Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

M
This is all true, and appreciate the detail, but there's a couple of things. I don't think the S-300 are there to be used, it's there as part of the posturing. Likewise with the small US-led military buildup in Jordan, I doubt very much that Obama wants to commit US troops to Syria but he's putting them on standby to counter-posture the Russians.

And also - the S-300 might not be the newest or fanciest bit of weaponry around but it's enough to cause some concern to the US and Israel. Remember this from the Iraq War - "However, four days later, the Iraqis scored a direct hit on the Third Infantry Division, Second Brigade's Tactical Operations Center, with an Al-Samoud variant rocket, estimate 280 kg payload warhead, killing three soldiers, two foreign reporters, wounding 14 additional soldiers, and destroying 22 vehicles, mostly unarmored Humvees." and remember that was just one missile, or one batch of 6 possibly, from a desperate and defeated Iraqi army, it wasn't a co-ordinated artillery strike it was blind lashing out. They're weapons which can cause a great deal of damage if used correctly, even against a modern army, and certainly enough to make the yanks pause for thought before getting involved. You also wouldn't want one to be loaded up with Sarin gas and dropped over Tel Aviv that's for damn sure, and that kind of thing isn't unthinkable y'know. If the regime in Syria feels it'sabout to fal, then that sort of desperate thing to try and start world war 3 and internationalise the conflict is certainly possible.

I'm lead to understand that the S300 is a SAM... talk of dodgy payloads for hitting Telaviv with are a moot point surely...
 
I don't think this war is our business. Let the Americans arm the rebels if they want, or other countries closer to the theatre, the Yanks should have learnt from their experience arming the Afghan mujahideen against the Russians which came back to bite them on the nose, hand held anti surface to air anti aircraft missiles are not to be given out higgledy pigeldy. Boris says he trusts Cameron to make the right decision, I am not at all sure I trust either of them.

I vote not to get involved.

Frankly I think all responsible nations should get involved... in the diplomatic pursuit of a peace process and a political process towards democratic elections. The problem is that ours is not a responsible nation and is instead interested in feeding the war. Ours is a cynical and imperialistic creature that has obviously spotted the opportunity to gain some sort of advantage by exploiting Syrias misfortune, obviously the first question in you're decision process for getting involved, 'what's in it for me?' has already been satisfied... and now we're on to stage two... bowl over and rip-off-a-peice. Its like watching a pack of mangy predators turn on the newly lame really. Wouldn't surprise me if Turkey's next as it looks to be suffering from a gammy leg at the moment. No doubt deep inside the reptilian mind of Blighty theres some reason that makes sense to feed the war, probably something as base and simplistic as wanting to sell weapons to someone, or maybe it's a gang member thing, to earn r'spec on the international scene... maybe we think Syria has something we can bid for a place on when the DU dust has settled. Maybe Cameron wants to be 'Peace. Envoy.' too, one day. Who knows.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)

It's to defend against cruise missiles and aircraft and while it's never seen any combat use it has a good reputation. Slovakia has the system which has allowed NATO to use it in war games to see how it fares

always worth noting when talking about these 'fortess of death' (American movie trailer accent required...) Air Defence systems that the Russians sell to people, is that not one of them has ever actually succeeded in keeping out a western equipped/trained air force.

they cause casualties, they require very sophisticated and expensive aircraft and weapons, expensively trained aircrew and intense planning to counter - but not once has such a system ever stopped its country being turned to rubble. i'm not really sure why anyone buys them...
 
the only people whos business it is are the Syrian peoples

And Russia's business. Don't forget Russia...

But seriously, to what extent do you turn a blind eye? I'm not saying this to justify arming the opposition, I'm just trying to get my head round your position. If left to their own devices, and should Assad come out of this conflict victorious, the opposition are dead. Literally. All of them, whole communities will be wiped out. And if reports are to be believed, this is actually happening right now. So is there any circumstances when outside powers should intervene in an internal conflict in your opinion and if so, what form should that intervention take?
 
always worth noting when talking about these 'fortess of death' (American movie trailer accent required...) Air Defence systems that the Russians sell to people, is that not one of them has ever actually succeeded in keeping out a western equipped/trained air force.

they cause casualties, they require very sophisticated and expensive aircraft and weapons, expensively trained aircrew and intense planning to counter - but not once has such a system ever stopped its country being turned to rubble. i'm not really sure why anyone buys them...

Think that's because none of the countries that own them have been involved in a conflict since they bought them...
 
on a further derail the guy who shot down the invisible stealth bomber with an antiquated 1960s vintage SAM, Zoltan Dani, runs a bakery . Every year him and his mates from that AA unit get together and celebrate on the anniversary . With a huge big cake in the shape of a Stealth bomber.

He's also met the pilot of the aircraft he shot down. :cool:
 
Frankly I think all responsible nations should get involved... in the diplomatic pursuit of a peace process and a political process towards democratic elections. The problem is that ours is not a responsible nation and is instead interested in feeding the war. Ours is a cynical and imperialistic creature that has obviously spotted the opportunity to gain some sort of advantage by exploiting Syrias misfortune, obviously the first question in you're decision process for getting involved, 'what's in it for me?' has already been satisfied... and now we're on to stage two... bowl over and rip-off-a-peice. Its like watching a pack of mangy predators turn on the newly lame really. Wouldn't surprise me if Turkey's next as it looks to be suffering from a gammy leg at the moment. No doubt deep inside the reptilian mind of Blighty theres some reason that makes sense to feed the war, probably something as base and simplistic as wanting to sell weapons to someone, or maybe it's a gang member thing, to earn r'spec on the international scene... maybe we think Syria has something we can bid for a place on when the DU dust has settled. Maybe Cameron wants to be 'Peace. Envoy.' too, one day. Who knows.

Are you including Russia in that as well?
 
always worth noting when talking about these 'fortess of death' (American movie trailer accent required...) Air Defence systems that the Russians sell to people, is that not one of them has ever actually succeeded in keeping out a western equipped/trained air force.

they cause casualties, they require very sophisticated and expensive aircraft and weapons, expensively trained aircrew and intense planning to counter - but not once has such a system ever stopped its country being turned to rubble. i'm not really sure why anyone buys them...

It's true, recent history is littered with the burnt-out twisted remains of our victims... the defensive weapons that Russia has sold to each of them have been as clumps of soggy tissue against a pack of rabid dogs, if I may be so bold as to describe our various attacks in that manner. I wonder who we'll buss-up on next? Could be anyone really... some weakling that looked at us or our gang funny obviously.We'll "no-fly-zone" that fucker in the face, then 'regime-change' that ass, take it in turns an shit.
 
[quote="CyberRose, post: 12323948, member: 224"

And Russia's business. Don't forget Russia...

Russia is a member of the UN security council . It has an international responsibility to ensure the rule of law is upheld, that wars dont start . That criminal states cant just run about the world invading and attacking on a whim . Thats Russias business . And if the western powers werent behaving in a criminal manner they wouldnt have to be insisting they adhere to international law .

But seriously, to what extent do you turn a blind eye? I'm not saying this to justify arming the opposition, I'm just trying to get my head round your position.

My being opposed to Al Qaeda cannibals shouldnt be all that hard to get your head around . Your support for them though, and that of the governemnts who are openly going to arm them , makes my mind boggle quite frankly .

If left to their own devices, and should Assad come out of this conflict victorious, the opposition are dead. Literally. All of them, whole communities will be wiped out.

thats simply bollocks, no offence . Assad has outlined precisely what the transitional phases are for the inclusion of opposition groups in the national dialogue process and series of referenda . Monitored ceasefires and safe conduct in and out of the country whenever they want is a cornerstone of it . Youve just simply made this claim up and stated it as fact.

Whats for damn sure though is if Al Qaeda emerge victorious then Syrias minorities will be liquidated . And then onto Lebanon to do the same there .

And if reports are to be believed, this is actually happening right now. So is there any circumstances when outside powers should intervene in an internal conflict in your opinion and if so, what form should that intervention take?

They should intervene only when the UN security council permits it, and solely on the basis of that resolution . Not utilising a no fly zone that was supposed to stop a massacre that never happened as a means simply to overthrow a sovereign state and repeatedly try and murder the sovereign head of state . Because thats simple gangsterism .
Maybe youd prefer a world in utter chaos and the mind numbing criminality of arming Al Qaeda to the teeth . And god knows what else .
Communities are certainly being wiped out now . The Al Qaeda lunatics are running amok and soon thwe west will be directly arming their campaign of mass ethnic cleansing .

Interesting little spat erupting in the Hague relating to the former Yugoslavia that has a direct bearing on whats going on right now in Syria . Ill return to that one later
 
Russia is a member of the UN security council . It has an international responsibility to ensure the rule of law is upheld, that wars dont start . That criminal states cant just run about the world invading and attacking on a whim . Thats Russias business . And if the western powers werent behaving in a criminal manner they wouldnt have to be insisting they adhere to international law .

If you genuinely believe that it is Russia's motivation then I seriously worry about your ability to analyse world events. If you think Russia blocks UN resolutions against Syria (and Iraq) because it's somehow an ethical and moralistic actor on the world stage I don't think there's much point debating anything with you on this thread or this forum. Might I remind you that Hizballah fighters are in the country supporting Assad and Russia has been selling weapons to Syria (making a tidy profit out of it too) so you tell me who's intervening in this conflict?

I also notice throughout your post you accuse me (and no doubt you've done the same to others on this thread) of wanting to arm al-Qaida. I'd stop with false accusations if you want to be taken seriously.

Assad has outlined precisely what the transitional phases are for the inclusion of opposition groups in the national dialogue process and series of referenda

Do you believe him?

The Al Qaeda lunatics are running amok and soon thwe west will be directly arming their campaign of mass ethnic cleansing

Arming al-Qaida would be lunacy I agree. I also agree that should al-Qaida types grow in strength in Syria this will have a massive negative affect on Shias (and others) as you say so clearly that is to be avoided and if there's any inclination that weapons provided by "the West" (if they choose to do so which, unlike Russia and Iran, they haven't decided on yet) would fall into their hands then they should not provide that kind of support to the opposition forces.
 
Think that's because none of the countries that own them have been involved in a conflict since they bought them...

i mean historically - every one the Soviets supplied to the Arab states who fought against Israel, the Soviet supplied and trained AD system that worked out so well for Iraq in 1991, the Russian supplied and trained one that the Serbs used in 1999, the one the Libyans had in 2011.. Russian missiles, radar, command and control systems, training, and doctrine - every single one a 'fortress of death' that would see NATO aircraft suffer 50% casualty rates and would kick the hated imperialist running dogs into the sea, and every single one turned into burnt, twisted metal while NATO aircraft flew over them with impunity.

Russian supplied AD systems have a 50 year record with a 100% failure rate - why oh why do we fall for this idea that they work? they don't, we see that every single time they get opened up.

this is not to suggest that i'm either in favour or not in favour of such a course of action, merely to point out that Russian AD systems have a shit record. S300 and its associated radars might be different, but based on the record, would you assume they are?
 
i mean historically - every one the Soviets supplied to the Arab states who fought against Israel, the Soviet supplied and trained AD system that worked out so well for Iraq in 1991, the Russian supplied and trained one that the Serbs used in 1999, the one the Libyans had in 2011.. Russian missiles, radar, command and control systems, training, and doctrine - every single one a 'fortress of death' that would see NATO aircraft suffer 50% casualty rates and would kick the hated imperialist running dogs into the sea, and every single one turned into burnt, twisted metal while NATO aircraft flew over them with impunity.

Russian supplied AD systems have a 50 year record with a 100% failure rate - why oh why do we fall for this idea that they work? they don't, we see that every single time they get opened up.

Yes but in all of these conflicts the NATO weaponry would have been as modern as possible - could the same be said for the opposing force's weaponry? Was it straight off the production line or years out of date?
 
[quote="CyberRose, post: 12324080, member:
If you genuinely believe that it is Russia's motivation then I seriously worry about your ability to analyse world events. If you think Russia blocks UN resolutions against Syria (and Iraq) because it's somehow an ethical and moralistic actor on the world stage I don't think there's much point debating anything with you on this thread or this forum. Might I remind you that Hizballah fighters are in the country supporting Assad and Russia has been selling weapons to Syria (making a tidy profit out of it too) so you tell me who's intervening in this conflict?

Russia is perfectly entitled to sell weapons to any sovereign state it sees fit to . Its perfectly legal and they are perfectly entitled to make a profit too.
And you arent even debating, your just coming out with a line that Assad and Russia are evil, and thats it . You arent engaged in any process of logical analysis whatsoever . Your just expressing moral outrage at someone who isnt on message with your world view of inherent rightness. Its like debating with Tony Blair .

I also notice throughout your post you accuse me (and no doubt you've done the same to others on this thread) of wanting to arm al-Qaida. I'd stop with false accusations if you want to be taken seriously.

thats who the main fighting force in the feild arrayed against the Syrian army actually is . If your arming the opposition thats who your actually arming . Its an assertion of fact . The Syrian army would be quite happy to see you arm the few remaining moderates instead. Because theyd just run away .


Do you believe him?

yes I do as it happens...again with the Tony Blairisms . And I Find him much more credible than Mr Obama who right now is doing his best George Bush impression with this bollocks about chemical weapons . I certainly believe him much quicker than I believe Obama, Hague Cameron et al.
He actually has to live in that country, reform is essential . Hes not a stupid man by any means .


Arming al-Qaida would be lunacy I agree. I also agree that should al-Qaida types grow in strength in Syria this will have a massive negative affect on Shias (and others) as you say so clearly that is to be avoided

newsflash...its already happened . They are the strongest force in the feild arrayed against the Syrian army . They are also the most influential . Apart that is from Saudi money, which only goes to Salafist groups .

and if there's any inclination that weapons provided by "the West" (if they choose to do so which, unlike Russia and Iran, they haven't decided on yet) would fall into their hands then they should not provide that kind of support to the opposition forces.

But they will . Thats who the armed opposition mostly is . Salafist extremists
 
There is no logic to your opposition to "Western" imperialism and support for Russian imperialism, unless your opinions are determined by a hatred of the West and "my enemy's enemy" logic, either way, there's no point carrying on this debate with you any further unless you're honest with your intentions...
 
i mean historically - every one the Soviets supplied to the Arab states who fought against Israel, the Soviet supplied and trained AD system that worked out so well for Iraq in 1991, the Russian supplied and trained one that the Serbs used in 1999, the one the Libyans had in 2011.. Russian missiles, radar, command and control systems, training, and doctrine - every single one a 'fortress of death' that would see NATO aircraft suffer 50% casualty rates and would kick the hated imperialist running dogs into the sea, and every single one turned into burnt, twisted metal while NATO aircraft flew over them with impunity.

Russian supplied AD systems have a 50 year record with a 100% failure rate - why oh why do we fall for this idea that they work? they don't, we see that every single time they get opened up.

this is not to suggest that i'm either in favour or not in favour of such a course of action, merely to point out that Russian AD systems have a shit record. S300 and its associated radars might be different, but based on the record, would you assume they are?

the west has selected its targets very carefully . The SAM systems utilised by the serbs were of 1960s vintage with a few upgrades . They still managed to shoot down an invisible stealth bomber and the serbian army withdrew from Kosovo completely intact thanks to keeping NATO planes at safe altitiudes, among other things.
Saddam again plumped for the old stuff, along with American stuff . Integrated with a french control system that pretty much didnt work . And probably wasnt intended to .
Gadaffi, mainly after being convinced by his idiot son, thought the west would leave him alone and allowed his anti aircraft systems to degrade and crumble over the years .
When the technology was evenly matched in vintage Israel found out what Russian systems could do during Yom Kippur . And John McCain can tell you what they were capable of in Vietnam after his days of scooting about napalming kids were brought to an abrupt halt .
 
There is no logic to your opposition to "Western" imperialism and support for Russian imperialism, unless your opinions are determined by a hatred of the West and "my enemy's enemy" logic, either way, there's no point carrying on this debate with you any further unless you're honest with your intentions...


so youve no actual answer then, didnt think so .
 
Read it again, try to understand it (or maybe read my earlier posts about Russia and their interest in Iran to answer your specific question)

will you please stop asking me to elaborate your own points for you . If you have something to say then just say it, dont ask me to tell you what your position actually is . Its not an unreasonable request .
 
will you please stop asking me to elaborate your own points for you . If you have something to say then just say it, dont ask me to tell you what your position actually is . Its not an unreasonable request .

There was no question in my post you quoted. I was telling you I don't think there's any point continuing to debate this issue with you until you are honest with your true intentions. I don't believe for one second you are truly as ignorant of Russian imperialism as you claim to be so why don't you put your cards on the table and tell us all what you really think?
 
There was no question in my post you quoted. I was telling you I don't think there's any point continuing to debate this issue with you until you are honest with your true intentions. I don't believe for one second you are truly as ignorant of Russian imperialism as you claim to be so why don't you put your cards on the table and tell us all what you really think?

what I think is arming those salafist terrorist groups and encouraging them to keep up their onslaught is utter criminal madness, in a region which is the most volatile in the world . That it could possibly start a massive war right accross the region , even a world war. Thats what I think, and I assume thats what Russia thinks too . Because its looking so fucking obvious thats whats going to happen if the west gets militarily behind these madmen . And thats not just Russias position by any means .

As regards imperialism Russia has plenty of its own resources, it simply doesnt need to steal anyone elses . If your seriously suggesting Russias support for a long time close ally and its refusal to support arming Al Qaeda is because it wants to someday take over the middle east then id respectfully suggest youve lost the plot . Its not noble altruism which motivates Russia, its common bloody sense. It already is destabilising the entire region, it already is pitting militia against militia all over the place, army against army . Its in nobodys interests to see a massive conflagration sparked, including Russias. But that doesnt mean for one minute Russia envisages a middle eastern empire.

I also think Vladimir Putin absolutely despises Al Qaeda types on a very personal level . He absolutely hates them and wants to see them defeated .
 
what I think is arming those salafist terrorist groups and encouraging them to keep up their onslaught is utter criminal madness
I don't think there is any intention in the "West" to arm al-Qaida (although I see you have no problem with arming Hizballah terrorists and dictators using chemical weapons on their population)

As regards imperialism Russia has plenty of its own resources, it simply doesnt need to steal anyone elses
Yes it produces as much oil as America so that's how irrelevant your argument above is.

Not sure you have a great understanding of what imperialism means in the modern sense or the importance of oil if you think it's merely about "stealing" it.

Its in nobodys interests to see a massive conflagration sparked, including Russias.
Well, they're selling weapons to one side so I wouldn't be so sure about that. But also, Syria has been a good customer for Russian weapons over the years and has served Iran well in supplying arms/supplies to Hizballah so actually Russia has a massive interest to ensure Assad remains in power, and if it becomes necessary for a "massive conflagration" to be sparked then that is what Russia will do to secure its interests.

I also think Vladimir Putin absolutely despises Al Qaeda types on a very personal level . He absolutely hates them and wants to see them defeated .

Did you support the Afghan war?
 
[quote="CyberRose, post: 12324514, member: 224"
I don't think there is any intention in the "West" to arm al-Qaida (although I see you have no problem with arming Hizballah terrorists and dictators using chemical weapons on their population)

Not only have they armed them before when using them as a proxy force , armed syrian opposition are mostly salafists, mostly aligned to Al Qaeda. If your arming the opposition thats who your arming . Hezbollah are in the Lebanese government . They are aligned to all sects in syria, theyre acknowleged as the national resistance force . They are incomparable to the salafists and I dont remotely regard them as terrorists and neither do most Lebanese . As for this rubbish about Assad using chemical weapons on his people I can only imagine your still sitting there convinced Saddams WMDs will turn up any day now . Its a total fabrication for the gullible . As far as any UN committee is concerned the only people they have any proof of using chemical weapons are the salafists . And theyve even been caught in Turkey transporting Sarin weapons .




Well, they're selling weapons to one side so I wouldn't be so sure about that.

theyre selling weapons to a sovereign state for the purpose of self defence . They are perfectly legally entitled to do so . Aiding salafist terrorists by supplying arms is higly illegal though . You really dont seem to have a grasp on legality and legitmacy . Might would appear to be right .
Just this week the court on the former Yugoslavia was rocked by this leaked e mail

http://cphpost.dk/news/international/danish-war-crimes-judge-concerned-yugoslav-acquittals

This started happening as the clamour in the west for arms to Syrias jihadi factions grew louder . Those aquitted serbs were accused of supplying weapons to paramilitary groups who then ethnically cleansed civilians, in the knowlege this was very likely to happen . All of a sudden thanks to US and Israeli pressure behind the scenes they got let off . Because they know thats what will happen with the gear they are sending in for the specific purpose of carving up Syria . Because what they are doing is an act of outright criminality .
This week over 60 shia villagers were lined up and massacred by the rebels. If thast done by jihadi terrorists next week with western supplied arms then western officers and officials could be facing the same charges as Bosnian serb officials were . Therefore to faciliate western criminality other war criminals have to be let go too .
Do you see were this criminality by the west leads ?
And do you understand the difference between a sovereign state and a bunch of crazed cannibalistic, head barbecuing bearded jihadists ?

But also, Syria has been a good customer for Russian weapons over the years and has served Iran well in supplying arms/supplies to Hizballah so actually Russia has a massive interest to ensure Assad remains in power, and if it becomes necessary for a "massive conflagration" to be sparked then that is what Russia will do to secure its interests.

this may come as a surprise to you but Syria actually has a perfect right to buy weapons from Russia and always has had , like any other sovereign country. To accuse Russia of sparking a conflagration by legitmately selling weapons to a sovereign state is simply preposterous .


Did you support the Afghan war?

im not in the habit of supporting wars..but which one just out of interest ?
 
So it's perfectly legal and moral to sell weapons to any sovereign state?
And from your justifications of those weapon sales, can I assume you support the Assad regime and want them to remain in power?

(PS I was talking about the 2001 Afghan war, but your question exposes your true intentions I think)
 
So it's perfectly legal and moral to sell weapons to any sovereign state?
And from your justifications of those weapon sales, can I assume you support the Assad regime and want them to remain in power?

)

Its perfectly legal to sell defensive weapons to a sovereign state that isnt involved in the crime of aggression against another sovereign state . And Syria isnt . As regards morality a lot of people dont think its moral to have any weapons at all . Thats a relative issue .
As regards the Syrian governemnt I want them to prevail in this conflict against the isalmist maniacs . That doesnt mean I want them to remain in power afterwards . I want to see the national dialogue and conference process fulfilled and new political forces and trends emerging there . And I believe they definitely will as soon as this jihadist threat is brought to heel.

(PS I was talking about the 2001 Afghan war, but your question exposes your true intentions I think

I certainly didnt support a ridiculous , pointless and unwinnable war against the Taleban, who by the way are just about to open an official international headquarters in your ally Qatars capital of Doha :facepalm: . So with freinds like that in your jihad against Assad I assume it will all go swimmingly, as per usual .
 
Conspiracy theorists have been known to call Al Qaeda 'Al QaCIAda', and do you know, they've got a point there. Its totally bizarre this is happening - giving weapons to a group that is your sworn enemy. Unless their plan is to keep the forces of Assad and the Jihadists fighting each other and thus making both sides weaker.
 
Back
Top Bottom