Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 34

On March 20 2013 07:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Honestly let Turkey, France, Britain, and Qatar handle Syria. The US should stay out of it.

On March 20 2013 12:36 Zaros wrote:


If its a NATO operation then the US should help, you are the world super power atm, all of those countries combined don't make up anything close to the US military.

On March 20 2013 12:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


TBH I think a coalition of nations rather than NATO would be better in terms of implementation, logistics, strategy. Look at Libya revealed about NATO, it is wholly unprepared and incapable of such a months long campaign. The United States is exhausted militarily, and politically with War then there is the "Europe's Backyard" mentality.

On March 20 2013 13:01 Zaros wrote:


Well then its up to Britain and France to maintain the defence of Europe and surrounding interventions, which are still cutting defence budgets and with the debt crises and the Iraq war controversy there isn't anything politically to be gained by increasing defence spending in Britain at least,so it makes Europe more vulnerable and its intervention capability a lot poorer without US involvement.

If the US keeps up with the "Europe's Backyard" mentality then we might as well get rid of NATO. The defence and Security Co-operation Treaty will be come the new European NATO probably seeing as other European countries don't pull their weight militarily or diplomatically* cough* Germany *cough*

BEIRUT — Once highly dependent on revenue from petroleum sales, the Syrian government has lost control of many of the country’s major oil fields over the past few months as Kurdish forces and the rebel Free Syrian Army have made significant gains in the east.

For some rebel units, captured oil could pay for weapons. For the Kurds, it could furnish greater autonomy.

Syria was never particularly known for its oil wealth. In a region that is home to many of the world’s largest oil producers, Syria’s 2.5 billion barrels of proven reserves were far overshadowed by Saudi Arabia’s 267 billion or neighboring Iraq’s 115 billion.

But to the Syrian government, oil was a way to help balance the books.

“It was a very essential contribution to the state budget,” said Samir Seifan, a Syrian economist now living in Iraq. “Also, it was the main source of hard currency.”

On March 20 2013 13:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Just figured someone here would have a reasonable guess:

What percentage of the rebel fighters in Syria are once-civilians who turned against what they deemed was an oppressive government vs. what percentage of the rebel fighters in Syria are "extremists" or fighters from pre-existing groups such as Al Qaeda?

On March 21 2013 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Let's be honest Great Britain, and to a historical and greater (debatable) extent France, has had to watch and maintain the defense of Europe since the mid 1700's minus a decade or two when they were fighting each other.



Source

On March 21 2013 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Let's be honest Great Britain, and to a historical and greater (debatable) extent France, has had to watch and maintain the defense of Europe since the mid 1700's minus a decade or two when they were fighting each other.

On March 20 2013 12:30 ImFromPortugal wrote:
US House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers tells @CNN there is a 'high probability' Syria used chemical weapon

On March 21 2013 19:30 Silvanel wrote:


Thats very far from truth, in fact all external threats to Europe in that period were fought off by Russia and Austria. All Britain and France were doing was defending their Colnial/Imperial interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#17th_century

On March 20 2013 13:01 Zaros wrote:


Well then its up to Britain and France to maintain the defence of Europe and surrounding interventions, which are still cutting defence budgets and with the debt crises and the Iraq war controversy there isn't anything politically to be gained by increasing defence spending in Britain at least,so it makes Europe more vulnerable and its intervention capability a lot poorer without US involvement.

If the US keeps up with the "Europe's Backyard" mentality then we might as well get rid of NATO. The defence and Security Co-operation Treaty will be come the new European NATO probably seeing as other European countries don't pull their weight militarily or diplomatically* cough* Germany *cough*

On March 21 2013 19:46 Thor.Rush wrote:
17th century is the 1600s bro.

On March 21 2013 19:39 Silvanel wrote:
There were a lot of fighting inside of Europe. But can You really say You are protecting Europe by fighting France? Or Germany? Or Russia? No, what You are doing is protecting Your own interests.

On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:


In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can.

What, precisely, do you want Germany to do to help defend Europe?

On March 21 2013 19:50 Zaros wrote:


No country right now has any intention or logistics to harm Europe but nobody knows what is going to happen in the future and its not just about countries attacking Europe, Europeans have interests outside of Europe that may require intervention like Mali like Libya, other areas of the maghreb perhaps Syria perhaps Iran perhaps further east looking towards the pacific if we want to help trading partners (hundreds of territorial disputes around china.)

With regards to Germany they don't have as much as a Global presence militarily as Britain or France yet they are an economic powerhouse, so if European countries want to intervene to defend shared interests (the merits of which are debatable but is a separate issue) then Germany should increase defence spending by probably double to match %GDP of France and Britain.