Syrian civil war

[Malcador]

Well if there unfortunately is an intervention, I'm sure the EU will send troops to back up the US. Heh.

[BruceVC]

Well if there unfortunately is an intervention, I'm sure the EU will send troops to back up the US. Heh.

 

The USA doesn't need to send ground troops. They could assist in air control and enforce a no-fly zone and provide invaluable logistical support. The French and the UK also seem very keen to intervene so this won't be a USA military operation only, just like in Libya.

[Gfted1]

^If there aren't boots on the ground when we JDAM him to back to the stone age then Assad's chemical stockpile will be opened up to the noble "rebels".

[Malcador]

Yeah, I won't hold my breath to see how that keenness plays out.

 

In Syria we have extremists on both sides. On Assad's side we have Iran and Hezbollah, on the rebel side we have MB and Al Qaeda (MB is indigenous btw, and if you think there's an iota of difference between them and AQ, you only have to consider that AQ leader Zawahiri's brother was just arrested fighting for the MB in Egypt). So there are no good options, it's kind of like The Witcher.

Best option is to just stay out of it.

[Walsingham]

Wanting to go in, and having the capability to go in are two very different things.

 

Firstly, I don't think anyone is suggesting the deployment of land forces.

 

Secondly, I don't personally think we have the capability to exact a bloodless domination of the air, like we did in Libya.

 

However, I do think there's enough doubt over our intentions to achieve two things:

 

1. Focus the minds of the regime more firmly on negotiations currently under way.

2. Disrupt ongoing operations and regime capability by obliging them to reorient against a possible air attack. Shift everything from maps to munitions around, disperse command facilities.

 

*shakes head*

 

I just had to deliberately remember that a couple days ago several hundred people got gassed. Interesting how the lack of an obvious guilty party confuses things. It suppose it also iluminates what the public reaction would be to a dirty bomb or somesuch, if it were unattributable. Maybe even make the impact LESS terrifying.

[obyknven]

Lol, Western falcons want yet another intervention.

 

Just reminder how last two Western interventions are ended.

 

Iraq - after long expensive war NATO flee, situation in Iraq not better than in Syria,  civil war.

 

Afghanistan - same situation, NATO make preparation's for flee, also civil war.

 

And after all this Westling's want began new useless ( and hopeless ) war...

 

 

[BruceVC]

^If there aren't boots on the ground when we JDAM him to back to the stone age then Assad's chemical stockpile will be opened up to the noble "rebels".

 

That's a good point. I never thought about that. There would have to be some sort of ground force to ensure the WMD don't fall into the wrong hands. This does make it more complicated

Lol, Western falcons want yet another intervention.

 

Just reminder how last two Western interventions are ended.

 

Iraq - after long expensive war NATO flee, situation in Iraq not better than in Syria,  civil war.

 

Afghanistan - same situation, NATO make preparation's for flee, also civil war.

 

And after all this Westling's want began new useless ( and hopeless ) war...

 

NATO never played a part in the invasion of Iraq, it was a coalition of willing countries led by the USA.

[Keyrock]

Ugh, I see the US getting sucked into yet another costly (both in terms of lives and taxpayer dollars) disaster in Syria.  On the one hand, they did use biological warfare.  On the other hand, if we go in there, nothing good will come of it.

[obyknven]

NATO never played a part in the invasion of Iraq, it was a coalition of willing countries led by the USA.

You funny guy. Nato = USA + Satellite states.

 

Meanwhile 60 percent of all Americans are against U.S. military intervention in Syria... but Obama say GTFO for them and begin preparation to war:

 

The following are 15 signs that Obama has already made the decision to go to war with Syria…

#1 Syria has agreed to allow UN officials to inspect the site of the recent chemical weapons attack that killed up to 1,400 people, but a “senior U.S. official” says that such an inspection would be “too late to be credible“.

#2 According to ABC News, the White House is saying that there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime was behind the deadly chemical weapons attack last week.

#3 Four U.S. warships with ballistic missiles are moving into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. If the command is given, they will be able to rain Tomahawk cruise missiles down on targets inside Syria within minutes…

 

U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military actions, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

 

#4 CBS News is reporting that “the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a Cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces”.

#5 On Saturday, Barack Obama met with his national security team to discuss what actions should be taken in Syria.

#6 U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says that Barack Obama has asked him to “prepare options for all contingencies” as far as a conflict with Syria is concerned.

#7 After a phone conversation with British Prime Minister David Cameron about the situation in Syria, the White House announced that both leaders expressed “grave concern” about the chemical weapons attack that took place last week.

#8 Military commanders from the United States, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, Italy and Canada are meeting in Amman, Jordan on Sunday to coordinate plans for upcoming attacks on Syria.

#9 According to France’s second largest newspaper, rebel forces that have been trained by the CIA have been pouring toward Damascus “since mid-August“…

 

According to our information, the regime’s opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos moving towards Damascus since mid-August. This attack could explain the possible use of the Syrian president to chemical weapons.

According to information obtained by Le Figaro , the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17. A second would have joined the 19. According to military sources, the Americans, who do not want to put troops on the Syrian soil or arming rebels in part controlled by radical Islamists form quietly for several months in a training camp set up at the border Jordanian- Syrian fighters ASL, the Free Syrian Army, handpicked.

 

#10 The U.S. military moved a significant number of F-16 fighter jets to Jordan earlier this year for military exercises, and kept them there afterward “at the request of the Jordanian government“.

#11 According to a government document that Wikileaks released back in March 2012, NATO personnel have been on the ground inside Syria preparing for regime change since 2011.

#12 The Times of Israel is reporting that an internal military assessment has concluded that “Washington is seriously considering a limited yet effective attack that will make it clear to the regime in Damascus that the international community will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction against Syrian civilians or any other elements”.

#13 U.S. Senator John McCain recently said that if the U.S. military does not hit Syria, it will be like “writing a blank check to other brutal dictators around the world if they want to use chemical weapons”.

#14 According to the New York Times, “the NATO air war in Kosovo” is being studied “as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations”.

#15 The White House has released a statement that says that the Obama administration has no plans to put “boots on the ground“, but it did not rule out any other types of military action.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Perhaps Western nations should annex the Middle East and deport all of the extremists to a ****hole like Russia.

[josan motierre]

If there's an intervention, it won't be done right. It needs to be done Roman Style. A proper occupation for a few centuries to make sure every last troublemaker is rooted out and so that later generations can't remember anything differently. Then Democracy can work, and there's enough time for proper human rights to grow and the separation of religion and state enforced.

 

Part of me is being silly, but part of me also isn't. I think such a thing would also have worked in Afghanistan.

 

Or maybe it'll all escalate into WW3. Stranger things have happened. We already have big players (Russia, China, other middle eastern countries) behind Assad, and other big players behind the rebels (USA, France, UK, ...). Whatever happens, thanks to Russia's anti air support and Assad's chemical stockpile, troops are going to have to be deployed on the ground.

 

At any rate, my opinion is the same: Best just to sit this one out.

[Walsingham]

Ugh, I see the US getting sucked into yet another costly (both in terms of lives and taxpayer dollars) disaster in Syria.  On the one hand, they did use biological warfare.  On the other hand, if we go in there, nothing good will come of it.

 

Um... they used a nerve agent, as in chemical warfare. I'm sure you didn't mean biological.

 

Regarding Iraq, yes it is still suffering, with a huge loss of civilian lives, it's not on the same scale as Syria. It is not a civil war. Moreover, although we shoulder some responsibility, I am quaint in my belief that the people carrying out the murders are at least partly to blame as well.

 

The important thing about Iraq is that while it has many problems it has been carrying out free elections under close international scrutiny. Consequently I feel justified in hoping that they will move towards reconciliation and stabilisation. The basic premise being that ordinary people don't want to live in a warzone, and if they can vote they will vote towards that end. 

 

EDIT: Jason Motierre - There's no such thing as 'sitting something out' in international politics. You can't just drape a blanket over the Middle East and hope it goes to sleep. But then at present we also lack to will and means to intervene in a useful way. Our best and only hope is that moderate progressives assume some negotiated role in Syria in exchange for redress of grievances, and something like the SA Truth and Reconciliation effort.

 

Slim hope, though. We can count on continued efforts by jifs and Iranian proxies to destabilise and murder their way towards a complete collapse.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Walsingham

[josan motierre]

Why not? There are countries in the world that choose not to enter conflicts.

 

For example, France in the Iraq War.

[Walsingham]

It's a fair question, but the debates a more complex one than would fit in this thread. Suffice to say that France has luxury of enjoying similar dependencies as the US and UK. She tends to rely on us doing her work for her, Mali notwithstanding.

[Malcador]

Perhaps Western nations should annex the Middle East and deport all of the extremists to a ****hole like Russia.

Trying to counter-troll oby or something ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Something like that.

[BruceVC]

Perhaps Western nations should annex the Middle East and deport all of the extremists to a ****hole like Russia.

 

That cracked me up.

 

But the idea makes sense, Russia is such a friendly place where they treat foreigners and people that are different to them really well. It would make sense and Russia has loads of land that they doing nothing with?

 

[BruceVC]

It's a fair question, but the debates a more complex one than would fit in this thread. Suffice to say that France has luxury of enjoying similar dependencies as the US and UK. She tends to rely on us doing her work for her, Mali notwithstanding.

 

Ah Walsie he caught you out there    France and many other countries did indeed sit out the Iraq war

 

But that shouldn't be surprising, despite what people like Oby think most countries can't be forced to participate in wars or invasion just because country x says you must help us. They have to feel its in there national interest to do so. Most of the time this is what determines military involvement, strategic national interest and that's how intervention should occur. That's normal.

So why shouldn't the West sit out the Syrian conflict? There are several reasons but for me the main ones are

 

• The loss of life in Syria as this interminable conflict drags on. 100,000 or more people have been killed. Millions of people displaced and huge parts of Syria have been destroyed. What about the moral obligation to stop this civil war?
• The West is aligned with the Sunni dominated countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They want the Assad governments brutal suppression of the rebels to be stopped. The West should help its allies
• Iran is strongly supporting Assad, they have committed resources and manpower to keep him in power. The West can reduce both the power and influence of Iran by defeating Assad. This can only be a good thing as I believe Iran is a threat to stability in the region
• Finally the use of Chemical weapons is an unquestionable line that Assad has crossed. Apart from all the other reasons just the fact that Assad has used these weapons should be a strong signal he needs to be removed from power. What next will he use if he is allowed to stay in power ? Biological....

[Cultist]

But the idea makes sense, Russia is such a friendly place where they treat foreigners and people that are different to them really well. It would make sense and Russia has loads of land that they doing nothing with?

 

Russia seems like a friendly place for immigrants and foreigners, especially islamic ones

http://youtu.be/fxN6pZcAa-s

Edited August 26, 2013 by Cultist

[Cultist]

It's chemicals time!

http://youtu.be/UxUhMRTkCEo

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Perhaps Western nations should annex the Middle East and deport all of the extremists to a ****hole like Russia.

 

 

That cracked me up.

 

But the idea makes sense, Russia is such a friendly place where they treat foreigners and people that are different to them really well. It would make sense and Russia has loads of land that they doing nothing with?

 

Perhaps with the surge of extremism, Russia will actually be relevant again, and the West can crush them.

[Malcador]

Tiresome. Anyway, apparently people are shooting at the UN inspectors, heh.

[BruceVC]

Tiresome. Anyway, apparently people are shooting at the UN inspectors, heh.

 

This shouldn't be a surprise Malc, the Assad regime has been trying everything in its power to stop the UN inspectors getting the evidence that they used Chemical weapons.

[Gfted1]

You know, I retired the picardfacepalm.gif in honor of another posters passing but youre really pushing me Bruce. What in the world makes you think you have any idea who really fired on the inspectors? The first word of the BBC article states the snipers are unidentified.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I suppose either Asswad or the Islamists could be behind it. Either way, it is the work of anti-West forces who need to be bombed into oblivion.