Syria a go

[Kel-chan]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/syria-cameron-obama-agree-military-2218347?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

here we go again...

Will China Russia and Iran sit idly by? Will Israel make the 1st strike? Will Hezbollah and Egypt get sucked in?

Find out next time on World War 3

[Korriken]

At 8/24/13 09:00 PM, Kel-chan wrote:

Will China Russia and Iran sit idly by? Will Israel make the 1st strike? Will Hezbollah and Egypt get sucked in?

Neither China nor Russia will openly attack the USA. China's economy would go bust within months, and that would cripple their military. Russia doesn't have the technology to stand up to the USA, either. Egypt has its own problems to deal with right now and Hezbollah most likely has soliders in the area already.

Also a China going to war with the USA would most likely wipe China's debt to the USA as a condition to ending the war.

China may have a much larger army, but that doesn't mean much when they have a inferior navy and air force.

[Kel-chan]

At 8/25/13 06:57 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/24/13 09:00 PM, Kel-chan wrote:

Will China Russia and Iran sit idly by? Will Israel make the 1st strike? Will Hezbollah and Egypt get sucked in?

Neither China nor Russia will openly attack the USA. China's economy would go bust within months, and that would cripple their military. Russia doesn't have the technology to stand up to the USA, either. Egypt has its own problems to deal with right now and Hezbollah most likely has soliders in the area already.

Also a China going to war with the USA would most likely wipe China's debt to the USA as a condition to ending the war.

China may have a much larger army, but that doesn't mean much when they have a inferior navy and air force.

None of these other countries have to attack the US militarily. There are other means of assymetric warfare that are the only way most of these other countries can harm the US. Cyber attacks along with economic attacks would probably reek more havoc than bullets and bombs

[KatMaestro]

Syria to allow inspectors to site of suspected chemical weapons attack

Heh, US is making a show for another war. Good job, Osama, I mean Obama.

[Warforger]

At 8/24/13 09:00 PM, Kel-chan wrote: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/syria-cameron-obama-agree-military-2218347?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

here we go again...

Will China Russia and Iran sit idly by? Will Israel make the 1st strike? Will Hezbollah and Egypt get sucked in?

Israel has already made alot of strikes into Lebanon and Syria for months now, Russia has already sold Syria Anti-Aircraft missiles. If anything the US and the UK are a bit late to the party to fire the first shot and now are at a huge disadvantage since Syria has beefed up its AA defenses.

Find out next time on World War 3

[Warforger]

Oh and I forgot to mention, Hezbollah is already in this, in fact they're the reason Al-Assad is still around.

Oh and WWIII has been expected ever since 1945, kind of a cry wolf situation at this point.

[Ceratisa]

At 8/25/13 01:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Oh and I forgot to mention, Hezbollah is already in this, in fact they're the reason Al-Assad is still around.

Oh and WWIII has been expected ever since 1945, kind of a cry wolf situation at this point.

Pretty sure WWIII was only expected around 1949 when the USSR became a nuclear power.

[Kel-chan]

At 8/25/13 01:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Oh and I forgot to mention, Hezbollah is already in this, in fact they're the reason Al-Assad is still around.

Oh and WWIII has been expected ever since 1945, kind of a cry wolf situation at this point.

Yes they are sending some fighters and support but they haven't launched an all out attack because they are Iran's proxy and get thier marching orders from them.

What I'm talking about are Iran's agreements with Syria if they are invaded. Yes Israel has been firing potshots and whatnot but we're not into an aerial or ground invasion. I fully expect if the US or Nato attempt a no fly zone this time they will lose aircraft at the very least

[Warforger]

At 8/25/13 04:13 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Yes they are sending some fighters and support but they haven't launched an all out attack because they are Iran's proxy and get thier marching orders from them.

Actually no they sent out a full invasion, Al-Assad probably would've fallen by now had Hezbollah not intervened. They didn't just go in and support, they downright lead the way.

What I'm talking about are Iran's agreements with Syria if they are invaded. Yes Israel has been firing potshots and whatnot but we're not into an aerial or ground invasion.

Israel has launched airstrikes to hit arms shipments for a couple months now, which are escalating.

I fully expect if the US or Nato attempt a no fly zone this time they will lose aircraft at the very least

At this point they will, had they done this earlier they probably would've lost alot less.

[Fim]

So after 100,000 people have been killed, 2.5 - 3 million refuges displaced, and over 2 years after this all started they decide to stop twiddling their thumbs and actually do something. I'm tempted to say about time, but ill wait to see what they actually do before I weigh in on this.

People also need to understand that this is not like Iraq, or Aphganistan, or WW2. Try and understand this conflict on its own history and merits, this is a atrocious situation where the Syrian government has been tearing the shit out of its own people, targeted children, hospitals & doctors and now using chemical weapons. I really don't think this can be ignored any longer despite how much people think that's a viable attitude to foreign policy, brown people have feelings too guys!

[Kel-chan]

At 8/25/13 06:09 PM, Fim wrote: So after 100,000 people have been killed, 2.5 - 3 million refuges displaced, and over 2 years after this all started they decide to stop twiddling their thumbs and actually do something. I'm tempted to say about time, but ill wait to see what they actually do before I weigh in on this.

People also need to understand that this is not like Iraq, or Aphganistan, or WW2. Try and understand this conflict on its own history and merits, this is a atrocious situation where the Syrian government has been tearing the shit out of its own people, targeted children, hospitals & doctors and now using chemical weapons. I really don't think this can be ignored any longer despite how much people think that's a viable attitude to foreign policy, brown people have feelings too guys!

Does anybody realize that the US has been backing the rebels (AKA ALQUEDA) for the past 2 yrs??? The only reason this has continued is because the US has been continually arming these mercs

[Kel-chan]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-backs-syrian-rebel-military-aid-as-chemicals-used.html

http://rt.com/news/usa-welcomes-syria-embargo-909/

If the west really wanted to stop this crap they wouldnt be pouring gasoline on it. They would settle it diplomatically through soft power. Its rediculous to think adding more arms and armaments to a shitstorm is gonna bring peace and stability. What is their goal. To take out Assad and install another sympathetic puppet govt like they did in egypt so this nonsense can happen again when the ppl throw out the puppet dictator?

enough of the we had to bomb the village to save it- jeez

[Profanity]

At 8/25/13 06:27 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Does anybody realize that the US has been backing the rebels (AKA ALQUEDA) for the past 2 yrs??? The only reason this has continued is because the US has been continually arming these mercs

There are a dozen different groups in the Syrian Opposition. Some of them have ties to Al Qaeda. Some of them are ex-Assad. Mostly, they're just local Syrians.

Do you want to know WHY they have ties to Al Qaeda? Because Al Qaeda is financed by oil rich nations in the Middle East. They have a large anti-government network which is already in place all throughout the Middle East. If they weren't in contact with Al Qaeda, they wouldn't stand a chance of fighting against Assad.

[lapis]

At 8/25/13 06:09 PM, Fim wrote: People also need to understand that this is not like Iraq, (...) this is a atrocious situation where the Syrian government has been tearing the shit out of its own people (...) and now using chemical weapons.

Right, because the Iraqis under Saddam never tore the shit out of their own people, nor did they ever use chemical weapons. Except for that one time of course, when they killed 3,500 to 5,000 of their own people with mustard gas and nerve agents and the outside world was like 'meh'. Other than that, this is a completely different situation.

I find this so funny. I was here eight years ago when Bush was president and the Iraq war had just started and back then, you could draw a line between liberals and conservatives and you'd know that all the liberals were against the war and the conservatives all supported it. Now, Obama is president and i seems like the reverse is taking place: the liberals all want the West to enforce regime change and the conservatives all have reservations.

It's really sobering to see how support for a war just seems to depend on who's the current president. At least I was (and are) against both wars so I can look at myself in the mirror, bwah.

[Kel-chan]

At 8/25/13 06:36 PM, lapis wrote:

I find this so funny. I was here eight years ago when Bush was president and the Iraq war had just started and back then, you could draw a line between liberals and conservatives and you'd know that all the liberals were against the war and the conservatives all supported it. Now, Obama is president and i seems like the reverse is taking place: the liberals all want the West to enforce regime change and the conservatives all have reservations.

It's really sobering to see how support for a war just seems to depend on who's the current president. At least I was (and are) against both wars so I can look at myself in the mirror, bwah.

I can't for the life of me understand this BS. All these Liberals were supposedly anti Bush when he was invading Iraq and afghanistan. Yet When Libya is bombed and now Syria not a peep. Apparently Democrats can do no wrong. Also at the same time when the US economy sucks balls and the national debt is exploding they want to go start another war?? So what if Syria is in civil war. Thats terrible but its their buisness. But the reason we're over there is not for freedom or that BS. It's to prop up the US petro dollar and make damn sure the middle east trades their oil in dollars. The real target is Iran and they know that Iran and Syria have defensive pacts so that Iran can get easily drawn into this mess.

I wish these fools that are all gung ho for this crap could be specifically be taxed for it and have their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters and themselves sent over there to carry out these missions in harms way.

The amount of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy is astounding at best.

[Profanity]

Holy shit, really Kel-Chan?

The Bush administration fabricated the evidence used to justify war in Iraq to finish a project his father began a decade prior which was cut off by Clinton besting him in the 92 election.

We had CIA, NSA, UN workers, etc all saying that it was a load of crap. That after the closest election in US History where the electoral college which held the sway vote was lead by the Republican winner's brother and there was significant evidence of a election rigging. The election was all about Bush versus Clinton.

How much do you REALLY know about the last 2 decades of US politics?

[Ceratisa]

At 8/25/13 06:35 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 8/25/13 06:27 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Does anybody realize that the US has been backing the rebels (AKA ALQUEDA) for the past 2 yrs??? The only reason this has continued is because the US has been continually arming these mercs

There are a dozen different groups in the Syrian Opposition. Some of them have ties to Al Qaeda. Some of them are ex-Assad. Mostly, they're just local Syrians.

Do you want to know WHY they have ties to Al Qaeda? Because Al Qaeda is financed by oil rich nations in the Middle East. They have a large anti-government network which is already in place all throughout the Middle East. If they weren't in contact with Al Qaeda, they wouldn't stand a chance of fighting against Assad.

No they aren't fewer and fewer Syrians are actually "rebels" We know the "rebels" have Sarin gas Turkey said so, Turkey is not on Assad's side.

[Fim]

At 8/25/13 06:35 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 8/25/13 06:27 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Does anybody realize that the US has been backing the rebels (AKA ALQUEDA) for the past 2 yrs??? The only reason this has continued is because the US has been continually arming these mercs

There are a dozen different groups in the Syrian Opposition. Some of them have ties to Al Qaeda. Some of them are ex-Assad. Mostly, they're just local Syrians.

This. There's a bunch of different groups involved, some of which are more dodgy than others, but if you were in there position you'd take help anyway you could too. The west's response has been incredibly underwelming up till now.

At 8/25/13 06:36 PM, lapis wrote: I find this so funny. I was here eight years ago when Bush was president and the Iraq war had just started and back then, you could draw a line between liberals and conservatives and you'd know that all the liberals were against the war and the conservatives all supported it. Now, Obama is president and i seems like the reverse is taking place: the liberals all want the West to enforce regime change and the conservatives all have

The situation in Syria is nothing like the situation in Iraq pre invasion. Why are you talking about this conflict only in terms of how it affects American politics?

[Kel-chan]

At 8/25/13 06:57 PM, Fim wrote:

There are a dozen different groups in the Syrian Opposition. Some of them have ties to Al Qaeda. Some of them are ex-Assad. Mostly, they're just local Syrians.

This. There's a bunch of different groups involved, some of which are more dodgy than others, but if you were in there position you'd take help anyway you could too. The west's response has been incredibly underwelming up till now.

The situation in Syria is nothing like the situation in Iraq pre invasion. Why are you talking about this conflict only in terms of how it affects American politics?

So yeah the US should be arming their pet group. You mean to tell me in this clusterfuck they have full accountability to which groups their arms and supplies are going? It makes sense to compare it with American politics because the US and NATO are sticking their noses in it. I dont remember syria asking for institution of a no fly zone from NATO

[lapis]

At 8/25/13 06:57 PM, Fim wrote: The situation in Syria is nothing like the situation in Iraq pre invasion.

The only difference is that Saddam was more effective in squashing the (both Shi'a and Kurdish) uprisings in his country at the time. But don't pretend like this situation is so much different in the sense that Assad has committed crimes that Saddam never committed during his time in power.

Why are you talking about this conflict only in terms of how it affects American politics?

Because of the influence that it seems to have on posters on this BBS (and another blog that I sometimes visit).

[lapis]

At 8/25/13 06:57 PM, Fim wrote: This. There's a bunch of different groups involved, some of which are more dodgy than others, but if you were in there position you'd take help anyway you could too. The west's response has been incredibly underwelming up till now.

What do you think about this, author of article on the BBC website front page?

The Western powers have never wanted the rebels to win. Their strategy has been to redress the balance so that the regime came under such pressure that it would cave in, dump the Assad leadership and negotiate a transition that would exclude the inner ruling circle while preserving stability and state structures.

There has never been evidence to suggest such an approach might work. The signs have always been that the regime would pull the whole house down around it before capitulating, and also that its strategic allies, especially Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, would not allow that to happen.

In addition, the West faces the reality that the moderate opposition elements it has been trying to boost have proven neither cohesive, credible nor effective on the ground. Instead, the running has largely been made by Islamist factions, many linked to al-Qaeda.

Seriously, there are no secular forces among the rebels to speak of to begin with, and while their ideas range from sympathy to the Muslim Brotherhood to outright allegiance to Al-Qaeda it are the latter groups that have the ideological and military upper hand.

[Kel-chan]

Like I said it reminds me of the Egypt color revolution. The 1st one was a fake so they could put in their sympathetic western puppet. After that failed they're in a tough spot because egypt allows them access to the ME so they cant pull a libya there.

I dont think people realize how intertwined Syria is. The Russians evactuated their military base there but they're still sitting off coast and that is still their base. I think its funny that all these color revolutions the US has been backing the muslim brotherhood in countries that were finally close to secularizing after decades of struggle. Its obvious the Egyptians dont want it and dont forget Syria is a very mixed country too. They probably wouldnt go for a muslim brotherhood puppet govt either even if that could be installed.

The real reason for all of this isnt religious or political. Its to make sure the entire middle east has central banks setup to sell oils in dollars. The US doesnt really care who that brings to power as long as their puppets play ball.

Both Saddam and Ghaddafi were trying to extricate themselves from the US dollar and they both were crushed. Syria is Iran's proxy. If Syria is crushed they that lets the US have land route to Iran. I highly doubt tho that Russia will allow that as that is their backyard and they are not going to abandon their hold there. Not to mention China not liking that as they dont want another ME country under the petro dollar.

This is wider than just Syria

[Ceratisa]

Assad is the one protecting minorities in Syria, because he is one himself.

[Korriken]

At 8/25/13 07:12 PM, lapis wrote:

Seriously, there are no secular forces among the rebels to speak of to begin with, and while their ideas range from sympathy to the Muslim Brotherhood to outright allegiance to Al-Qaeda it are the latter groups that have the ideological and military upper hand.

and that is why I say, sit back. grab some popcorn, and let them kill each other off.

[Feoric]

At 8/25/13 08:23 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Assad is the one protecting minorities in Syria, because he is one himself.

What the hell kind of statement is this? Assad is also responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ people and the ensuing total war ethnic cleansing campaign. What are you even trying to say here? Are you trying to phrase this in a way which only makes sense in a domestic US political debate? Corny US-centric campaign soundbites don't translate very well when you're using them to casually show your support for a despotic dictator who is solely responsible for a sectarian civil war in the Middle East you dope. Tell us all about how Assad has helped the Alawites who will undoubtedly be massacred once Assad's regime falls. I'm sure they're gonna be really glad in retrospect when they start thinking about how this all happened, and how it all started when Assad directly ordered the wholesale murdering of people who dared to protest against him.

[Ceratisa]

At 8/26/13 01:46 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/25/13 08:23 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Assad is the one protecting minorities in Syria, because he is one himself.

t you dope.

Ad hominem, very mature Feo.

But go on keep going "ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT."

[Feoric]

At 8/26/13 03:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But go on keep going "ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT."

Yeah, my bad. It's not Assad's fault he ordered the military and the police to shoot at his own people, eventually resulting in this fucking quagmire of a civil war. What is wrong with you?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

like the rebels are any better from what I am reading from regional news they're doing some pretty fucked up shit too. so neither side is innocent here, for all intensive purposes just keep our boots off the ground shoot missiles and use drones and establish a no fly zone.

[Fim]

At 8/26/13 04:48 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/26/13 03:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But go on keep going "ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT."

Yeah, my bad. It's not Assad's fault he ordered the military and the police to shoot at his own people, eventually resulting in this fucking quagmire of a civil war. What is wrong with you?

It's easier to appear worldly and condescending then actually bothering to look at the facts.

At 8/25/13 06:57 PM, Fim wrote: The situation in Syria is nothing like the situation in Iraq pre invasion.

The only difference is that Saddam was more.. But don't pretend like this situation is so much different in the sense that Assad has committed crimes.

So when a dictator uses chemical weapons and kills over 100,000 people, displaces 3 million and destroys towns, cities and world heritage sites what do you suggest the international community does? Nothing? Because the current attitude to Syria has basically been to ignore it and hope it goes away, and it keeps getting worse.

And if you really think those 2 conflicts are similar than you really don't know anything about a) the invasion of Iraq or b) the civil war in Syria.

[Earfetish]

How will it get better if the US gets involved? Learn from recent history.

The Russians don't want the US to get involved; if you lived in Russia or China you would definitely think the US should not get involved. If you live in the US or UK the media constantly tells you what a fantastic idea it would be to get involved. If we get involved, shit will not get better, shit will just get more heavily armed. The Russians are allegedly backing up Assad, if we sent over all our cool weapons then the Russians would send over their cool weapons. I would suspect the only powerful people pushing for US involvement are those who would make money out of the situation; for instance Syria sells oil to Russia, and if we got involved we could get them selling it to Qatar.

However unimaginable the death toll is and the human rights abuses are, they will be even more unimaginable if we get involved. Humanitarian goals will have nothing to do with our eventual decision to get involved, the Almighty Dollar will be the only aim.

What do you expect if we get involved? Assad loses immediately, all the well-armed Al Qaeda-backed militias throw their guns down and hold hands and hold elections? Didn't happen in Iraq, didn't happen in Afghanistan. Saddam was just as bad as Assad.