What's needed now (2 yrs ago really) in addition to meaningful arms for the rebs is destruction of the Syrian air force/air bases with cruise missiles and attacks on their armored columns with drones. Although I'm not sure how effective Syrian AA would be against drones. It probably won't happen though. Obama is too much of a wimp.
And next, Syria?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
True. At least it's all out in the open now. US and its allies vs Russia and its allies. Remember MAD??? It really is an eighties revival. Maybe they should get together and sort all this shit out. Quickly.
Where would you fire the cruise missiles from? And what about the Russian naval base in Tartus?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Added to which it might be appropriate to distinquish the Jihadist Al Nusra (AQ) from the generalised Sunni forces, as they see Assad's overthrow as merely part of the process towards the establishment of the caliphate. Also the Kurdish dimension will continue to cause further fractures in the anti-Assad forces, not to mention cause Turkish concern.
All good though? Looks like just the sort of straightforward conflict that we'd want to pitch into...
Subs & surface ships in the E. Med. & planes, & leave the Russian base alone.
You're an idiot.
Jesus fucking christ tom do you really not see the likelihood that in five years time the same lunatics you want to arm now are going to be ploughing planes into buildings and letting off bombs on tube trains
It's more worrying that the Pentagon can't see this really, never mind Tom.
teqniq
DisMembered
Oh I think they can, they just don't give a fuck. They will lose face if they are seen to be doing next to nothing. After all it's not their arses that are on the line.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
Lions led by donkeys. Again.
protesticals
Active Member
eh? You're not paying very close attention, are you?
Interview with British jihadi's fighting in Syria.
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
protesticals
Active Member
eh? eh?
NATO has approved for defensive missile to be placed in Turkey. It is not NATO who is considering arming the opposition. There are a number of countries either doing so or considering it and only two are NATO members.
NATO has approved for defensive missile to be placed in Turkey. It is not NATO who is considering arming the opposition. There are a number of countries either doing so or considering it and only two are NATO members.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Everything just drips sectarianism from these Islamists their hatred of Alawites/Shiites is just immense - this is how they describe:
This is the respectable softer side of jihadi Islam - anyone who doesn't do as they say essentially becomes cowardly apostates.
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2013/06/12/17897.shtml
This is the respectable softer side of jihadi Islam - anyone who doesn't do as they say essentially becomes cowardly apostates.
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2013/06/12/17897.shtml
protesticals
Active Member
Very good reason that we should just keep the fuck away from this conflict. I see no good guys here.
Blowback is always a danger. But, I don't see how an Islamist getting their hands on an anti-tank weapon to fight Assad increases the likelihood of AQ flying planes into buildings or blowing up tube stations. They already want & plan to do that.Jesus fucking christ tom do you really not see the likelihood that in five years time the same lunatics you want to arm now are going to be ploughing planes into buildings and letting off bombs on tube trains
I don't want Assad to survive the Arab spring. I remember the fallout from arming the mujaheddin but mistakes can be learned from & things done differently. The threat from the Islamists was caused by delay & indecision in the West. This is one of the few times when I think the West should intervene. I'm glad it happened in Libya & I hope it's not too late to help overthrow the Assad monarchy.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
not so, donkeys are peaceful creatures.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
while i agree entirely that there's nobody involved who i'd like to see win, there are probably risks and downsides to doing nothing as well - certainly the obvious ones are the eternal continuation of a war that carries great risks of spilling over Syria's borders, an eternal refugee problem on Syria's borders, and the ever hardening radicalisation of the Syrian population who see themselves as being left to the tender mercies of both the Assad regime and the AQ inspired fundies and developing something of a grudge towards the west because of it.
added to which of course is that for every month this war continues, about 6,000 more people die.
in order to defeat the Assad regime the opposition needs lots and lots of Anti-Tank Guided Weapons - like Javelin - lots of MANPADS like Starstreak, and lots of Artillery. giving them MANPADS and ATGW runs a very real risk of seeing them turn up at Heathrow in a years time with 500 dead on a burning 747.
if we wish - for purely selfish or purely humanitarian reasons - to see the war ended as quickly as possible, but without the risks of 'blowback', then we have to keep the weapons under our control - which means us using them. this is not an attractive option.
air strikes on Syrian government targets carries the 'upsides' of keeping the targetting and weapons under our control, of reducing - for example - the ability of the Syrian Air Force to attck rebel forces, and it would mean the Syrian government would have to divert resources its currently using to fight the rebels to Air Defence tasks; some of the reports that i've read suggest that the Syrian AD infrastructure has been hollowed out to provide more ground forces.
all the options available - including doing nothing - are shit, they all carry big downsides for the Syrians and for us, and none of them provide attractive outcomes.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
This last option looks the most likely if the US and the Russians can't negotiate any political solution. And a no fly zone to protect some of the million plus refugees.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
agreed - for all the talk, the US and Europe are about as likely to give the various rebel groups MANPADS and ATGW as Jennifer Lopez is to arrive on my doorstep tonight and beg me to make love to her for a fortnight. everyone in the governments concerned knows that they would end up in the hands of Jihadists with no love whatsoever for the west, and after giving support to people who turn out not to like us much in Afghanistan and Libya, doing so again in Syria would start to look inept.
Air/CM strikes carry risks, but the one certainty they offer is the ability to pull the plug.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
63 year old jennifer lopez, a long-term resident of the st francis xavier leprosy hospice outside lima, peru, has arrived at heathrow and is on her way to spend the fortnight of her life with you
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
sadly i find myself called away on urgent business...
cyprusclean
Member
Now that Barack Obama has decided to arm the ‘good’ rebels in Syria, it’s more likely than ever that Britain will follow suit. The G8 summit next week in Northern Ireland may well turn into a pre-war summit, which will certainly be interesting seeing as Putin will also be there.
The Russians may respond by giving more arms to Assad and the level playing field may quickly turn into a level killing field. The Wall St Journal says that Obama has pretty much decided on a no-fly zone enforced by allied aircraft based in Jordan which will allow rebels to train. But which rebels? There are more than a dozen of them, some already fighting with each other.
Can we be so sure that arms will not end up in the hands of the rebels who recently hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda over a town they captured. And given that rebels have also used chemical weapons, what’s to stop Western air support being used to increase the cycle of violence, reprisals and civilian death?
There are huge questions, which still hang unanswered as the drumbeat of war grows louder.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...g-fields-in-syria-become-level-killing-fields
The Russians may respond by giving more arms to Assad and the level playing field may quickly turn into a level killing field. The Wall St Journal says that Obama has pretty much decided on a no-fly zone enforced by allied aircraft based in Jordan which will allow rebels to train. But which rebels? There are more than a dozen of them, some already fighting with each other.
Can we be so sure that arms will not end up in the hands of the rebels who recently hoisted the black flag of al-Qaeda over a town they captured. And given that rebels have also used chemical weapons, what’s to stop Western air support being used to increase the cycle of violence, reprisals and civilian death?
There are huge questions, which still hang unanswered as the drumbeat of war grows louder.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...g-fields-in-syria-become-level-killing-fields
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
compelling on many levels.
An excellent contribution, cheers man.
Fisk's latest discusses just this issue http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-just-guns-they-are-about-money-8659784.html
protesticals
Active Member
You are claiming that the Syrian people will have a grudge against us if we DON'T intervene. I would suggest they will have one if we do, whichever side they support. Within days of a rebel victory Islamists would be attacking any Allied forces. Check out Libya and its aftermath
Peopel will die whatever we do
You are right here.
Defintely not.
What is the downside for us of doing nothing?
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Morsi cuts ties with Syria and calls for no fly zone
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201361519182028756.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201361519182028756.html
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
the war continuing - the Jihadist ideology will provide enough warm bodies, and Saudi Arabia and Quatar enough arms, to keep this war going almost regardless of what the Syrian government does. the longer the war goes on, and the more desperate the rebel groups get, the more likely the war will spread to Lebanon, and therefore HB will retaliate and spread the war to Jordan or Turkey.
also worth remembering that this is a proxy war between the Gulf States and Iran - the longer it goes on the more likely the conflict, even if not in 'hot' terms, spills into the Gulf: that has a very direct impact on the lives of everyone in this country through the price of oil, everything gets more expensive as its costlier to produce and get to the consumer, and the price of energy goes through the roof.
protesticals
Active Member
I don't see how it would spill into the gulf. Iran is not going to attack a US ally. I agree that it is a proxy war and one I would like to see Iran lose but Imposing a settlement has lead time after time to disaster. Even libya seems not such a great result.
Similar threads
