Christian as president, Alawites will most likely be barred from entering government, so basically, what's left ? | ||
| ||
