|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 28 2013 02:01 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 01:51 Catch]22 wrote: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?
Syria is different because it is much weaker
Though i have to agree i see no good exit strategy for syria either, fundamentalists will stay a problem just like in irak and afghanistan (and egypt?) but at least the war itself will be verry easy. Syria has nearly no military and the rebels almost managed to defeat asad by themselves.
Just a little help to the rebels would overthrow assad, though manny of the rebels are fundamentalists wich is something the west would not want to happen either. Maybe the intervention will be mostly done to make sure the "right" rebels end up with control over syria instead of a few fundamentalist groups
|
On August 28 2013 02:25 Rassy wrote:Syria is different because it is much weaker
Syria isn't weaker than Afghanistan and most certainly not weaker than Iraq or North Viatnam was when the war was going on over there.
|
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.
Honest question: didn't the Kosovo operation have the backing of the Security Council, at least during the initial moments? I googled a bit on this and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1244 but there's probably much more to it.
Initial support of the SC is all that's really needed. The korean war had initial SC support, for example (though that was by virtue of the USSR not being there to veto it). That said Russia (and possibly China) would probably veto it.
|
On August 28 2013 02:25 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:01 DrCooper wrote:On August 28 2013 01:51 Catch]22 wrote: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? Syria is different because it is much weaker Though i have to agree i see no good exit strategy for syria either, fundamentalists will stay a problem just like in irak and afghanistan (and egypt?) but at least the war itself will be verry easy. Syria has nearly no military and the rebels almost managed to defeat asad by themselves. Just a little help to the rebels would overthrow assad, though manny of the rebels are fundamentalists wich is something the west would not want to happen either. Maybe the intervention will be mostly done to make sure the "right" rebels end up with control over syria instead of a few fundamentalist groups
That sounds like a complex situation where the desired outcome would rely on a long string of decisions made by a group of people with amazing vision, moral fortitude and intelligence.
I really hope it doesn't fall into the hands of the US and the UK again, because in Iraq we proved to lack all three of those things.
|
The terrain, nabouring countrys and seize of the country make syria much easier then afghanistan ,vietnam and iraq i think.
The syrian army is also verry weak or not? Iraq had the 3rd or 4th biggest standing army in the world when the usa invaded and afghanistan,well they have alot of experience with combat, been fighting forever there with the terrain beeing verry difficult.
Vietnam was heavily supported by the ussr and china in thoose times. I realy think syria is a different ballpark when it comes to the war itself then anny of thoose wars,a bit more like libia and overthrowing khadaffi.
Though i do see similar problems with an eventual exit strategy.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The Syrian population is rather diverse, so if you go DEMOCRACY, sectarian violence will probably rage for a bit.
If instead you go to repressive government, then probably the people will get along just fine but hate the government.
If instead the country breaks up, then you get ethnic cleansing via violence or mass migrations.
|
On August 28 2013 02:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
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.
How about Somalia and Haiti (96, I think). Also, arguably Bosnia stayed peaceful because EU countries put huge amounts of resources into it, not just because of the way the intervention and the peace process was handled. Basically it's been run by an EU administration for 15 years with the elected governments playing a subordinate role.
Few people are making the argument that the US is out to create chaos around the world. Rather the argument is that the US intervenes along it's geopolitical interests and doesn't have the will or expertise to handle the situation after it wins the military conflict.
Actually, this is somewhat similar to the argument Bush made in his campaign in 2000 when he attacked the idea of 'nation building'.
|
Syria isn't different from Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam? Tell that to the 100k dead from civil war. How many thousands more must die before you stop your bland mindless hate against america, and inexplicable love for russia?
|
You can massacre thousands of your own people, but only if you use the right kind of weapons.
Seems legit.
Really wishing the European powers hadn't been so quick to throw away colonialism now.
|
|
|
On August 28 2013 02:32 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 01:51 Catch]22 wrote: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. Honest question: didn't the Kosovo operation have the backing of the Security Council, at least during the initial moments? I googled a bit on this and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1244 but there's probably much more to it. Initial support of the SC is all that's really needed. The korean war had initial SC support, for example (though that was by virtue of the USSR not being there to veto it). That said Russia (and possibly China) would probably veto it.
IIRC they started bombing before they were authorized to do so. Noone really cared though and things kind of worked out well in the end.
|
This is a good move if you were trying to ensure a one world government for the future.
|
On August 28 2013 03:55 Catch]22 wrote:
Syria isn't different from Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam? Tell that to the 100k dead from civil war. How many thousands more must die before you stop your bland mindless hate against america, and inexplicable love for russia?
People who oppose intervention arent 'blindingly in love with russia' they just recognize that an intervention isnt going to stop the dead because in the last American intervention in a Middle Eastern country riven by racial and religious hatred the Americans -- despite having 100,000 + soldiers in the field -- could do nothing to stop it. So why add more fuel to the fire, by de-stabilizing Assad's regime now, after most secular/liberal/not Saudi-Qatari jihadist sponsored rebels are dead the intervention will guarantee that Syria will definitely descend into an Afghanistan like quagmire. Saudi-Qatari supported Islamic fundamentalists are the strongest and most capable faction in the Syrian rebel forces and with the destruction of the heavy weapons of the Syrian army they will be able to aggressively moveforward anywhere Hizballah fighters are not (isnt it weird how in the middle east the crazier and eviler a faction you represent the better at war you seem to be?). AND an intervention may have the bonus feature of some kind of military confrontation with Iran.
|
On August 28 2013 04:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:
You can massacre thousands of your own people, but only if you use the right kind of weapons.
Seems legit.
Really wishing the European powers hadn't been so quick to throw away colonialism now.
It is legit. And other places where this rule applies: Russian Federation, the PRC, Egypt. Dont see anyone rushing in to launch strikes at any of those places.
|
On August 28 2013 02:24 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 02:07 DrCooper wrote: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.
they still sent in investigators and they found no wmds. so he changed their story to FOR DEMOCRACY.
the difference is that we knew there were chemical weapons before, and we know now they have been used?
|
even if the rebels used chemical weapons, it's time to end chaos in syria. we dont need an unstable, weak rogue state which is fighting against it's own citizens with heavy weapons for one year. damn you guys, we a have 900 km long border with them.
|
On August 28 2013 04:36 huun wrote:
even if the rebels used chemical weapons, it's time to end chaos in syria. we dont need an unstable, weak rogue state which is fighting against it's own citizens with heavy weapons for one year. damn you guys, we a have 900 km long border with them.
and 402000 troops, so why dont you handle it.
|
On August 28 2013 04:41 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 04:36 huun wrote:
even if the rebels used chemical weapons, it's time to end chaos in syria. we dont need an unstable, weak rogue state which is fighting against it's own citizens with heavy weapons for one year. damn you guys, we a have 900 km long border with them. and 402000 troops, so why dont you handle it.
I'm kinda surprised that Turkey hasn't done anything yet. Edrogan could use a good war to distract dissidents at home and expand Turkey's influence in the Middle East like he wants.
|
The thing(s) I'm worried about intervention.
He is probably dead the moment the west intervenes, although they probably won't kill him he and his entire family (possibly clan) will be killed by the rebels. See Gadaffi.
If (and this is still a if) Assad is crazy enough to use chem weapons and the west intervenes but only by air.
Then what is stopping him from just going all out and attempting to either win or weaken the opposition quickly by mass strikes with WMD's and then dispersing his soldiers in to populace. How the hell do you get rid of him then? It could feasibly work if he just killed enough people.
Or just sneak out a couple of cannisters of VX to terrorists as revenge and a "fuck you" note to the West. VX in a subway or pretty much anywhere with a lot of people could be really, really scary.
I guess the alternative is to offer him safe haven in Russia/South America with all the money he stole from his people. So much for justice I guess.
Also how good is the proof if they can't even put it out openly in the UN? I'm still not convinced (and neither is Russia obviously).
|
But if Turkey attacks Syria, how would NATO and Russia react? Would they let them do it? I'm not sure why would they. Also, I just looked it up and they actually have 495000 deployable forces, not 402000. Pretty scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
