Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

Will Syria & Iran bomb Israeli nuclear facilities if attacked by the west? Or was that link I posted to "Israel Today" just propaganda? Any whisperings on this?
 
surely if they did shit would get out of hand very quickly, Israel has them not-at-all-secret nukes. That would give anyone pause for thought.
 
kebabking said:
not for the UK - there's definately one British Submarine in the eastern Med (HMS Tireless), there may be another (we only have 7 in service, so the pot is not bottomless..), but if so the MOD aren't saying. we have no strike aircraft in the eastern Med - or the western Med for that matter - and our warships can't fire any kind of land attack missile.

thats it - what the French, Russians and Americans have floating about is a matter for them, but the UK just isn't burning money on Syria.
Click to expand...
They moved aircraft to Cyprus last week. Thought it was quite gauling as some in media did last weekend to say at least Cameron had the vote before mobilisation unlike Blair as if the nuclear subs were still pottering around Gibraltar waiting to scare the shit out of Spanish fisherman.
 
gosub said:
They moved aircraft to Cyprus last week. Thought it was quite gauling as some in media did last weekend to say at least Cameron had the vote before mobilisation unlike Blair as if the nuclear subs were still pottering around Gibraltar waiting to scare the shit out of Spanish fisherman.
Click to expand...

fruedian slip?
 
Mr.Bishie said:
Will Syria & Iran bomb Israeli nuclear facilities if attacked by the west? Or was that link I posted to "Israel Today" just propaganda? Any whisperings on this?
Click to expand...

I hope not, coz it's on then. Where does it stop after that?

This is probably the strongest argument against regime change via "intervention" there is. All this could lead to a much bigger war in the middle-east that we'd get dragged into.

To be honest, I don't think Syria would do something like that unless the regime was on the brink of collapse, and the point of no return so to speak had been passed. Of course they want to give the impression they would do that, but realistically it's a deterrant rather than a sound tactic. If they went after Israel's nuclear weapons facilities, or used chemical weapons against an Israeli city, then they run the risk of an overwhelming Israeli response and total annhilation. Horrible to even think about.
 
Delroy Booth said:
I hope not, coz it's on then. Where does it stop after that?
To be honest, I don't think Syria would do something like that unless the regime was on the brink of collapse, and the point of no return so to speak had been passed.
Click to expand...

Surely Western intervention would put the Assad regime on the brink of collapse, that's the whole point isn't it?
 
gosub said:
They moved aircraft to Cyprus last week....
Click to expand...

they moved 6 Typhoon fighters to Cyprus last week (and they've already had a tiff with some Turkish F-16's..). the Typhoons only have a rudimentary air to ground capability (Paveway laser guided bombs), and can't use any of the RAF's long range or even short range missile systems. the aircraft that can - the Tornado - is still sat at their bases in Norfolk and Invernesshire.

the Submarine may well have been in the med anyway, or on its way elsewhere else - British submarines are not sat in port waiting for something to do, they are always out somewhere.
 
Mr.Bishie said:
Surely Western intervention would put the Assad regime on the brink of collapse, that's the whole point isn't it?
Click to expand...

Exactly, for all the arguing about chemical weapons the goal is regime change, that was the goal before August 21st and it's the goal now. This is a situation that needs de-escalating because it has the potential to get out of hand, but the political leaders don't see it like that.
 
DotCommunist said:
surely if they did shit would get out of hand very quickly, Israel has them not-at-all-secret nukes. That would give anyone pause for thought.
Click to expand...

this most likely will get out of hand very quickly, its utter madness . As I said earlier theres thousands of lightly armed french peacekeeping troops lined up like ducks in Lebanon, just for starters . France attacks Syria whats likely to happen to them ? And then whats likely to happen in Lebanon ?

As soon as the first missile is fired into this tinderbox anything can happen . There will be missiles being whizzed over Russian ships, therell definitely be armed aircraft whizzing about the place with tensions at an all time high and relations at an all time low not seen since the cold war . Theres a massive Russian military base in Syria , and the people who are going to be whizzing missiles over and around it for months on end managed to precision strike the Chinese embassy in Serbia last time this shit happened. While many Russian civilians have been evacuated from Syria theres still plenty of them there, Russian institutes, businesses, medics, museums.
Iranians, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda...and then theres the zionists running aabout too. Theres a myriad of scenarios and none of them good, most of them very bad indeed . The only thing we can be sure of is as always happens in war the neat plan goes out the window almost from the get go and events start taking on a life of their own .

And lets not forget the yanks are fucking nutters . Take one look at the likes of John Bolton and McCain and remember theres people just like them selecting targets and making on the spot calculations about perceived threats in the field .
 
Acting in pairs the typhoons have done ground attack. But that misses the point, under fruit ninja we were as mobilised as we needed to be, with typhoons providing defence cover for naval missile assault.
Russian built SAM's are a serious bit of kit and nobody was talking about putting aircrews in harms way til texas holdem
 
Casually Red said:
this most likely will get out of hand very quickly, its utter madness . As I said earlier theres thousands of lightly armed french peacekeeping troops lined up like ducks in Lebanon, just for starters . France attacks Syria whats likely to happen to them ? And then whats likely to happen in Lebanon ?

As soon as the first missile is fired into this tinderbox anything can happen . There will be missiles being whizzed over Russian ships, therell definitely be armed aircraft whizzing about the place with tensions at an all time high and relations at an all time low not seen since the cold war . Theres a massive Russian military base in Syria , and the people who are going to be whizzing missiles over and around it for months on end managed to precision strike the Chinese embassy in Serbia last time this shit happened. While many Russian civilians have been evacuated from Syria theres still plenty of them there, Russian institutes, businesses, medics, museums.
Iranians, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda...and then theres the zionists running aabout too. Theres a myriad of scenarios and none of them good, most of them very bad indeed . The only thing we can be sure of is as always happens in war the neat plan goes out the window almost from the get go and events start taking on a life of their own .

And lets not forget the yanks are fucking nutters . Take one look at the likes of John Bolton and McCain and remember theres people just like them selecting targets and making on the spot calculations about perceived threats in the field .
Click to expand...
hard to argue with that
 
Delroy Booth said:
Exactly, for all the arguing about chemical weapons the goal is regime change, that was the goal before August 21st and it's the goal now. This is a situation that need de-escalating because it has the potential to get out of hand, but the political leaders don't see it like that.
Click to expand...

i don't agree, and i don't see how it can be seriously argued - the west doesn't like Assad, thats obvious, and the west wouldn't be sad if he fell under a bus - but if the goal was regime change, why has the west devoted so little to actually achieving that?

if the rebels were not AQ affiliates the west would be pumping them full of the weapons they need in order to win - MANPADS, ATGW etc.. but they aren't, because the west likes the idea of AQ affilliates running Syria even less than they like the idea of Assad running Syria.

i simply can't see how anyone could really think that the military resources the US/France is going to put into this is going to topple Assad or destroy his Army's ability to fight, and probably defeat, the rebel groups. 200 cruise missiles? its nothing, just nothing compared to what was used on Iraq or elsewhere.
 
Delroy Booth said:
Exactly, for all the arguing about chemical weapons the goal is regime change, that was the goal before August 21st and it's the goal now. This is a situation that needs de-escalating because it has the potential to get out of hand, but the political leaders don't see it like that.
Click to expand...

To be clear this is a situation of very serious international criminality . It was established very firmly during the Nuremberg trials of the nazis that the ultimate act of state criminality is an unprovoked war of aggression . Because all the associated evils contained within the war that followed stem directly from that act of aggression .Thats why we had a UNSC established in the first place, to make it a criminal act on a par with nazism to launch such a war on a sovereign state. And to deliberately make it difficult to get authorisation for launching wars .
Whats going on here is the law of the jungle , a return to the chaos that prevailed when the western powers indulged in the unrestrained great game , making up their own rules as they went along and attacking whoever took their fancy. It resulted in a world war . And this madness has the potential to get very much out of hand .

There are plenty of political leaders calling for the correct and legal UN channels to be persued . Theres no obstacles there for anyone who wants to submit evidence for inspection . If theyve got it then they should bring it, but they completely refuse to . Even Assads enemies in the Arab League are mostly horrified at the potential this has and have condemened it . Even NATO wont touch this . The only people who will are an idiot president who doesnt want to look soft after talking himself into a corner with his big mouth and that useless fat French fuck licking his lips at the thought of retaking a former colony .
 
kebabking said:
i don't agree, and i don't see how it can be seriously argued - the west doesn't like Assad, thats obvious, and the west wouldn't be sad if he fell under a bus - but if the goal was regime change, why has the west devoted so little to actually achieving that?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Because he's been backed by Russia is the first reason that comes to mind why they haven't gone in for it before, and Bashar Al-Assad's Syria is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was a borderline failed state that with an utterly incompetent dysfunctional leadership. Syria would be a much longer harder war than the Iraq campaign.

But getting rid of Assad's been on the to do list for the USA since before the Axis of Evil speech, it's just that finding a way to do without starting WW3 is hard. I think the fact they've put off the Geneva talks because they're not prepared to countenance Assad staying on in any form. They really want to get rid of him, partly not to show weakness to Russia and China, and partly because it weakens Iran without having to go to war with them (for the time being...)

Then again you've put some food for thought in there. The West were trying to be conciliatory toward him at various points in the last couple of decades.

kebabking said:
if the rebels were not AQ affiliates the west would be pumping them full of the weapons they need in order to win - MANPADS, ATGW etc.. but they aren't, because the west likes the idea of AQ affilliates running Syria even less than they like the idea of Assad running Syria.
Click to expand...

I think that's probably right too. Although just because they're Islamic extremists doesn't mean the US wouldn't support them necessarily, think back to Afghanistan in the 80's.

kebabking said:
i simply can't see how anyone could really think that the military resources the US/France is going to put into this is going to topple Assad or destroy his Army's ability to fight, and probably defeat, the rebel groups. 200 cruise missiles? its nothing, just nothing compared to what was used on Iraq or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait and see whether or not this military action is just confined to 200 cruise missiles. It could end up being more than that. Look at how we behaved in Libya, once we got our foot in the door we did whatever the hell we wanted fuck the UN mandate. I think a big part of it is the psychological factor too, putting pressure on senior regime to defect and put a seed of doubt in the minds of Syrian soldiers. You can hurt Assad with cruise missile strikes but they're probably not going to overthrow using just that alone.
 
Casually Red said:
To be clear this is a situation of very serious international criminality . It was established very firmly during the Nuremberg trials of the nazis that the ultimate act of state criminality is an unprovoked war of aggression . Because all the associated evils contained within the war that followed stem directly from that act of aggression .Thats why we had a UNSC established in the first place, to make it a criminal act on a par with nazism to launch such a war on a sovereign state. And to deliberately make it difficult to get authorisation for launching wars .
Whats going on here is the law of the jungle , a return to the chaos that prevailed when the western powers indulged in the unrestrained great game , making up their own rules as they went along and attacking whoever took their fancy. It resulted in a world war . And this madness has the potential to get very much out of hand .

There are plenty of political leaders calling for the correct and legal UN channels to be persued . Theres no obstacles there for anyone who wants to submit evidence for inspection . If theyve got it then they should bring it, but they completely refuse to . Even Assads enemies in the Arab League are mostly horrified at the potential this has and have condemened it . Even NATO wont touch this . The only people who will are an idiot president who doesnt want to look soft after talking himself into a corner with his big mouth and that useless fat French fuck licking his lips at the thought of retaking a former colony .
Click to expand...

Actually that was the Treaty of westphalia 1648 not the nuremberg trials you clown where it was established that unprovoked wars of aggression were "illegal". There's been hundreds and hundreds of wars in Europe since that law/convention was established, which goes to show just how seriously international law is taken by nation-states.

Give the international police a call, see if they can press charges.
 
Casually Red said:
To be clear this is a situation of very serious international criminality . It was established very firmly during the Nuremberg trials of the nazis that the ultimate act of state criminality is an unprovoked war of aggression .
Click to expand...
Only if you lose and are defeated otherwise you can do what you like. That why Blair is a peace envoy and Saddam got a well deserved noose.:(
 
kebabking said:
i don't agree, and i don't see how it can be seriously argued - the west doesn't like Assad, thats obvious, and the west wouldn't be sad if he fell under a bus - but if the goal was regime change, why has the west devoted so little to actually achieving that?

if the rebels were not AQ affiliates the west would be pumping them full of the weapons they need in order to win - MANPADS, ATGW etc.. but they aren't, because the west likes the idea of AQ affilliates running Syria even less than they like the idea of Assad running Syria.

i simply can't see how anyone could really think that the military resources the US/France is going to put into this is going to topple Assad or destroy his Army's ability to fight, and probably defeat, the rebel groups. 200 cruise missiles? its nothing, just nothing compared to what was used on Iraq or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

do you seriously think the west have no plans to escalate this once it starts ? Once it starts the original plan goes out the window and theres just conflict that has to be won regardless . If theres retaliation. which there most likely will be, and other players drawn in then theres a war .Last week alone over two hundred tonnes of weapons were pumped into Al Qaeda via Turkey . John Kerry sat with a straight face a couple of days ago and told the senate AQ werent the dominant force and the good guys had the upper hand in the field . And had to be supported even more otherwise AQ will get the upper hand . Lying through his teeth while arming Al Qaeda to the gills and acting as their airforce .
This is all about regime change and probably more . Taking HB out of the picture too and remving Irans reah for retaliation when its time comes.
 
Delroy Booth said:
Actually that was the Treaty of westphalia 1648 not the nuremberg trials you clown where it was established that unprovoked wars of aggression were "illegal". There's been hundreds and hundreds of wars in Europe since that law/convention was established, which goes to show just how seriously international law is taken by nation-states.

Give the international police a call, see if they can press charges.
Click to expand...

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression#cite_note-2

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-Ni6Qy2E9KwC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.&redir_esc=y


twat
 
Delroy Booth said:
That's a good point. Because he's been backed by Russia is the first reason that comes to mind why they haven't gone in for it before, and Bashar Al-Assad's Syria is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was a borderline failed state that with an utterly incompetent dysfunctional leadership. Syria would be a much longer harder war than the Iraq campaign.

But getting rid of Assad's been on the to do list for the USA since before the Axis of Evil speech, it's just that finding a way to do without starting WW3 is hard. I think the fact they've put off the Geneva talks because they're not prepared to countenance Assad staying on in any form. They really want to get rid of him, partly not to show weakness to Russia and China, and partly because it weakens Iran without having to go to war with them (for the time being...)

Then again you've put some food for thought in there. The West were trying to be conciliatory toward him at various points in the last couple of decades.



I think that's probably right too. Although just because they're Islamic extremists doesn't mean the US wouldn't support them necessarily, think back to Afghanistan in the 80's.



We'll have to wait and see whether or not this military action is just confined to 200 cruise missiles. It could end up being more than that. Look at how we behaved in Libya, once we got our foot in the door we did whatever the hell we wanted fuck the UN mandate. I think a big part of it is the psychological factor too, putting pressure on senior regime to defect and put a seed of doubt in the minds of Syrian soldiers. You can hurt Assad with cruise missile strikes but they're probably not going to overthrow using just that alone.
Click to expand...
McCain got regime change amendment through Senate yesterday which you can't do with Obama's original <100 targets, probably means air supremacy to take out tanks which means taking out SAM's, which was met with China coming out on Russias side citing concerns over oil prices.


Hopefully there is a congressman who plays chess
 
gosub said:
McCain got regime change amendment through Senate yesterday which you can't do with Obama's original <100 targets, probably means air supremacy to take out tanks which means taking out SAM's, which was met with China coming out on Russias side citing concerns over oil prices
Click to expand...

see how its escalated already without firing a shot . Its pretty much all out war , initially from the skies.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teqniq
Huge earthquake in Turkey and Northern Syria 05-06/02/23
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
JimW
JimW
P
The next American Civil War
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
321
Views
15K
pbsmooth
P
MrCurry
After Ukraine, what’s next?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
T
Hong Kong: what next?
65 66 67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
83K
Yossarian
Yossarian
H
Syria, attack on Conoco gas plant in Feburary 2018
Replies
1
Views
349
yield
Y
Back
Top Bottom