|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 27 2013 11:46 don_kyuhote wrote:
The fall of Assad regime in Syria would weaken Iran, which probably is the next target as far as the US and it's friends are concerned. I don't think they actually care if Syria turns into another Iraq with sectarian violence happening daily. As long as it doesn't have a strong centralized government that is supportive of Iran, it's a win scenario.
Hmm That makes sense,thx. Didnt think of this myself yet.
I never understood why syria was so important and got so much attention,its a verry small country after all.But Its most likely a prelude to a war with the real target, iran. War with iran in 2014/2015 then i guess.IF they go into syria that is, of wich i am still not sure it will happen.
|
Lets look at the "Qhoran Belt". All lunatics.
Egypt
goes from "peaceful surpresssive non religious military dictatorship" to "religious democracy" back to "miliatary dictatorship". Before tahir egypt was doing quite well, toursim and economy, now nobody wants to go there.
Tunesia is still holding back the action.
Lybia
Okay that somehow worked, did it?
Syria,
Assad kills people left and right, same as in egypt, but in a civil war, not behind closed doors, religious groups mix themselves with the rebels to grab the power after assad falls.
Obama should have said "Half the rebels are bastards we fought in Afghanistan, who will die now, by the hand of Assad, if we help them they transform syria into a religious country and kill others instead."
Irak was the initial pressure cooker. Saddam was it´s cover. His regime held shiits and sunits apart, irak had some oil and some economy, now its a deathzone for hundreds every week.
Afghanistan,
people hated the Taliban, but they know how to deal with them. Now the international forces are leaving.
It´s like smashing a wasps nest in a kindergarten and leave the kids on their own.
These people are not stupid. They just don´t understand that getting rich,fat and bored is a satisfiing way of live you dont have to kill your neighbor for.
|
MPs will be recalled to Parliament so they can vote on the UK’s response to the crisis in Syria, David Cameron has said.
The Prime Minister said that there will be a “clear Government motion and vote” on Thursday.
Announcing the plans on Twitter he wrote: “Speaker agrees my request to recall Parliament on Thurs. There'll be a clear Govt motion & vote on UK response to chemical weapons attacks.”
More than 60 MPs had been calling on the Prime Minister to let them vote on whether Britain should intervene in the Syrian conflict.
Mr Cameron has returned to Downing Street after cutting short his summer holiday to meet Cabinet colleagues and continue talks with international leaders to find a "proportionate" response which will "deter" the Syrian state from using toxic agents.
The recall comes after Downing Street confirmed that Britain's armed forces are drawing up contingency plans for military action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10268325/MPs-recalled-to-Parliament-to-vote-on-Syrian-crisis-David-Cameron-says.html
|
Based on the way that is presented it seems like a propangda post to help swing opinion in to favoring military intervention.
|
Military invention in Syria is bound to end up really, really badly.
|
I don't understand why the US and UK are so reluctant to co-operate with the UN instead of taking matters into their own hands.
|
On August 27 2013 22:09 Absentia wrote:
I don't understand why the US and UK are so reluctant to co-operate with the UN instead of taking matters into their own hands.
cause russia and china have a veto on everything on the security council so nothing can happen.
|
On August 27 2013 22:09 Absentia wrote:
I don't understand why the US and UK are so reluctant to co-operate with the UN instead of taking matters into their own hands.
because they cant prove anything. and theyve already decided that assas needs to go. their last attempt to prove that the regime had used chemical weapons was pathetically weak and didnt hold up against any closer inspection. they are not going to make that misstake again, therefore theyll bypass UN completely.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On August 27 2013 20:35 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 20:27 xM(Z wrote:On August 27 2013 19:39 Spitmode wrote:On August 27 2013 16:17 Shake n Blake wrote:US President Barack Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
Such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles - or, possibly, long-range bombers - striking military targets in Syria, the newspaper said.
Senior US administration officials told the Post that possible attack would be designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the US out of deeper involvement in country’s civil war. SourceAnd so it begins. This is exactly how Iraq was planned out. Missile strikes to begin with under the false promise of avoiding further involvement, later no fly zones and finally boots on the ground. If America attacks Syria with missile strikes, Iran will come to their defense and together they will assault Israel. Once that happens, all bets are off because the entire Middle East will undoubtedly become engulfed in a bloody regional war. We can only hope that this doesn't escalate to global proportions. Supposedly 60% of Americans oppose going to war with Syria. If this is true, then Americans need to stop Obama now before it is too late. What the hell are you talking about? All that will happen is that the US and some allies (GB, France) will launch some tomahawk missiles and maybe establish a no fly zone for a couple of weeks or months, until the FSA overthrows Assad or gains some serious ground. After that the involvement is going to end and the country will be left alone again. No american boots will hit Syrian ground. God, how people always exaggerate here and paint doomsday scenarios without knowing shit about actual politics and strategic warfare. a precedent > you Can you refresh my memory ? I remember Iraq being a full invasion since the very first day. If you are looking for a precedent of this, Lybia would make a better example imho.
And even Libya wasn't an invasion, "just" a very broad interpretation of what "no-fly zone" meant.
If it really was Assad, he basically forced Obama's hand with the gas attacks. Which is why I still find it entirely likely that the rebels themselves fired gas on civilians to force US intervention.
With final proof who did it available or not, intervention of some form is pretty much unavoidable at this point. Otherwise the US would just lose a huge amount of credibility internationally.
|
On August 27 2013 22:03 maartendq wrote:
Military invention in Syria is bound to end up really, really badly.
I think they'll probably just lob a few cruise missiles at Syrian military bases or something like that. I highly doubt the US will actually send troops there. It will probably be just like in Libya, except they will provide support from the sea instead. If you remember things ended up working pretty well in Libya, except that the war in Syria has prompted sectarian violence there making it unstable again.
Its intelligent intervention. They don't risk American lives (or at least the risk is very small), and let the rebels capture outposts, bases and cities.
I don't see anyone (except friends of Bashar al-Assad) being angered by America's decision to provide military support. They're helping to stop a ruthless dictator from continuing to kill his own people; the population will be thankful even if it took some time for the US to intervene. I think the US would rather have a positive legacy with the Arab Spring countries than a neutral one.
On the issue of chemical weapons I think people should be more suspicious as to why the Syrian regime prevented the UN investigators from accessing the site for five days, instead shelling it and destroying evidence. Those are not the actions of a regime that seeks to exonerate itself.
I think its far more likely that Assad's brother released chemical weapons because the regime is not winning the war in Syria as it is trying to portray, and they resorted to desperate measures - and when the UN wanted to investigate, they destroyed the evidence.
|
On August 27 2013 22:29 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 20:35 Godwrath wrote:On August 27 2013 20:27 xM(Z wrote:On August 27 2013 19:39 Spitmode wrote:On August 27 2013 16:17 Shake n Blake wrote:US President Barack Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
Such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles - or, possibly, long-range bombers - striking military targets in Syria, the newspaper said.
Senior US administration officials told the Post that possible attack would be designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the US out of deeper involvement in country’s civil war. SourceAnd so it begins. This is exactly how Iraq was planned out. Missile strikes to begin with under the false promise of avoiding further involvement, later no fly zones and finally boots on the ground. If America attacks Syria with missile strikes, Iran will come to their defense and together they will assault Israel. Once that happens, all bets are off because the entire Middle East will undoubtedly become engulfed in a bloody regional war. We can only hope that this doesn't escalate to global proportions. Supposedly 60% of Americans oppose going to war with Syria. If this is true, then Americans need to stop Obama now before it is too late. What the hell are you talking about? All that will happen is that the US and some allies (GB, France) will launch some tomahawk missiles and maybe establish a no fly zone for a couple of weeks or months, until the FSA overthrows Assad or gains some serious ground. After that the involvement is going to end and the country will be left alone again. No american boots will hit Syrian ground. God, how people always exaggerate here and paint doomsday scenarios without knowing shit about actual politics and strategic warfare. a precedent > you Can you refresh my memory ? I remember Iraq being a full invasion since the very first day. If you are looking for a precedent of this, Lybia would make a better example imho. And even Libya wasn't an invasion, "just" a very broad interpretation of what "no-fly zone" meant.If it really was Assad, he basically forced Obama's hand with the gas attacks. Which is why I still find it entirely likely that the rebels themselves fired gas on civilians to force US intervention. With final proof who did it available or not, intervention of some form is pretty much unavoidable at this point. Otherwise the US would just lose a huge amount of credibility internationally.
That's the point i was trying to convey.
And yeah, right now i see it a lose lose situation for the US to intervene if we don't get information on the chemical attacks from neutral observers, but from US intel.
|
On August 27 2013 22:33 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 22:03 maartendq wrote:
Military invention in Syria is bound to end up really, really badly. I think they'll probably just lob a few cruise missiles at Syrian military bases or something like that. I highly doubt the US will actually send troops there. It will probably be just like in Libya, except they will provide support from the sea instead. If you remember things ended up working pretty well in Libya, except that the war in Syria has prompted sectarian violence there making it unstable again. Its intelligent intervention. They don't risk American lives (or at least the risk is very small), and let the rebels capture outposts, bases and cities.
Rebels won't be able to defeat Assad with only noflyzone and air strikes.
Also I hope they want to get the Syrian chemical weapons under control instead off letting rebels and whoever supporting them have them.
|
On August 27 2013 23:31 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 22:33 radscorpion9 wrote:On August 27 2013 22:03 maartendq wrote:
Military invention in Syria is bound to end up really, really badly. I think they'll probably just lob a few cruise missiles at Syrian military bases or something like that. I highly doubt the US will actually send troops there. It will probably be just like in Libya, except they will provide support from the sea instead. If you remember things ended up working pretty well in Libya, except that the war in Syria has prompted sectarian violence there making it unstable again. Its intelligent intervention. They don't risk American lives (or at least the risk is very small), and let the rebels capture outposts, bases and cities. Rebels won't be able to defeat Assad with only noflyzone and air strikes. Also I hope they want to get the Syrian chemical weapons under control instead off letting rebels and whoever supporting them have them.
i think the situation is no longer so much about the rebels as it is the world vs syria now.
|
On August 27 2013 22:29 deichkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 22:09 Absentia wrote:
I don't understand why the US and UK are so reluctant to co-operate with the UN instead of taking matters into their own hands. because they cant prove anything. and theyve already decided that assas needs to go. their last attempt to prove that the regime had used chemical weapons was pathetically weak and didnt hold up against any closer inspection. they are not going to make that misstake again, therefore theyll bypass UN completely.
Well, here we are then. Because no amount of "evidence" will ever stop Russia, and possibly China from vetoing any resolution against Assad. Syria is free to use as much chemical weapons as they like.
Bypassing the UN has happened on several occations where it was absolutely the right thing to do such as Kosovo, as well as some situations which werent as justified. Its not as simple as saying that the whole of the security council has to agree before anyone does anything.
And I'm baffled by the suggestions that the US entering (they wont put "boots on the ground") Syria will cause sectarian violence "just like iraq". Basing your argument that the US shouldn't intervene because "Iraq went bad" is terrible. Syria is a completely different ballpark.
|
On August 28 2013 01:51 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 22:29 deichkind wrote:On August 27 2013 22:09 Absentia wrote:
I don't understand why the US and UK are so reluctant to co-operate with the UN instead of taking matters into their own hands. because they cant prove anything. and theyve already decided that assas needs to go. their last attempt to prove that the regime had used chemical weapons was pathetically weak and didnt hold up against any closer inspection. they are not going to make that misstake again, therefore theyll bypass UN completely. Well, here we are then. Because no amount of "evidence" will ever stop Russia, and possibly China from vetoing any resolution against Assad. Syria is free to use as much chemical weapons as they like. Bypassing the UN has happened on several occations where it was absolutely the right thing to do such as Kosovo, as well as some situations which werent as justified. Its not as simple as saying that the whole of the security council has to agree before anyone does anything. And I'm baffled by the suggestions that the US entering (they wont put "boots on the ground") Syria will cause sectarian violence "just like iraq". Basing your argument that the US shouldn't intervene because "Iraq went bad" is terrible. Syria is a completely different ballpark.
And Vietnam. Oh and Afghanistan. Pretty much every american conflict since 1945.
How is Syria different?
|
On August 27 2013 22:03 maartendq wrote:
Military invention in Syria is bound to end up really, really badly.
Unfortunately anything and everything involved with and in Syria is bound to end up really, really badly. We could do nothing, it's going to end up more of the really, really badly that's already happened for 2 years. We lob some cruise missiles, going to end badly. No-fly zone, badly. No-fly zone with extensive bombing, badly. Invade with 1,000,000 soldiers it would still end badly. The least bad option imo is some targeted bombings that do enough damage to Assad that he doesn't use WMD again for fear of us coming in with full force to take him out. Then they can get back to their civil war and we can get back to staying out of it... minus the clandestine training and arms supplying we're doing.
And Vietnam. Oh and Afghanistan. Pretty much every american conflict since 1945.
How is Syria different?
Hmmm... since WW2...
Korea
Vietnam
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Libya (1980s)
Iran (1988)
Persian Gulf War
Panama
Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya (again)
Those are the main conflicts where American military force was directly used, in only 4 of those 12 were the results not what the US wanted or the country became a clusterfuck.
So... 1/3 is "most"?
Facts are usually rather malleable things when it comes to making ridiculous anti-US statements and we see no exception here.
|
American forces are "ready" to launch strikes on Syria if President Barack Obama chooses to order an attack, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says.
"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is "undeniable" proof that Syria used chemical weapons.
Source
|
On August 28 2013 02:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +And Vietnam. Oh and Afghanistan. Pretty much every american conflict since 1945.
How is Syria different? Hmmm... since WW2... Korea Vietnam Dominican Republic Grenada Libya (1980s) Iran (1988) Persian Gulf War Panama Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia Afghanistan Iraq Libya (again) Those are the main conflicts where American military force was directly used, in only 4 of those 12 were the results not what the US wanted or the country became a clusterfuck. So... 1/3 is "most"? Facts are usually rather malleable things when it comes to making ridiculous anti-US statements and we see no exception here.
Okay, got me there. Not the most, thanks for correcting me  . But the ones that are comparable with Syria turned out pretty bad. (for both sides)
|
On August 28 2013 02:07 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +American forces are "ready" to launch strikes on Syria if President Barack Obama chooses to order an attack, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says.
"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is "undeniable" proof that Syria used chemical weapons.
Source
"Undeniable proof" was what Bush said before the Iraq debacle was launched.
|
i will admit, that evidence that is not being shown is pretty damned undeniable.
very clever!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
