|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 10 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 10 2018 03:24 Dan HH wrote:On April 10 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:
I'd really love for someone in the know to explain why the US needs to be in Syria, particularly now that ISIS is pretty much gone. Trump obviously wants to pull US troops out, but the Pentagon keeps dissuading him. What could they possibly be telling him? I get why US troops being there furthers Saudi and Israeli interests, but what's in it for the US?
And speaking of Israel, has anyone else noticed how big Netanyahu's balls have gotten recently? Here's a guy who knows that he could invade Syria (and potentially Lebanon) with the full support of the Saudis and other Sunni powers. I wouldn't call myself in-the-know, but the simplest explanation would be that the Pentagon doesn't want the pre-war status quo to return, which was a Syria aligned with Russia. Russia has military bases in Syria since the '70s, when Assad's father Hafez was in power. The involvement of ISIS is what sold American intervention to the public, but it's been clear from the start that one of the primary goals of the US in Syria is to end the rule of the Assads and that they're willing to support any opposition to achieve that. Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason. if you buy into the Mackinder theory of geopolitics, wherein global hegemony depends on axial control of the afroeurasian "world island," then you might see attempts by russia, located at the heart of the world island, to slice through American/Western encirclement as a serious geopolitical threat. Obama's foreign policy is much more aligned with that geopolitical school, and in many ways was underappreciated by more isolationist conservatives who want to preserve the pre-eminent place of the US in the imperial global empire, but are stuck in an outmoded Westphalian conception of national sovereignty and 20th century warfare Russia's one base in Syria barely registers as being important. Russia does not have the capacity to significantly project power there or anywhere else away from its borders. Plus, the Russian presence in Syria is already well-checked by other assets and allies in the region. Invading Syria is superfluous for that purpose. Besides, if the US really wanted to spend more time controlling the "Afroeurasian World Island," resources would be better spent countering China in the Far East and in Africa. Russia isn't the country that threatens the Western world order. China is.
That is no longer true. As recent events has shown, the Russian military can, and did, showcase a capacity to significantly project power in Syria. It is no longer true that Russia's military are underfunded, poorly trained, unprofessional and demoralised with decrepit and poorly maintained equipment.
|
On April 10 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 04:52 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 04:30 Simberto wrote:
I haven't really seen anyone arguing for continued intervention, DanHH's statements sound more like an explanation than an endorsement.
The question "why are we still there" is ambiguous in that way that you can answer it with a justification or with an explanation, the latter not necessarily meaning that you think that the US should still be there, but that you think the US is still there because x, where x does not necessarily need to be something you think is good.
If i would have to find a positive in the US still doing stuff there, my best try would be "Maybe it means you start less new wars" There's clearly some overlap here on the forum but the comment was directed more generally to the US political atmosphere. We're building more bases in Syria as we speak, Israel is helping the Nusra Front and al-Qaida while gunning down Gaza protesters, and Jihadist leaders are thinking Israel for their attacks in Syria. The US sponsors SA with bombs to drop on innocent Yemenis and Democrats want war with Russia, and Republicans with Iran. Don't underestimate our ability to simultaneously screw up places all around the globe. On April 10 2018 04:42 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 10 2018 03:24 Dan HH wrote:On April 10 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:
I'd really love for someone in the know to explain why the US needs to be in Syria, particularly now that ISIS is pretty much gone. Trump obviously wants to pull US troops out, but the Pentagon keeps dissuading him. What could they possibly be telling him? I get why US troops being there furthers Saudi and Israeli interests, but what's in it for the US?
And speaking of Israel, has anyone else noticed how big Netanyahu's balls have gotten recently? Here's a guy who knows that he could invade Syria (and potentially Lebanon) with the full support of the Saudis and other Sunni powers. I wouldn't call myself in-the-know, but the simplest explanation would be that the Pentagon doesn't want the pre-war status quo to return, which was a Syria aligned with Russia. Russia has military bases in Syria since the '70s, when Assad's father Hafez was in power. The involvement of ISIS is what sold American intervention to the public, but it's been clear from the start that one of the primary goals of the US in Syria is to end the rule of the Assads and that they're willing to support any opposition to achieve that. Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason. So strange to see liberals arguing for interventionism and cons argue not to continue a 'war'/call for regime change. Trump's done some weird things to US foreign policy positions among party members. The US shouldn't be in Syria, and we have no humanitarian motivations, even if we claim we do. On April 10 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 03:49 Dan HH wrote:On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason. It's not a good enough reason to start a war, but if the war is already there surely they're looking to shape the aftermath in their favor rather than leaving it to chance. Very similar to Ukraine in that regard, from the Euromaidan chaos Russia wanted to return their puppet to power, while the US wanted pro-western regime change. But in that case the US didn't have the excuse of terrorists or Yanukovych commiting atrocities in order to send troops, and the situation resolved as a clear loss for them. I can see why they're hesitating to accept another one. And the New York Times recently had a report about the Balkans and how pro-Putin groups have been reported in the region recently. Withdrawing from Syria could prompt Russia to see what other regions it “influence”. And by influence, I mean destabilize and then invade. The US has BEEN trying to destabilize Syria and ideally replace Assad with a US puppet dictator. I'm not sure by what measure that's better than Russia attempting the same thing (which is basically the worse case scenario you've described fearing). Not saying that the initial rebellion was not the US’s fault, because our country acted like we would support them and then didn’t. But Russia assured the UN and US that they removed all chemical weapons from Assad so US/UN military intervention in the war would not be necessary. That appears to not have been the case. And the people who are getting gassed are telling anyone who will listen, US or the EU. If the US leaves, its not like the use of chemical weapons is going to stop. My fear is that they would become more common. There's a lot of skepticism around the validity and source of the chemical attacks, previous and current. Even places like CNN have been using language like "appears" "seems", "have not independently confirmed", so I share a similar skepticism whether the narrative you're alluding to is an accurate representation of events. Beyond that, I don't think I subscribe to the idea that if it were precisely as you seem to suggest it would warrant our intervention or make it less bad than if we didn't. Are you saying that the chemical attacks didn’t take place? Or are you saying that a third party released the gas? What level of skepticism are we dealing with here? That language was from a CNN report I watched yesterday in reference to everything including the materials used, the source, the target, the motivation and the fallout for the most recent attack. Previous attacks were left unconfirmed in a similar fashion as best as I remember as well. There's a lot of presuming on behalf of western observers as far as I've seen. That's not to say I believe these attacks are false flags or whatever, just that I reserve judgement, and even if they are what is suggested, don't think it warrants our intervention under current circumstances. All this pretends as if we wouldn't assassinate Assad and replace him with a pro-US puppet dictator if we could in a heartbeat. But the chemical attacks are happening. People are being gassed by some group. Should the US or EU do anything? Or should we just accept we have done enough damage and leave the war to end on someone else’s terms? I don't think the families really care if it was chemicals, fragmentation, or rubble collapsing on people. As I've heard it reported the idea is that it was helicopters dropping barrel bombs. Not exactly a high tech delivery system. I don't know why we would care more about that than if it was a Mig dropping conventional ordinance killing 2x more people. Or any of the other countless civilians being slaughtered with US weapons around the world. Because they have the scare word "chemical"? There are reasons to be concerned about the use of chemical weapons, and legitimate ways to intervene under various circumstances, this just isn't one of them. If they were using Mig jets and short range missiles to deliver chemical warheads across a battle front we'd be having a different conversation, these suspiciously unhelpful attacks (unless you're a warmonger in the US) are not that though.
I agree with all the critiques of the US and that we are not sure who used the chemical weapons, or if they are that much more harmful than the bombs being dropped. But what should the US and the EU do at this point, in your opinion?
|
On April 10 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 04:52 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 04:30 Simberto wrote:
I haven't really seen anyone arguing for continued intervention, DanHH's statements sound more like an explanation than an endorsement.
The question "why are we still there" is ambiguous in that way that you can answer it with a justification or with an explanation, the latter not necessarily meaning that you think that the US should still be there, but that you think the US is still there because x, where x does not necessarily need to be something you think is good.
If i would have to find a positive in the US still doing stuff there, my best try would be "Maybe it means you start less new wars" There's clearly some overlap here on the forum but the comment was directed more generally to the US political atmosphere. We're building more bases in Syria as we speak, Israel is helping the Nusra Front and al-Qaida while gunning down Gaza protesters, and Jihadist leaders are thinking Israel for their attacks in Syria. The US sponsors SA with bombs to drop on innocent Yemenis and Democrats want war with Russia, and Republicans with Iran. Don't underestimate our ability to simultaneously screw up places all around the globe. On April 10 2018 04:42 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 10 2018 03:24 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't call myself in-the-know, but the simplest explanation would be that the Pentagon doesn't want the pre-war status quo to return, which was a Syria aligned with Russia. Russia has military bases in Syria since the '70s, when Assad's father Hafez was in power.
The involvement of ISIS is what sold American intervention to the public, but it's been clear from the start that one of the primary goals of the US in Syria is to end the rule of the Assads and that they're willing to support any opposition to achieve that. Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason. So strange to see liberals arguing for interventionism and cons argue not to continue a 'war'/call for regime change. Trump's done some weird things to US foreign policy positions among party members. The US shouldn't be in Syria, and we have no humanitarian motivations, even if we claim we do. On April 10 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:On April 10 2018 03:49 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
It's not a good enough reason to start a war, but if the war is already there surely they're looking to shape the aftermath in their favor rather than leaving it to chance. Very similar to Ukraine in that regard, from the Euromaidan chaos Russia wanted to return their puppet to power, while the US wanted pro-western regime change. But in that case the US didn't have the excuse of terrorists or Yanukovych commiting atrocities in order to send troops, and the situation resolved as a clear loss for them. I can see why they're hesitating to accept another one. And the New York Times recently had a report about the Balkans and how pro-Putin groups have been reported in the region recently. Withdrawing from Syria could prompt Russia to see what other regions it “influence”. And by influence, I mean destabilize and then invade. The US has BEEN trying to destabilize Syria and ideally replace Assad with a US puppet dictator. I'm not sure by what measure that's better than Russia attempting the same thing (which is basically the worse case scenario you've described fearing). Not saying that the initial rebellion was not the US’s fault, because our country acted like we would support them and then didn’t. But Russia assured the UN and US that they removed all chemical weapons from Assad so US/UN military intervention in the war would not be necessary. That appears to not have been the case. And the people who are getting gassed are telling anyone who will listen, US or the EU. If the US leaves, its not like the use of chemical weapons is going to stop. My fear is that they would become more common. There's a lot of skepticism around the validity and source of the chemical attacks, previous and current. Even places like CNN have been using language like "appears" "seems", "have not independently confirmed", so I share a similar skepticism whether the narrative you're alluding to is an accurate representation of events. Beyond that, I don't think I subscribe to the idea that if it were precisely as you seem to suggest it would warrant our intervention or make it less bad than if we didn't. Are you saying that the chemical attacks didn’t take place? Or are you saying that a third party released the gas? What level of skepticism are we dealing with here? That language was from a CNN report I watched yesterday in reference to everything including the materials used, the source, the target, the motivation and the fallout for the most recent attack. Previous attacks were left unconfirmed in a similar fashion as best as I remember as well. There's a lot of presuming on behalf of western observers as far as I've seen. That's not to say I believe these attacks are false flags or whatever, just that I reserve judgement, and even if they are what is suggested, don't think it warrants our intervention under current circumstances. All this pretends as if we wouldn't assassinate Assad and replace him with a pro-US puppet dictator if we could in a heartbeat. But the chemical attacks are happening. People are being gassed by some group. Should the US or EU do anything? Or should we just accept we have done enough damage and leave the war to end on someone else’s terms? I don't think the families really care if it was chemicals, fragmentation, or rubble collapsing on people. As I've heard it reported the idea is that it was helicopters dropping barrel bombs. Not exactly a high tech delivery system. I don't know why we would care more about that than if it was a Mig dropping conventional ordinance killing 2x more people. Or any of the other countless civilians being slaughtered with US weapons around the world. Because they have the scare word "chemical"? There are reasons to be concerned about the use of chemical weapons, and legitimate ways to intervene under various circumstances, this just isn't one of them. If they were using Mig jets and short range missiles to deliver chemical warheads across a battle front we'd be having a different conversation, these suspiciously unhelpful attacks (unless you're a warmonger in the US) are not that though. I agree with all the critiques of the US and that we are not sure who used the chemical weapons, or if they are that much more harmful than the bombs being dropped. But what should the US and the EU do at this point, in your opinion?
The US should not be in Syria, I thought I made that clear already?
|
On April 10 2018 05:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On April 10 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2018 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 10 2018 03:24 Dan HH wrote:On April 10 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:
I'd really love for someone in the know to explain why the US needs to be in Syria, particularly now that ISIS is pretty much gone. Trump obviously wants to pull US troops out, but the Pentagon keeps dissuading him. What could they possibly be telling him? I get why US troops being there furthers Saudi and Israeli interests, but what's in it for the US?
And speaking of Israel, has anyone else noticed how big Netanyahu's balls have gotten recently? Here's a guy who knows that he could invade Syria (and potentially Lebanon) with the full support of the Saudis and other Sunni powers. I wouldn't call myself in-the-know, but the simplest explanation would be that the Pentagon doesn't want the pre-war status quo to return, which was a Syria aligned with Russia. Russia has military bases in Syria since the '70s, when Assad's father Hafez was in power. The involvement of ISIS is what sold American intervention to the public, but it's been clear from the start that one of the primary goals of the US in Syria is to end the rule of the Assads and that they're willing to support any opposition to achieve that. Why should the US care if Russia has a base in Syria? What's the critical US interest that's at stake that warrants military intervention in Syria? I'm all for using military power when there's a real strategic return. I just don't understand what the return is here if we're merely looking for regime change in Syria. Kicking the Russians out isn't a good enough reason. if you buy into the Mackinder theory of geopolitics, wherein global hegemony depends on axial control of the afroeurasian "world island," then you might see attempts by russia, located at the heart of the world island, to slice through American/Western encirclement as a serious geopolitical threat. Obama's foreign policy is much more aligned with that geopolitical school, and in many ways was underappreciated by more isolationist conservatives who want to preserve the pre-eminent place of the US in the imperial global empire, but are stuck in an outmoded Westphalian conception of national sovereignty and 20th century warfare Russia's one base in Syria barely registers as being important. Russia does not have the capacity to significantly project power there or anywhere else away from its borders. Plus, the Russian presence in Syria is already well-checked by other assets and allies in the region. Invading Syria is superfluous for that purpose. Besides, if the US really wanted to spend more time controlling the "Afroeurasian World Island," resources would be better spent countering China in the Far East and in Africa. Russia isn't the country that threatens the Western world order. China is. resources are being spent: political capital on the failed TPP; military resources, particularly in the south china sea; and economic resources in terms of moving capital to south east asian countries (in particular the reopening of diplomacy and trade with myanmar). china also has a quickly expanding network of pipelines and railroad across the asian steppes that linknup with russian networks. a base in the mediterranean would help expand chinese economic influence in europe by providing alternative trade routes to the european antipode if china cannot satisfactorily secure trade routes through the south china sea along the south asian coast
Well, yes, the US clearly has been spending resources to counter China. My point is why would the US spend resources doing a half-assed intervention in Syria when those resources could be diverted to other purposes? If eliminating Assad so as to deprive Russia (and China) of a Mediterranean ally is that important, then go full shock and awe on Syria and get rid of him. Hell, if we gave a chunk of Syria to Israel, they'd go do it for us.
|
i dont know? maybe the pentagon thinks that the most economical route is to just let syria remain a war-torn wasteland, not worth the high risk of catastrophic embarrassment involved in a full scale intervention, but a place must be prevented from becoming a stable russian client state
|
This is an example of the "alleged chemical attack" style rhetoric I was mentioning, indicating there's a healthy amount of skepticism even in US press.
Trump goes on to state it as fact (in thread video), but then indicate it's not clear what the source was (I've seen pictures of German canisters from the ~80's being reported found from the abandoned positions fwiw).
But alas, against my advice, the US will be acting aggressively (or at least is claiming as much) soon, also indicating the bombing of the air field was likely Israel and in preparation for whatever is coming.
|
Part of it is control over Deir ez-Zor's oil. There was quite the race between the SDF and the government over who'd get to control more of the area.
Understanding the precise interests of all the parties with a stake in Syria is incredibly difficult though. People who claim otherwise are usually the kind of people you want to mistrust. The chemical attack is another good example. The conspiracy theories around it aren't ridiculous, but even if we entertain them, there are many different scenarios of who the perpetrators might've been (and more importantly, with whose backing). Though a bit out there, even Assad doing it with the explicit consent of the US isn't entirely ludicrous. The current balance of power is arguably not the worst thing for those involved.
|
On April 10 2018 09:16 Orome wrote:
Part of it is control over Deir ez-Zor's oil. There was quite the race between the SDF and the government over who'd get to control more of the area.
Understanding the precise interests of all the parties with a stake in Syria is incredibly difficult though. People who claim otherwise are usually the kind of people you want to mistrust. The chemical attack is another good example. The conspiracy theories around it aren't ridiculous, but even if we entertain them, there are many different scenarios of who the perpetrators might've been (and more importantly, with whose backing). Though a bit out there, even Assad doing it with the explicit consent of the US isn't entirely ludicrous. The current balance of power is arguably not the worst thing for those involved.
I'm pretty much in agreement with this, but I'm sure a load of humanitarian bombs should help the 'humanity' over there as Trump would suggest. I can't claim I understand the various interests there, I'm just far less confident than many in the US on the 'left' and 'right' that our intervening unarguably makes it better.
|
|
|
On April 10 2018 06:22 IgnE wrote:
i dont know? maybe the pentagon thinks that the most economical route is to just let syria remain a war-torn wasteland, not worth the high risk of catastrophic embarrassment involved in a full scale intervention, but a place must be prevented from becoming a stable russian client state
The destabilising effect of millions of Syrian refugees going to Europe is more damaging to western stability than Russia having a few bases in Syria no? I think you are off the mark.
|
US President Donald Trump has promised a "forceful" response to the alleged chemical attack in Syria, as Western leaders consider what action to take.
"We have a lot of options militarily," he told reporters. He added that a response would be decided "shortly".
Mr Trump said the US was getting some "good clarity" on who was responsible for the incident in Douma on Saturday.
Medical sources say dozens were killed in the alleged attack but exact numbers are impossible to verify.
Mr Trump also discussed the incident with French President Emmanuel Macron late on Monday, and both leaders expressed a desire for a "firm response".
The AFP news agency quoted French government spokesman Benjamin Griveaux as saying on Tuesday that "if a red line had been crossed, there will be a response", adding that intelligence shared by the two leaders "in theory confirms the use of chemical weapons".
[..]
The condemnation from Western leaders follows a tense meeting at the UN Security Council in which the US and Russia traded harsh words over the incident.
Russian representative Vassily Nebenzia said the alleged attack was staged and warned that US military action in response could have "grave repercussions".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43707023
|
Looks like the decision has been made.
President Donald Trump has canceled his scheduled trip to multiple South American countries originally planned for this week, the White House said Tuesday.
In a statement, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president "will not attend the 8th Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru or travel to Bogota, Colombia as originally scheduled."
Vice President Mike Pence will make the trip in Trump's stead, Sanders said.
The White House said Trump will stay in the U.S. in order to "oversee the American response to Syria and to monitor developments around the world."
Source.
The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group will depart Naval Station Norfolk, Va., Wednesday for a deployment to the Middle East and Europe.
The aircraft carrier will be accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy and the guided-missile destroyers USS Arleigh Burke, USS Bulkeley, USS Forrest Sherman and USS Farragut. The destroyers USS Jason Dunham and USS The Sullivans will join the strike group later, a Navy statement said.
The strike group, carrying 6,500 sailors and Carrier Air Wing One, will cruise alongside the German frigate FGS Hessen during the first half of the deployment. The German ship conducted a brief mission with the Harry S. Truman in 2010, the Navy said.
Source.
It will probably take the carrier strike group most of a couple weeks to get into theater, presuming that Trump intends to use it as part of the strike. This could be a big mess.
|
Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one:
BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma.
Source.
|
On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: Show nested quote +BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source.
Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described?
Also what comes after Russia shoots one down?
|
Russia only buzzes civilians with their attack jets. They don’t shoot at real military craft. And France and the UK seem to have made up their mind.
|
On April 11 2018 08:26 Plansix wrote:
Russia only buzzes civilians with their attack jets. They don’t shoot at real military craft. And France and the UK seem to have made up their mind.
Not just civilians (though I'm unsure of the event you're referencing) it seems:
A RUSSIAN warplane "harassed" a US destroyer loaded with tomahawk missiles near Syria today, according to Turkish news agency IHA, as tensions soar after a chemical gas attack on Syrian civilians allegedly carried out by Assad's regime.
The American warship had left the port of Larnaca in Cyprus, when it was allegedly approached by the Russian plane shortly afterwards, news agency IHA claims.
The news comes after a Russian warplane flew over a French warship at low altitude in the eastern Mediterranean over the weekend in a deliberate breach of international regulations, a French naval source told Reuters.
The incidents came amid heightened tensions between Russia, Syria, and the US following Syria’s suspected chemical weapons attack on April 7.
www.express.co.uk
|
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest.
|
On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest.
That was remarkably vacuous.
But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group.
|
Apparently we are getting an “imminent announcement” on US action in Syria.
|
On April 11 2018 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest. That was remarkably vacuous. But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group.
Bolton is the national security adviser now. Republican leadership killed every attempt to even debate reigning in the powers granted to the executive branch post 9/11 since Trump took office. The country voted in a man that openly admires dictators and strong men. This was always going to be the result at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
