SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

danniemcq

Syrian War threads merged.

Karl Stein

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

But why are they interested in Syria?

Consider this:

TEHRAN - Iran, Iraq, and Syria have signed a deal for the construction of the Middle East’s largest gas pipeline, which would transit Iranian gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field to Europe via Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea.

According to the deal, Iranian gas will be transited to Greece and other European countries via a 6,000-kilometer pipeline crossing thorough Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and under the Mediterranean Sea.

tehrantimes.com

The US is hell bent on preventing Iran develop - if the Syrian regime falls you can be fairly sure this pipeline will not be built.

Wars start for many reasons so that would be only one aspect.

Amirani

Playing Devils' advocate here because I wouldn't support any sort of military action at this stage but - if it's found not to be Assad who caused this, is there not perhaps an even bigger argument for intervention given that Syria's chemical weapons seem to be finding their way into the hands of crazy jihadists that are willing to blow up innocent people in an attempt to force Western Governments to attack Assad?

Karl Stein

danniemcq wrote: »

Syrian War threads merged.

Could you add a poll to see if people do or don't support western military intervention in Syria?

It'd be interesting to see what the percentages would be.

Karl Stein

NiallSparky wrote: »

bigger argument for intervention

If they're determined enough to use them I can't see how anything but a massive boots-on-the-ground invasion would prevent it and I don't think anyone has the stomach for that.

Jonny7

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

If they're determined enough to use them I can't see how anything but a massive boots-on-the-ground invasion would prevent it and I don't think anyone has the stomach for that.

True, but no side has even remotely dared to mention boots on the ground. Would be limited to air only I suspect, with training and supply of rebels from Turkey and other neighbouring countries

Killer Wench

9% of Americans support intervention in Syria. Military intervention would not be boots on the ground; it would be the use of long and medium range missiles to take out chemical stockpiles.

When we say Western intervention, we mean US intervention. France and the UK will support the US in how they go about it, but I doubt it will be British or French missiles taking out those weapons. It would be lovely if I was proven wrong on that score.

Nodin

Killer Wench wrote: »

9% of Americans support intervention in Syria. Military intervention would not be boots on the ground; it would be the use of long and medium range missiles to take out chemical stockpiles.

When we say Western intervention, we mean US intervention. France and the UK will support the US in how they go about it, but I doubt it will be British or French missiles taking out those weapons. It would be lovely if I was proven wrong on that score.

...be a bloody miracle.

crockholm

I wonder about the pride of the American public when US built and bought weapons are gunning down US civillians/soldiers in the next conflict,as surely the weaponry will find it's way into the international jihadists hands.

60% of the American public is against this war as opposed to 9% pro.The Idiot Obama got himself into the quagmire by promising action if the Govt. forces used chemical weapons,lo and behold, and yet before all the evidence is collected and analized,they have a decision-IT'S ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!, not to worry Barrack,a nice speech with a few dramatic pauses,maybe an inserted clip of a middle aged minority woman in tears at your eloquence and all will be forgiven.

Renegade Mechanic

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Consider this:



The US is hell bent on preventing Iran develop - if the Syrian regime falls you can be fairly sure this pipeline will not be built.

Wars start for many reasons so that would be only one aspect.

Hmmm. Disrupting Iranian gas sales would certainly work for the U.S and now that I think of it, isnt Syria Irans only ally with a coastline?

Ten of Swords

NiallSparky wrote: »

Playing Devils' advocate here because I wouldn't support any sort of military action at this stage

I really do not understand why the threat of western intervention suddenly means it's a 'new war'

This campaign has been ongoing for nearly 2 years and this is simply the introduction of new combatants.

Both sides have currently fought themselves to a stalemate, which is usually the point in most conflicts where the atrocities sharply escalate. All that is going to happen here is the current stalemate will be broken and the war (may) end sooner than it otherwise would.

danniemcq

Poll added.

Votes are private, only one vote per user.

I think I covered all bases with the choices.

pablomakaveli

Could we get an option for military intervention to protect refugees and civilians only? That would be preference anyway.

My name is URL

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Its a joke. All these politicians rushing to put the blame on Syria for the awful attack. It just doesnt seem right

Also - http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

May 30, 2013 wrote:

Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb

Karl Stein

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Hmmm. Disrupting Iranian gas sales would certainly work for the U.S and now that I think of it, isnt Syria Irans only ally with a coastline?

On the Med, yep.

Pepe Escobar writes interesting pieces on the geopolitical game of chess being played out in the middle east - he follows the money pipelines.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Give neither side any aid.. Its a civil war, leave them to sort out their own affairs.

donegal_road

Interesting article by Robert Fisk

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago.

danniemcq

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Could we get an option for military intervention to protect refugees and civilians only? That would be preference anyway.

Personally I think it has gone to far to do that by itself. It would require at least a no fly zone as most fighting is already happening in urban areas. You can't mark off parts for protection when there is chemical weapons involved.

I don't want to get to technical in the poll. You'd be here all day, even arguing who should be involved.

For example should Israel get involved directly or sit out. Would they be protecting their own interests but leave themselves open to attack in a proxy war?

There are so many variables in war, never mind a civil war, never mind a civil war in a very volatile area with 2 huge nations on either side (USA vs RUSSIA) and throw Iran and Israel into the mix.....

Amirani

Yahir Shaggy Peg wrote: »

Give neither side any aid.. Its a civil war, leave them to sort out their own affairs.

I really dislike the idea of arming and giving any sort of military aid to either side. The idea of a no-fly zone or targeted strikes on chemical weapons facilities I think could be palatable in certain circumstances.

arybvtcw0eolkf

NiallSparky wrote: »

I really dislike the idea of arming and giving any sort of military aid to either side. The idea of a no-fly zone or targeted strikes on chemical weapons facilities I think could be palatable in certain circumstances.

Speaking from past experience, once bombs and bullets start to fly its very hard to stop them.

And going to war for peace is like f*cking for virginity, doesn't work.

danniemcq

donegal_road wrote: »

Interesting article by Robert Fisk

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Oh sure they supported the Taliban against the Russians, oh and Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war (although to be fair they also supported Iran at the same time)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend after all.

theGEM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I really dislike the idea of arming and giving any sort of military aid to either side. The idea of a no-fly zone or targeted strikes on chemical weapons facilities I think could be palatable in certain circumstances.

You can't bomb the chemical plants, the munitions will just become widely available then. From the stuff I've seen on LiveLeak I think the rebels set off the chemical attack last week.

Benny_Cake

Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair is up to his old tricks:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/tony-blair-intervention-syria

The more I read about this, the less I like it. Absolutely no thought has gone into this, it will be an intervention purely because they feel that something must be done.

Jonny7

The plan acc. to several newspapers is that the US/France/UK will use limited strikes to hit Syrian military airfields, artillery and aircraft - anything that can help deliver chemical weapons.

This is
a) to punish the regime
b) to show them that chemical weapon use will not be tolerated

They will not target chemical sites for obvious reasons (too risky), and will probably involve strikes, followed by a period of assessment, followed by more strikes, over 2 days or more.

They are going to apparently be releasing information/evidence this week on the chemical attack, bolstering the case for limited strikes

Again this is allegedly the plan, the final decision is with Obama, and also with France and UK. They have the go ahead from the 22 nation Arab league.

All this centers around chemical weapon use. Pretty dramatic stuff considering the last 2 and half years.

Lightbulb Sun

I believe the UKs stance on what action they will take will be discussed on Thursday in parliament.

Lapin

WIZE wrote: »

The West v Syria build up - Kick off TBA

So it for sure that sh1ts going to hit the fan now that it is proven chemical weapons were used and the West are blaming the Syrian Regime.

The West Line-up so far -
US
UK
France

Syrian Line-up so far -
Syria
(Russia ?) TBA



So will this be a drawn out war or in and out within days.

Why?

Do you need to know how much beers and snacks to get in for it ?

You actually sound like you're looking forward to it.

What a twisted post.

WIZE

Lapin wrote: »

Why?

Do you need to know how much beers and snacks to get in for it ?

You actually sound like you're looking forward to it.

What a twisted post.

Looking forward to it no. Is it going to happen yes. Can I stop it no.

So I will watch it to see what happens.

My question still stands on peoples opinions on wheather it will be a drawn out war as Syria have Hugh Military capability or a couple of missiles launched and thats the end of it.

I find war interesting as its History being made.

Jonny7

WIZE wrote: »

Looking forward to it no. Is it going to happen yes. Can I stop it no.

So I will watch it to see what happens.

My question still stands on peoples opinions on wheather it will be a drawn out war as Syria have Hugh Military capability or a couple of missiles launched and thats the end of it.

I find war interesting as its History being made.

Looks like 2 to 3 days of strikes on military targets in Syria. Likely cruise missile only and possibly stealth bombers.

They'll likely strike airfields, aircraft, some command and control centres and some equipment - but won't go near any of the chemical weapon storage sites

GavRedKing

Option 5 but it will probably lead to a regime change which is something the media reported as not being wanted by the UN council.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.