The Coming War With Syria

SafeSurfer

Here we go again. Western intervention in support of Syrian rebels seems increasingly inevitable. It is a familiar story. The west helps to arm the rebel faction, thus escalating the violence, the media reports civilian deaths as government atrocities while ignoring the killings of government troops and supporters.

Cue UN, or since the Libyan fiasco, more likely unilateral military intervention by a "coalition of the willing". Some cabal of western powers who see instability in Syria as an opportunity to advance their regional agendas.

The big prize is, of course Iran and tightening the noose on the Iranian regime by isolating it, eliminating its allies and clearing an air path to its borders for a US or Israeli strike.

Far fetched? BS? Conspiracy?

Lets wait and see.

FANTAPANTS

i wouldnt say you are a million miles from the truth!!!

John Doe1

Banned and Assassinated

DrumSteve

And once again, the innocent will suffer the most.

recylingbin

I know war is meant to be tough and all that, but let's hope it's on at a reasonable time, I'm not staying up all night like I did with Iraq.

admiralofthefleet

why havent the americans gone in and robbed the oil yet? they were like flies around shite in libya last year

Kylo Ren

The coming war you say? Hmmmm

I'm in.

Biggins

We will know when/if the fighting might start when the Bilderberg lot decide to let us know!
Just hang on a little while longer!

Run_to_da_hills

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap" Isaiah 17:1

Biggins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap" Isaiah 17:1

...And thats after Justin Beiber visits! :eek:

summerskin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap" Isaiah 17:1

You scare me, you really do. According to you Obama is the anti-Christ, the Olympics are a gateway for a new world order and now you spout this biblical nonsense.

Please, no more.

MaxSteele

We're a small, neutral nation on the fringes of Europe, thousands of miles away from these middle eastern conflicts, which have no real impact on us.

As long as we have plentiful supply oil .... fcuk the lot of that arab spring, war mongering NATO ****e I say.

ejmaztec

Two reasons for the hesitancy of the US going on an all expenses paid trip to Syria, China and Russia don't want them to.

DEFTLEFTHAND

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

why havent the americans gone in and robbed the oil yet? they were like flies around shite in libya last year

There isn't large enough reserves in Syria.

admiralofthefleet

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There isn't large enough reserves in Syria.

there was some ironing in my post

Keno 92

Keno 92 wrote: »

The coming war you say? Hmmmm

I'm in.

It's gonna get sticky.

bilston

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

why havent the americans gone in and robbed the oil yet? they were like flies around shite in libya last year

Did the Americans go into Libya though? The Americans were involved in the first few days but after that was it not more of an Anglo/French adventure?

Rebelkell

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Here we go again. Western intervention in support of Syrian rebels seems increasingly inevitable. It is a familiar story. The west helps to arm the rebel faction, thus escalating the violence, the media reports civilian deaths as government atrocities while ignoring the killings of government troops and supporters.

Cue UN, or since the Libyan fiasco, more likely unilateral military intervention by a "coalition of the willing". Some cabal of western powers who see instability in Syria as an opportunity to advance their regional agendas.

The big prize is, of course Iran and tightening the noose on the Iranian regime by isolating it, eliminating its allies and clearing an air path to its borders for a US or Israeli strike.

Far fetched? BS? Conspiracy?

Lets wait and see.

Way to go to make a cheap political point on other peoples misery. Hope we never have to live under a regime like the one in Syria. Makes gaza look like butlins but so long as the bad guys ain't jews who cares?

Waiting for i'm not anti semetic reply Yawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bilston

summerskin wrote: »

You scare me, you really do. According to you Obama is the anti-Christ, the Olympics are a gateway for a new world order and now you spout this biblical nonsense.

Please, no more.

Listen to the man, it's all getting a bit close to the 21st December 2012 (the date the Mayans predict the world will end or at least go through some marvellous transformation) for my liking for the West to start more military adventures in the Middle East.

Pottler

bilston wrote: »

Listen to the man, it's all getting a bit close to the 21st December 2012 (the date the Mayans predict the world will end or at least go through some marvellous transformation) for my liking for the West to start more military adventures in the Middle East.

ah will ya stop, just stop. Feckin Mayans didn't even see their own demise coming, let alone that of the world, feckin rock stacking slavers. Just because some people from long ago predicted somthing, that makes it no less of a crock of sh1te than if all us Paddies predict the end of the world as 12 July 3015.

gurramok

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The west helps to arm the rebel faction, thus escalating the violence, the media reports civilian deaths as government atrocities while ignoring the killings of government troops and supporters.

Far fetched? BS? Conspiracy?.

Trying to rewrite history are we? The violence began to escalate when state forces started to murder thousands of unarmed civilians. Do you expect the population to accept their loves ones dying every day for the crime of wanting their civil rights?!

Far fetched your side of things indeed.

Tym

Far fetched? BS? Conspiracy?

Lets wait and see.

Yeah, if it does happen that doesn't in anyway prove it's a conspiracy or not BS.

You've said there will be war wiht Syria, and the only other thing that could happen is...there isn't war with Syria.

Seems pretty 50/50 to me.

And Iran is a haven of equality.

smash

AMERICA.... FUCK YEA!!!

Benny-c

Should this thread be in Conspiracy Theories??:D

SafeSurfer

Rebelkell wrote: »

Way to go to make a cheap political point on other peoples misery. Hope we never have to live under a regime like the one in Syria. Makes gaza look like butlins but so long as the bad guys ain't jews who cares?

Waiting for i'm not anti semetic reply Yawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im not sure what point you are trying to make

Millions of people are living under as bad and worse regimes than that of Syria. As long as the powers of the west have a use for these regimes they are tolerated. Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain torture and murder their citizens every day of the week but be it for extraordinary rendition or other air bases or whatever they are useful so a blind eye is turned.

Dont even mention non interventionism in Africa, Darfur etc.

Not all criticism of Israel can be simply labeled anti semetic and dismissed. It is the default reaction but when Israel is supplying tonnes of weapons to a neighbouring country's rebels and escalating civil war this should be pointed out.

Pottler

FFS, There is only so much warehouse space available to store armaments, at some stage they have to be used up to make more room for current production. This would be a logistical matter. Syria, your ticket came out of the hat in the "where the feck can we flog all this old crap" Military Industrial Complex Lottery. Congratulations. Soon you will be entered into their draw for "Lets sell them lots of building materials and services" Lottery and I fancy their chances somthing rotten.

Doc Ruby

Pottler wrote: »

ah will ya stop, just stop. Feckin Mayans didn't even see their own demise coming

Actually their prophecies mentioned white, bearded demigods arriving to save them, so in a roundabout way they did. Or the Aztecs or whoever. They just mixed up "save" and "slaughter". Its a common typo.

KerranJast

The Americans really can't win. They intervene (in a very limited fashion in Libyas case) to stop Dictactors massacring their populace and they're Imperialist Nazis.

They decide to try and use UN channels instead and get blocked by those fun chaps in Russia and China and they're called callous bastards who only care about oil.

Damned if you do damned if you don't. :rolleyes:

golden lane

it is amazing how problems can be solved.....sitting on your arse criticising....brave heroes no doubt.

Hande hoche!

Pottler wrote: »

FFS, There is only so much warehouse space available to store armaments, at some stage they have to be used up to make more room for current production. This would be a logistical matter. Syria, your ticket came out of the hat in the "where the feck can we flog all this old crap" Military Industrial Complex Lottery. Congratulations. Soon you will be entered into their draw for "Lets sell them lots of building materials and services" Lottery and I fancy their chances somthing rotten.

Sure that's what Libya was for. It's less appealing when the enemy has something approaching credible air defences.

ejmaztec

golden lane wrote: »

it is amazing how problems can be solved.....sitting on your arse criticising....brave heroes no doubt.

I've never heard of a cowardly hero.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Cue UN, or since the Libyan fiasco, more likely unilateral military intervention by a "coalition of the willing". Some cabal of western powers who see instability in Syria as an opportunity to advance their regional agendas.

Hmmm, how can an Arab League requested, UN sanctioned, military intervention comprising over ten states be considered "unilateral"?

Silly man.

Pedant

Ah, sure war makes great TV. Something to watch during the summer.

Anyhow. I think that a war with Syria/Iran will be seen as highly provocative by Russia and China. It could lead to a wider conflict.

World War 3 baby, send the missiles flying!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2HBdRCroks

charlemont

bilston wrote: »

Listen to the man, it's all getting a bit close to the 21st December 2012 (the date the Mayans predict the world will end or at least go through some marvellous transformation) for my liking for the West to start more military adventures in the Middle East.

I'm so sick of hearing about this bull**** that I hope the world does ****en end so I won't hear any more of it.

Typical lies, confusion and hype from the media about thing's they are too thick to understand.

golden lane

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've never heard of a cowardly hero.

listen then.....

charlemont

Pedant wrote: »

Ah, sure war makes great TV. Something to watch during the summer.

Anyhow. I think that a war with Syria/Iran will be seen as highly provocative by Russia and China. It could lead to a wider conflict.

World War 3 baby, send the missiles flying!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2HBdRCroks

They could call it Germany's Revenge, " She's back and this time she's nuclear".

gurramok

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Sure that's what Libya was for. It's less appealing when the enemy has something approaching credible air defences.

Israel managed to bomb a few Syrian sites in 2007 with no resistance, not much air defences there.http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/12/us-israel-syria-idUSN1228366420070912

Pedant

charlemont wrote: »

They could call it Germany's Revenge, " She's back and this time she's nuclear".

Oh dear, next they'll have hardcore porn on daytime TV.

Hande hoche!

gurramok wrote: »

Israel managed to bomb a few Syrian sites in 2007 with no resistance, not much air defences there.http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/12/us-israel-syria-idUSN1228366420070912

True but there was a certain element of surprise. Additionally any meaningful campaign would have to consist of sustained air strikes.

Pottler

Syria sounds like quite a good place to have a war with anyway, lets face it, they're not exactly famous for much, they're not cuddly or cute, feck all amusement parks, their dictator looks like a, err, dick, and we don't get much "stuff" off them. Looks like a runner, tbf, they even have a classic fascist Army with James Bondey uniforms who look fairly expendable. In a top ten "who shall we f*ck with next?" list, they are in the top three. Fly in the ointment is their mates Russia and China, but thats just Diplomacy and somthing to get over/past. I say go gettem Barak, make it look like they are a big threat to world peace/they are bad/they have weapons(heavens!)/they hate us/they are oppressing their people. Should be able to make 1 or 2 of those stick with a bit of effort. In and out, maximum burn. GO USA.

Pedant

I can't wait.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktbhw0v186Q

SafeSurfer

Einhard wrote: »

Hmmm, how can an Arab League requested, UN sanctioned, military intervention comprising over ten states be considered "unilateral"?

Silly man.

I think a man that misunderstands the meaning of unilateral is sillier.

u·ni·lat·er·al   [yoo-nuh-lat-er-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2.
undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.
3.
having only one side or surface; without a reverse side or inside, as a Möbius strip.

bilston

charlemont wrote: »

I'm so sick of hearing about this bull**** that I hope the world does ****en end so I won't hear any more of it.

Typical lies, confusion and hype from the media about thing's they are too thick to understand.

In my defence I wasn't actually being serious

wingsof daun

Syrians may not want democrazy. If they do, let them decide. Hold an election and Assad wins a mile. Amerikkka won't allow such a thing to happen until he is toppled.

The Master of Disaster

What I always find so hypocritical is that we hear the age old shout from the armchair holier than thou-types "Something must be done" but not anything that involves force or anything that can be construed as Western Imperialism. It does leave very little room for manoeuvre to get concrete results. Sanctions, whether economic or otherwise, tend to harm the general population more than the senior political and military leadership and freezing their assets won't do too much. Perhaps bringing China and Russia on board may exert pressure on Assad but anyone who thinks Assad is in complete control of this situation in Syria doesn't really understand it all too well.

Imagine, if you will, that you're walking down the street and you see a man attacking another man. What are you options? You can shout at the man (diplomatic pressure), you can threaten to call the Guards (ICC warrant), you can give a weapon to the man being attacked (arm the rebels) or you can disable the man yourself (military intervention) which you don't want to do as it could be dangerous and you don't know these two men but it will certainly end the fight. Now perhaps some of these things will work but if people in Syria really want to kill each other than a bunch of people sitting around a table in New York or The Hague issuing statements isn't going to stop them. I'm not sure if I'm all too comfortable at present with the idea of arming the rebels. Who are the rebels really? What ethnic/religious groups are they made up of? What are their aims? Plans for a post regime change Syria if it happens? Would they even have the expertise within their ranks to govern? I honestly don't think we can answer all those questions and more satisfactorily at the moment which makes me wary of the idea of throwing a load of training and weapons their way.

For what it's worth I don't think that military intervention is the way forward in Syria now for two reasons. Firstly, as I alluded to above, the situation in Syria is just too complicated at the moment. It's not as simple as Assad is the bad guy (though he most certainly bears a huge responsibility for what's happening) and the rebels are the heroic freedom fighters who have nothing but good intentions. The second is purely the logistics of it; Syria is not Libya. Fighting is mainly in built up urban areas rather than expanses of desert and the Syrian military is better meaning that a purely air campaign might be out of the question. If you were to send in ground troops you'd damn well want to know what and who for so it returns to the the first point.

Of course all of this may change. Maybe diplomatic means will resolve the issue. Maybe we'll learn enough about the situation and the rebels to give them the support they would need to overthrow Assad. Heck, maybe we'll find out we've got it wrong and that the rebels don't command majority support among the general population. Again we just don't know at the minute. Military force, especially by a foreign nation or coalition, should always always be a last resort but it should be presented as a credible option as part of the diplomatic and resolution process. Assad and the various other parties host to this conflict have to believe that if things get so out of hand the world will deploy armed force to stop it. That may then be enough to deter them regardless of whether or not said force is used. Because if they don't believe the rest of the world has the resolve to stop them then things will get far uglier indeed.

newmug

This could be the beginning of WW3. All the conditions are right, sh1te economy, oil running out, russia and china dying to get a slap at america. Dont be hoping for it!

ejmaztec

golden lane wrote: »

listen then.....

<listens>






<still listening>















Nah, still haven't heard of a cowardly hero.

Einhard

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think a man that misunderstands the meaning of unilateral is sillier.

u·ni·lat·er·al   [yoo-nuh-lat-er-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2.
undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.
3.
having only one side or surface; without a reverse side or inside, as a Möbius strip.

A unilateral action is one in which one partner acts without discussing it with others. Had America attacked Libya alone, it would have been a unilateral action. The fact that there were many different, disparate partners involved, ranging from Russia and China to the Gulf states to the EU means that the action cannot possibly be unilateral. It was the very essence of a multi-later action.

Dubnobass

The economy is shagged, A good ol' war will sort it out...

Spread

Syria is well armed

US elections ......... no candidate will risk talking war

The powers that be would rather a weak Syria than a strong one under a new ruler

And the devil you know etc


Soooo, no Arab Spring there

Dubnobass

Spread wrote: »

Syria is well armed

US elections ......... no candidate will risk talking war

The powers that be would rather a weak Syria than a strong one under a new ruler

And the devil you know etc


Soooo, no Arab Spring there

Not to mention backed by the Russians and Chinese