|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
In general, the US playing peacekeepers is a bad thing, but in this scenario if those chemical weapons are deployed, I say the US should conquer the whole country, take oil as payment for the invasion, and help the population create a representative government that follows the beliefs of the people.
Like they did in other countries where there was indications of chemical weapons and stuff, ..
The US won't conquer the whole country. Why would they. They actually can't, as you can see in all military conflicts that are going on right now. Do you think that these terrorists and stuff just put their weapons away if assad/military leaders are "removed" (some way or the other)? They won't. They will target the US and the new government instead, if it does not go "in line" with their beliefs. They frikkin shoot at civilians just to make a point.
Of course, its a hard call to make, but honestly? Just intervene if they actually use these grenades. Not "just in case", as usual. Just dont start another huge war because "you can".
|
On December 06 2012 12:47 Abraxas514 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, or if something big is going to happen: http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower-syria-military-369/Show nested quote +The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.
While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Times reports.
Some have suggested that the Assad regime may use chemical weapons against the opposition fighters in the coming days or weeks.
The arrival of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the 11 US Navy aircraft carriers that has the capacity to hold thousands of men, is now stationed at the coast of Syria, DEBKAfile reports. The aircraft carrier joined the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, which holds about 2,500 Marines.
“We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed US official told The Australian, which suggested that US military troops are already near Syria and ready to intervene in the conflict, if necessary.
If the US decides to intervene militarily in Syria, it now has at its disposal 10,000 fighting men, 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers, 10 destroyers and frigates and a guided military cruises. Some of the vessels are also equipped with Aegis missile interceptors to shoot down any missiles Syria might have at hand, according to DEBKAfile.
“The muscle is already there to be flexed,” a US official told the London Times about the US military’s presence outside of Syria. “It’s premature to say what could happen if a decision is made to intervene. That hasn’t taken shape, we’ve not reached that kind of decision. There are a lot of options, but it [military action] could be launched rapidly, within days.”
The move comes after NATO made a significant strategic decision Tuesday to deploy Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems in Turkey on the border of Syria where opposition groups have the stronghold. The defense would be able to protect Turkey from potential Syrian missiles that could contain chemical weapons, as well as intimidate Syrian Air Force pilots from bombing the northern Syria border towns, which the armed rebels control. Syria is thought to have about 700 missiles.
“The protection from NATO will be three dimensional; one is the short-range Patriots, the second is the middle-range Terminal High Altitude Air Defense [THAD] system and the last is the AEGIS system, which counters missiles that can reach outside the atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.
DEBKAfile’s anonymous military sources claim the THAD and Aegis arrived at the Syrian coast aboard the USS Eisenhower.
“The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,” the news source wrote. In general, the US playing peacekeepers is a bad thing, but in this scenario if those chemical weapons are deployed, I say the US should conquer the whole country, take oil as payment for the invasion, and help the population create a representative government that follows the beliefs of the people.
This article is a little bit alarmist. First of all we have 10 Aircraft carriers(+2 in construction), not 11, but that is an irrelevant but bizarre factual error (I am sure Russian news picked up on USS Enterprise being officially retired last week). Secondly, while the Eisenhower may have a large number of troops aboard, ground offensives are typically launched from amphibious assault ships, not carriers. The fact that we have a carrier and an amphibious assault ship in the region is not that unusual: Iwo Jima was actually deployed back during the Hamas/Isreal conflict in case shit hit the fan. Its a highly volatile region, of course we have some of our blue water navy in the region.
|
On December 06 2012 12:59 m4inbrain wrote:
Just intervene if they actually use these grenades. Not "just in case", as usual. Just dont start another huge war because "you can".
Agreed. I preceded my quote with a disclaimer! I know the article is alarmist, but I think a government using chemical weapons against their own people should be treated as harshly as using nuclear force.
I congratulate the US and Israel for being the only two countries (to my knowledge!) who are openly doing something to prepare for big troubles in Syria. Many of the dictators in the extended middle east region are truly evil. It's sad that more NATO countries aren't involved.
|
On December 06 2012 12:47 Abraxas514 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, or if something big is going to happen: http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower-syria-military-369/Show nested quote +The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.
While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Times reports.
Some have suggested that the Assad regime may use chemical weapons against the opposition fighters in the coming days or weeks.
The arrival of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the 11 US Navy aircraft carriers that has the capacity to hold thousands of men, is now stationed at the coast of Syria, DEBKAfile reports. The aircraft carrier joined the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, which holds about 2,500 Marines.
“We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed US official told The Australian, which suggested that US military troops are already near Syria and ready to intervene in the conflict, if necessary.
If the US decides to intervene militarily in Syria, it now has at its disposal 10,000 fighting men, 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers, 10 destroyers and frigates and a guided military cruises. Some of the vessels are also equipped with Aegis missile interceptors to shoot down any missiles Syria might have at hand, according to DEBKAfile.
“The muscle is already there to be flexed,” a US official told the London Times about the US military’s presence outside of Syria. “It’s premature to say what could happen if a decision is made to intervene. That hasn’t taken shape, we’ve not reached that kind of decision. There are a lot of options, but it [military action] could be launched rapidly, within days.”
The move comes after NATO made a significant strategic decision Tuesday to deploy Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems in Turkey on the border of Syria where opposition groups have the stronghold. The defense would be able to protect Turkey from potential Syrian missiles that could contain chemical weapons, as well as intimidate Syrian Air Force pilots from bombing the northern Syria border towns, which the armed rebels control. Syria is thought to have about 700 missiles.
“The protection from NATO will be three dimensional; one is the short-range Patriots, the second is the middle-range Terminal High Altitude Air Defense [THAD] system and the last is the AEGIS system, which counters missiles that can reach outside the atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.
DEBKAfile’s anonymous military sources claim the THAD and Aegis arrived at the Syrian coast aboard the USS Eisenhower.
“The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,” the news source wrote. In general, the US playing peacekeepers is a bad thing, but in this scenario if those chemical weapons are deployed, I say the US should conquer the whole country, take oil as payment for the invasion, and help the population create a representative government that follows the beliefs of the people.
1. Syria is unique in that it's one of the few ME countries that has virtually no oil.
2. The weaponry industry and bankers of America have no interest in establishing democratic, first world countries in the ME with highly educated youth, free from Sharia Law. We've seen this happen in Egypt, and Libya is in the final stages of submitting to the Muslim Brotherhood. You don't even have to look far to realize Al-Qaeda have hijacked the revolution in Syria just as they did in Libya. America (as well as NATO) want the rebels to succeed because they will enforce Sharia Law under a dictatorship, whose leader will serve as a puppet and demolish the last secular regime of the Middle East.
3. While Bashar Al-Assad's regime is brutal and most undoubtedly in need of reform (mainly due to his poor leadership and inability to stop his military and Shahiba from terrorizing the population), allowing this rag-tag coalition that mostly consists of foreign mercenaries to decide Syria's future would make life in Syria much, much worse. Sharia Law is the absolute rock bottom when it comes to humanitarian and civil rights as well as living conditions for a population.
4. It is very unlikely that Assad would ever deploy these chemical weapons. He would rather die a martyr to the vast number of Syrians who still in fact support him, rather than betraying them all in an act of foolish desperation. This leads me to believe a false flag operation is in the works. With the internet shut off in Syria, hunting for the truth becomes much more difficult. What's stopping the Navy SEALS from acquiring some of Assad's chemical stockpiles, "accidentally" unleashing them upon Syria, and then manipulating the western media to report that Assad was responsible? Conquering Syria is only another step in the grand scheme to invade Iran.
|
On December 06 2012 15:37 Shake n Blake wrote:
What's stopping the Navy SEALS from acquiring some of Assad's chemical stockpiles, "accidentally" unleashing them upon Syria, and then manipulating the western media to report that Assad was responsible? Conquering Syria is only another step in the grand scheme to invade Iran.
Alright dude... don't you think it's time to put your tin foil hat back on? That's a little farfetched and just itching for people to pick fights with...
|
On December 06 2012 17:48 tRavE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 15:37 Shake n Blake wrote:
What's stopping the Navy SEALS from acquiring some of Assad's chemical stockpiles, "accidentally" unleashing them upon Syria, and then manipulating the western media to report that Assad was responsible? Conquering Syria is only another step in the grand scheme to invade Iran.
Alright dude... don't you think it's time to put your tin foil hat back on? That's a little farfetched and just itching for people to pick fights with...
Maybe he is quoting from RT, they are like Russian Fox News. But with British accents for some reason.
|
It seems to me, the longer this goes on, the better. If the rebels win, it will play out just like in Egypt, with them electing an Islamic would-be dictator followed by progression towards Sharia Law then aggression against Israel and the rest of the West. If Assad wins, he will strengthen ties with Iran and ramp up anti-Israel operations. The neo-Conservative view (shared by many Republicans and Democrats) that all these countries need is democracy in order to succeed and embrace freedom is what fuels blind support for Islamic rebels. It's too bad there aren't any politicians, or even popular media outlets, that understand the issue and are brave enough to call our interests in Syria as they really are.
|
On December 06 2012 15:37 Shake n Blake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 12:47 Abraxas514 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, or if something big is going to happen: http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower-syria-military-369/The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.
While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Times reports.
Some have suggested that the Assad regime may use chemical weapons against the opposition fighters in the coming days or weeks.
The arrival of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the 11 US Navy aircraft carriers that has the capacity to hold thousands of men, is now stationed at the coast of Syria, DEBKAfile reports. The aircraft carrier joined the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, which holds about 2,500 Marines.
“We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed US official told The Australian, which suggested that US military troops are already near Syria and ready to intervene in the conflict, if necessary.
If the US decides to intervene militarily in Syria, it now has at its disposal 10,000 fighting men, 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers, 10 destroyers and frigates and a guided military cruises. Some of the vessels are also equipped with Aegis missile interceptors to shoot down any missiles Syria might have at hand, according to DEBKAfile.
“The muscle is already there to be flexed,” a US official told the London Times about the US military’s presence outside of Syria. “It’s premature to say what could happen if a decision is made to intervene. That hasn’t taken shape, we’ve not reached that kind of decision. There are a lot of options, but it [military action] could be launched rapidly, within days.”
The move comes after NATO made a significant strategic decision Tuesday to deploy Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems in Turkey on the border of Syria where opposition groups have the stronghold. The defense would be able to protect Turkey from potential Syrian missiles that could contain chemical weapons, as well as intimidate Syrian Air Force pilots from bombing the northern Syria border towns, which the armed rebels control. Syria is thought to have about 700 missiles.
“The protection from NATO will be three dimensional; one is the short-range Patriots, the second is the middle-range Terminal High Altitude Air Defense [THAD] system and the last is the AEGIS system, which counters missiles that can reach outside the atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.
DEBKAfile’s anonymous military sources claim the THAD and Aegis arrived at the Syrian coast aboard the USS Eisenhower.
“The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,” the news source wrote. In general, the US playing peacekeepers is a bad thing, but in this scenario if those chemical weapons are deployed, I say the US should conquer the whole country, take oil as payment for the invasion, and help the population create a representative government that follows the beliefs of the people. 1. Syria is unique in that it's one of the few ME countries that has virtually no oil. 2. The weaponry industry and bankers of America have no interest in establishing democratic, first world countries in the ME with highly educated youth, free from Sharia Law. We've seen this happen in Egypt, and Libya is in the final stages of submitting to the Muslim Brotherhood. You don't even have to look far to realize Al-Qaeda have hijacked the revolution in Syria just as they did in Libya. America (as well as NATO) want the rebels to succeed because they will enforce Sharia Law under a dictatorship, whose leader will serve as a puppet and demolish the last secular regime of the Middle East. 3. While Bashar Al-Assad's regime is brutal and most undoubtedly in need of reform (mainly due to his poor leadership and inability to stop his military and Shahiba from terrorizing the population), allowing this rag-tag coalition that mostly consists of foreign mercenaries to decide Syria's future would make life in Syria much, much worse. Sharia Law is the absolute rock bottom when it comes to humanitarian and civil rights as well as living conditions for a population. 4. It is very unlikely that Assad would ever deploy these chemical weapons. He would rather die a martyr to the vast number of Syrians who still in fact support him, rather than betraying them all in an act of foolish desperation. This leads me to believe a false flag operation is in the works. With the internet shut off in Syria, hunting for the truth becomes much more difficult. What's stopping the Navy SEALS from acquiring some of Assad's chemical stockpiles, "accidentally" unleashing them upon Syria, and then manipulating the western media to report that Assad was responsible? Conquering Syria is only another step in the grand scheme to invade Iran.
The United States has the ability to invade and crush Iran within a matter of months. Syria would be irrelevant. The only thing missing is moral and political resolve. If the United States had acted rationally, after 9/11, they would have invaded and crushed Iran with such overwhelming force and brutality (a la WW2), that all resistance would be quashed, allowing for either a successful occupation or at least leaving behind shambles that would be too terrified (along with the rest of the Muslim world, particularly Saudi Arabia) ever to threaten the United States or it's allies again.
And Sharia dictatorship leads to the exact opposite of what you're hypothesizing, it's the secular dictatorships that tend to be friendlier towards the West.
|
On December 06 2012 20:05 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 15:37 Shake n Blake wrote:On December 06 2012 12:47 Abraxas514 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted, or if something big is going to happen: http://rt.com/usa/news/us-eisenhower-syria-military-369/The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.
While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Times reports.
Some have suggested that the Assad regime may use chemical weapons against the opposition fighters in the coming days or weeks.
The arrival of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the 11 US Navy aircraft carriers that has the capacity to hold thousands of men, is now stationed at the coast of Syria, DEBKAfile reports. The aircraft carrier joined the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, which holds about 2,500 Marines.
“We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed US official told The Australian, which suggested that US military troops are already near Syria and ready to intervene in the conflict, if necessary.
If the US decides to intervene militarily in Syria, it now has at its disposal 10,000 fighting men, 17 warships, 70 fighter-bombers, 10 destroyers and frigates and a guided military cruises. Some of the vessels are also equipped with Aegis missile interceptors to shoot down any missiles Syria might have at hand, according to DEBKAfile.
“The muscle is already there to be flexed,” a US official told the London Times about the US military’s presence outside of Syria. “It’s premature to say what could happen if a decision is made to intervene. That hasn’t taken shape, we’ve not reached that kind of decision. There are a lot of options, but it [military action] could be launched rapidly, within days.”
The move comes after NATO made a significant strategic decision Tuesday to deploy Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems in Turkey on the border of Syria where opposition groups have the stronghold. The defense would be able to protect Turkey from potential Syrian missiles that could contain chemical weapons, as well as intimidate Syrian Air Force pilots from bombing the northern Syria border towns, which the armed rebels control. Syria is thought to have about 700 missiles.
“The protection from NATO will be three dimensional; one is the short-range Patriots, the second is the middle-range Terminal High Altitude Air Defense [THAD] system and the last is the AEGIS system, which counters missiles that can reach outside the atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said.
DEBKAfile’s anonymous military sources claim the THAD and Aegis arrived at the Syrian coast aboard the USS Eisenhower.
“The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,” the news source wrote. In general, the US playing peacekeepers is a bad thing, but in this scenario if those chemical weapons are deployed, I say the US should conquer the whole country, take oil as payment for the invasion, and help the population create a representative government that follows the beliefs of the people. 1. Syria is unique in that it's one of the few ME countries that has virtually no oil. 2. The weaponry industry and bankers of America have no interest in establishing democratic, first world countries in the ME with highly educated youth, free from Sharia Law. We've seen this happen in Egypt, and Libya is in the final stages of submitting to the Muslim Brotherhood. You don't even have to look far to realize Al-Qaeda have hijacked the revolution in Syria just as they did in Libya. America (as well as NATO) want the rebels to succeed because they will enforce Sharia Law under a dictatorship, whose leader will serve as a puppet and demolish the last secular regime of the Middle East. 3. While Bashar Al-Assad's regime is brutal and most undoubtedly in need of reform (mainly due to his poor leadership and inability to stop his military and Shahiba from terrorizing the population), allowing this rag-tag coalition that mostly consists of foreign mercenaries to decide Syria's future would make life in Syria much, much worse. Sharia Law is the absolute rock bottom when it comes to humanitarian and civil rights as well as living conditions for a population. 4. It is very unlikely that Assad would ever deploy these chemical weapons. He would rather die a martyr to the vast number of Syrians who still in fact support him, rather than betraying them all in an act of foolish desperation. This leads me to believe a false flag operation is in the works. With the internet shut off in Syria, hunting for the truth becomes much more difficult. What's stopping the Navy SEALS from acquiring some of Assad's chemical stockpiles, "accidentally" unleashing them upon Syria, and then manipulating the western media to report that Assad was responsible? Conquering Syria is only another step in the grand scheme to invade Iran. The United States has the ability to invade and crush Iran within a matter of months. Syria would be irrelevant. The only thing missing is moral and political resolve. If the United States had acted rationally, after 9/11, they would have invaded and crushed Iran with such overwhelming force and brutality (a la WW2), that all resistance would be quashed, allowing for either a successful occupation or at least leaving behind shambles that would be too terrified (along with the rest of the Muslim world, particularly Saudi Arabia) ever to threaten the United States or it's allies again. And Sharia dictatorship leads to the exact opposite of what you're hypothesizing, it's the secular dictatorships that tend to be friendlier towards the West.
At what cost?
Unless they are willing to use nukes, which I very highly doubt, it would be a very expensive venture; especially if Syria would provide assistance to Iran.
I'm guessing that you also think NATO involvement in Libya is unrelated.
|
Syria prepared to use chemical weapons against own people; military awaits final orders, US officials tell @NBCNews
More: Syrian military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs, US officials tell @NBCNews
Syrian cabinet minister fears Western states are using chemical weapons concerns to ready for intervention - @Reuters
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/syria-chemical-weapon-fears
|
I'd prefer to my nation stay out of this, partly due to our own problems are starting to overshadow it and part of me a slightly mean spirited part wants someone else to handle this. People want my nation to run in and fix the problem then turn around and tell us we didn't do it right or we shouldn't of done that. I feel for the plight of the innocents I really do but let someone else handle this problem if it comes to intervention China, Russia, the EU anyone but the US.
We'll help you with the relief afterwards but I really don't want to see my nation dragged into another conflict.
|
On December 06 2012 22:50 Parnage wrote:
I'd prefer to my nation stay out of this, partly due to our own problems are starting to overshadow it and part of me a slightly mean spirited part wants someone else to handle this. People want my nation to run in and fix the problem then turn around and tell us we didn't do it right or we shouldn't of done that. I feel for the plight of the innocents I really do but let someone else handle this problem if it comes to intervention China, Russia, the EU anyone but the US.
We'll help you with the relief afterwards but I really don't want to see my nation dragged into another conflict.
The US entered Iraq on a completely false premise and as such was hated for that. But if dubya was right and proof existed in the first place, I would have most definitely wanted all of NATO to get in there. Atomic weapons are scary, but the pain and suffering caused by all manners of chemical weapons, that is truly horrific.
|
On December 06 2012 22:26 ImFromPortugal wrote:Syria prepared to use chemical weapons against own people; military awaits final orders, US officials tell @NBCNews More: Syrian military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs, US officials tell @NBCNews Syrian cabinet minister fears Western states are using chemical weapons concerns to ready for intervention - @Reuters http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/syria-chemical-weapon-fears
Hello there, another WMD pretext for military intervention?
|
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will deliver a rare speech on Sunday about the uprising against his rule, state media has said.
With fighters fighting their way closer to the seat of his power, state media said in a statement on Saturday that al-Assad would speak on Sunday morning about the "latest developments in Syria and the region", without giving details.
It will be the 47-year-old leader's first speech in months and his first public comments since he dismissed suggestions that he might go into exile to end the civil war, telling Russian television in November that he would "live and die" in Syria.
Since al-Assad's last public comments, in November, rebels have strengthened their hold on swathes of territory across northern Syria, launched an offensive in the central province of Hama and endured weeks of bombardment by the regime forces trying to dislodge them from Damascus's outer neighbourhoods.
Syria's political opposition has also won widespread international recognition. But al-Assad has continued to rely on support from Russia, China and Iran to hold firm and has used his air power to blunt rebel gains on the ground.
With the conflict showing no sign of abating, Syria's deputy foreign minister visited Iran on Saturday to ensure the support of al-Assad's main ally in the region.
Iran's Fars news agency said Faisal al-Makdad would meet President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials.
Source
|
"live and die" in Syria.
Sounds like another tyrant who was recently overthrown??
|
Rumors are that Assad's position is something like this:
1. Immediate ceasefire with international monitors to enforce it.
2. Formation of a "unity government" made up of 1\3 regime loyalists, 1\3 opposition, 1\3 independents.
2b. Unity government has the power to change the constitution, but no power to reform the armed forces, police, intelligence, etc.
3. Internationally observed parliamentary elections will be held at some point in the future.
4. Presidential elections happen in 2014 with multiple candidates.
Probably a long shot the opposition will accept this. If this is the plan, he is probably saying it to show the people how "fair" he is being, even if the plan is dead and the war of attrition continues. They have long said Assad must go, has no future etc (along with every other western representative) but this plan leaves Assad as president until 2014 and then gives him a chance to run. Honestly, the rebels are probably worried he would win a 2014 free election.
There are also rumors that the US, Israel, that sort, have been arguing the Syrian armed forces should basically be eliminated or drastically reduced in size. Assad will never accept this, it is just Israel's dream and a license for the rebels to ignore the ceasefire.
The regime won't allow Assad to be forced out (rather than elected out peacefully) or the security services to be tampered with. The rebels won't allow Assad to stay and the rebel's backers want gutted security forces.
It is also likely the regime will argue about who the legitimate opposition is. They'll want to blacklist various groups for being terrorists. None of this will stop Jabhat al Nusra or similar groups from continuing the fight either.
Again, all rumors. It might be that this proposal is just made up by al-akhbar.
|
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking
LIVE NOW: #Syria President Bashar al-#Assad making rare public statement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20925294#TWEET503055
Few quotes from media:
#Assad calls for a "full mobilization to fight rebels"
We will "reform with one hand, and destroy terrorism with other hand."
blames internal conflict on external influence from other countries
Rebels are "bunch of criminals" who "carry ideology of al-Qaeda"
"We will not have dialogue with a puppet made by the west"
"I would like to reassure everybody that we will not stop fighting terrorism in Syria..."
|
He seems quite fiery. I'm not hearing any surrender terms here.
Crowd chants, "God, Bashar, army, victory"
Assad, "We found no partner in dialogue\political solution. So who should we speak to? With Takfiris who only know the language or slaughter? Or tools of foreigners that want to weaken Syria."
"We accept advice but not orders, we accept help but not governance."
|
They won't accept it as not only do they seem to have the stronger hand but Assad would never allow the family to lose such far reaching powers.
|
I have the feeling that if Syria did have oil this crisis would have been "resolved" by now. It seems there is not enough incentive to resolve it.
Neither Assad nor the rebels (mostly fundamental muslims) are a good choice for the western powers. Russia and China on the other hand are against intervention just so they can throw around their weight and tell the US they are not anymore the only player to influence geopolitics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
