Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Chemical weapon attack in Syria

598 replies to this topic
RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#31

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:04 PM

QUOTE (TheDavid @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 08:23)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Aug 24 2013, 23:13)
I agree that drones kill innocent people, they need more control but anyway they don't shoot to civilians as a main objective.

About the Rebels being terrorists, I strongly disagree. The jihadists are just a part, which nonetheless is worrying and should be taken out as soon as possible. I've read about public executions they have done, I don't support anything like that. But again, not all the rebels are terrorists and the FSA should deal with that problem.

QUOTE
Are you saying that "accidental" bombings resulting in thousands of innocent civilians being killed by NATO, America etc are okay because the ends justify the means?


Well, I repeat that they don't shoot intentionally the civilian objectives, unlike in Syria.

Syria is in a state of Civil War. There are no civilians. The opposition is the enemy. The government has every right to protect their soldiers and military personnel, even if it requires force.

Actually, the majority of the opposition is terrorists now. Most of the original reformers have left the opposition simply because they can't handle the amount of death any more. No Syrians who originally called for reform, not a removal of Assad, support the present opposition.

I am confident that without western influence, Bashar Al Assad will come out on top and far stronger than before the civil war began. The government has had the upper hand for some time now.

There are no civilians?

So all the kids killed in a slaughtering are soldiers? So all the women killed in mass executions are combatant? All the old people?

You people make me sick. The terrorism excuse has been overused by every regime that want to legitimate their actions. But anyway, if you want to continue thinking that because is a civil war it's okay to kill the civilian population , or that all the rebels are terrorists (I know there are also jihadists, I won't deny that, and I know they are a problem that should be elimated), well it's cool.

EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#32

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:11 PM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 04:13)
During the Soviet-Afghan war there were two factions in the Mujahideen side (Islamist and Pastun or something like that, one fundamentalist and other just normal people). It's true that both were supported by the US but the fundamentalist one took the control and now the western is paying the consequences. I'd say that now they would have thought things better.

You don't see any similarities to the present situation in Syria and what happened in Afghanistan? Sure, there were and still are "normal" people that want Assad to step down but weirdo, honor killing Islamists have taken advantage of the situation and are even fighting with the FSA in some instances if they feel they're not hardcore enough. This is an Arab problem that Arabs should deal with.

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#33

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:12 PM

QUOTE (TheDavid @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 09:23)
Syria is in a state of Civil War. There are no civilians. The opposition is the enemy. The government has every right to protect their soldiers and military personnel, even if it requires force.

There can be civilians in a civil war as somebody who is not fighting on either side is a civilian. Just because a war is contained within a country's border does not mean that it is binary in nature.

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#34

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:25 PM

QUOTE (EscoLehGo @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 13:11)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 04:13)
During the Soviet-Afghan war there were two factions in the Mujahideen side (Islamist and Pastun or something like that, one fundamentalist and other just normal people). It's true that both were supported by the US but the fundamentalist one took the control and now the western is paying the consequences. I'd say that now they would have thought things better.

You don't see any similarities to the present situation in Syria and what happened in Afghanistan? Sure, there were and still are "normal" people that want Assad to step down but weirdo, honor killing Islamists have taken advantage of the situation and are even fighting with the FSA in some instances if they feel they're not hardcore enough. This is an Arab problem that Arabs should deal with.

Well, has been proved that arabs are to frequently times useless at the time of solving their problems. By other hand, even if the jihadist number has increased, the crimes that Assad had done so far already ilegitimate him and has become a war criminal, just like Gaddafi did.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#35

Posted 25 August 2013 - 02:09 PM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 13:25)
QUOTE (EscoLehGo @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 13:11)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 04:13)
During the Soviet-Afghan war there were two factions in the Mujahideen side (Islamist and Pastun or something like that, one fundamentalist and other just normal people). It's true that both were supported by the US but the fundamentalist one took the control and now the western is paying the consequences. I'd say that now they would have thought things better.

You don't see any similarities to the present situation in Syria and what happened in Afghanistan? Sure, there were and still are "normal" people that want Assad to step down but weirdo, honor killing Islamists have taken advantage of the situation and are even fighting with the FSA in some instances if they feel they're not hardcore enough. This is an Arab problem that Arabs should deal with.

Well, has been proved that arabs are to frequently times useless at the time of solving their problems. By other hand, even if the jihadist number has increased, the crimes that Assad had done so far already ilegitimate him and has become a war criminal, just like Gaddafi did.

There were no problems in Libya before the western governments created problems in Libya, just like they created problems in 1953 in Iran

Here are some Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There was no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens.
• There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms –this was all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child would receive US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government would subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local could purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments was all free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government would fund them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya had no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.

US and UK debts are around the 14 trillion and 9 trillion mark


http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508


Gaddafi was not the villain, the Western world is the villain

And no I am not a Muslim or a Liberal. I am a non religious, non patriotic human

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#36

Posted 25 August 2013 - 02:18 PM

I know Lybia was a quite good country for the African level, I was there twice before the revolution began. But Gadaffi, instead of hearing his people when the Arab revolution began, bombed them. It's his fault things ended that way. You can search for all the crimes he commited during that civil war, the death squads he made to terrorize the (innocent) people, by rape and murder, and see if he was a saint like you say. Cut the crap blaming the evil Western for all the crap that happens in the world.

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#37

Posted 25 August 2013 - 02:32 PM

I think Gaddaffi probably made a rod for his own back what with the crimes that Libya commited on a global scale. I mean, look at the Lockerbie Bombing and all of the other acts of terrorism which were sponsored by the Libyan government under Gaddaffi.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#38

Posted 25 August 2013 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 14:18)
I know Lybia was a quite good country for the African level, I was there twice before the revolution began. But Gadaffi, instead of hearing his people when the Arab revolution began, bombed them. It's his fault things ended that way. You can search for all the crimes he commited during that civil war, the death squads he made to terrorize the (innocent) people, by rape and murder, and see if he was a saint like you say. Cut the crap blaming the evil Western for all the crap that happens in the world.

You need to cut the crap

Can you not understand the truth?

The people of Libya supported Gaddafi

The opposition were organized, funded, armed by the West, they were not Libyan citizens, they were a rabble of scum

The opposition were the ones who did all the killing and butchering of innocent people along with the NATO bombs

It was not a case of the good ole Libyan standing up against the mad leader, that is a pure fabrication by the west

What happened is that the west did exactly what they did back in Iran in 1953




RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#39

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:00 PM

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 14:54)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Aug 25 2013, 14:18)
I know Lybia was a quite good country for the African level, I was there twice before the revolution began. But Gadaffi, instead of hearing his people when the Arab revolution began, bombed them. It's his fault things ended that way. You can search for all the crimes he commited during that civil war, the death squads he made to terrorize the (innocent) people, by rape and murder, and see if he was a saint like you say. Cut the crap blaming the evil Western for all the crap that happens in the world.

You need to cut the crap

Can you not understand the truth?

The people of Libya supported Gaddafi

The opposition were organized, funded, armed by the West, they were not Libyan citizens, they were a rabble of scum

The opposition were the ones who did all the killing and butchering of innocent people along with the NATO bombs

It was not a case of the good ole Libyan standing up against the mad leader, that is a pure fabrication by the west

What happened is that the west did exactly what they did back in Iran in 1953

But why would the west want to take him out if they had plenty of recent armamentistic contracts with Gadaffi???? The relations netween Libya and the Western countries had began to grow. If people ask for more liberties automatically means that the Western countries are behind?

lucid121
  • lucid121

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2013

#40

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:08 PM

user posted image

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#41

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:08 PM

Yeah Libya is a great country now, definitely worth a visit! Great sharia law, islamist terrorists ruling the land. No freedom, I wonder why it isn't a top holiday destination yet. Terrorists Gadaffi was desperately trying to get rid of. The Western World had no business whatsoever in Libya, besides balking Gadaffi and preventing Libya and with it a huge part of Africa from selling oil and other resources only in Gold Dinar, which would stir up the global financial pot. The central banks would've gone mental, Africa would've become a real big player, and eventually evolved from being the clubbed seal of the world. It isn't the first time this happened, in 2000 Sadam Hussein made the announcement that Iraqi oil would no longer be sold in Dollars but in Euros - what followed is history.

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#42

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:04 PM Edited by D- Ice, 27 August 2013 - 07:04 PM.

QUOTE (RoctStarNiko)
The attack was NOT carried out by the Syrian government

You are being lied to by western politicians and media

Here is a story from 5th May

http://www.reuters.c...E94409Z20130505

Obama had previously stated that a chemical weapon attack by Assad would be crossing the line


That news story (and the many others I read and heard before regarding the same thing) is hardly proof of a Western conspiracy to carry out a false-flag attack to justify a military intervention in Syria, as you seem to suggest.

It's a far better explanation that Western Intelligence agencies (as well as most lay people) knew well that the Syrian Regime possessed chemical weapons.
It is also the simplest, and therefore most likely, eplanation. Occam's Razor.

QUOTE
Then there is a chemical attack and all the western politicians and media jump on it and start talking about possible responses

If you cannot see the reality of what is happening, then you need serious help


Well, they aren't really considering military interention. Which also undermines your point above.
It is mostly hot air IMO. I doubt they want a blatant escalation with Assad's puppet masters in Iran, and his Russian friend.
Western leaders are also weary of the influence and scale of anti-West Islamists (Al-Nusra Front) within the Syrian Opposition.

QUOTE
Obama, Cameron and the rest are just plain evil and want to do whatever it takes to get rid of Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad etc and replace them with "friends" who will play to their rules

If you believe that American, Britain and friends are the "good" guys you are sick and twisted


I do agree with you that Western Leaders and their foreign policies are hardly the champions of some idealistic ethical and moral devine good against all those who represent nothing but pure evil.
However, that doesn't make the other side pure goodness either.

You have to also recognise that opposing the West's plans for increased political, economic and social influence are other non-Syrian outside entities with their own plans to influence Syria. And their reason for controling Syria is the exact same as the West's - to benefit themselves materially.

I visited some relative in Syria in 2010, and the place was filled with Iranian imports - everything for cars to basic food items. Virtually all were of far worse quality and just as expensive - if not more so - than their Western counterparts. Others could easily be produced within the country with basic machinery and training of the Syrian people - producing more jobs, better quality product better adapted to the Syrian market, and of course more affordable products and higher standards of living for Syrians.
Instead Bashar Al-Assad bans all Western Imports, as well as domestic production in Syria of anything that Iran can produce, sell them, and make a profit out of.

In regards to the Social Influence of Iran, it is really laughable that the government calls it the Syrian Arab Republic, and claims to represent Pan-Arabism, when the very same government does everything it can to distance the Arabs of Syria from Arabs in other countries - especially since most are Pro-West. Government TV propaganda makes "Arab" equate to "Anti-Israel", and of course Persian Iran is always shown as the hero in this good fight. Disgusting Persian foods were everywhere, guest ministers on a news discussion show (no real discussion - just people agreeing with ministers) ranted about how Syrians should learn from Persian Culture, and a different news story was saying how Persian is being taken up by college students almost as much as French (the langauge of the previous Imperialists controlling Syria).

Now this very same Iran is Assad's biggest supporter, sending him everything from arms, tactitians and even thousands of fighters, including elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps teams. So as you can see, the West is not the only outside power trying to influence Syria.

The question is which of the two morally ambiguous sides is better for the Syrian people. I personally think, without a doubt, it would be the West. Syria and Jordan are very comparable neighbouring countries. Jordan is almost identical to Syria, except that it fell under the West'ssphere of influence, and even before this civil war, it was way better off than Syria in almost every way possible.

QUOTE
The rebels fighting in Libya and Syria are backed, funded, armed and organized by CIA and other western intelligence agencies


With Libya, maybe. But the rebels in Syria are hardly organised or that well equipped. The are made up of loads of various militias helped by defected Assad Army and security forces members, who are attempting, and failing, to take on the far better equipped forces fighting for Assad. The best organised seem to in fact be the foreign Islamists,many of whom are anti-West and affliated with Al Qaeda.

QUOTE
The politicians and media feed you propaganda and you just accept it blindly and ignorantly


I think it is equally important that you do not feed on, and blindly accept, the propaganda from the other side (the likes of Russia Today and Press TV).

QUOTE
If you find it hard to comprehend that you are on the side of the sick, evil and twisted, then read about the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat


It might be far more relevant to look at the Soviet-backed 1970 Coup d'etat in Syria, that brought Bashar Al-Assad's father, Hafez Al-Assad into power.

QUOTE
All day the media have been asking this question

"What should be done if it is proven that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people"

Well how about an alternative question

"what should be done if somehow someone somewhere manages to prove that it was the Syrian rebels, backed by the western intelligence agencies, that were responsible for the chemical weapon attack that killed hundreds"

All the people who are outraged at Assad, assuming he is responsible will conveniently change their tune if they were told it was actually "us" who were the ones responsible


Well,like I said previously, Assad's forces are by far the most likely culprits, and the media is only doing their jobs in asking questions about a very important and relevant topic.

Goodluck trying to prove it was the Rebels who somehow managed to get hold of a chemical WMD and attack an area under their own control to frame their enemies and get the West to intervene - even though a lot of the rebels are anti-West, and most are against direct Western intervention.
Also, the West really isn't likely to do anything past hot air and empty threats. The most they will likely do is try to arm some of the rebels who aren't anti-West Islamist crazies thinking they are fighting a new Crusade.
Though doing so will make whoever they are arming look like Western patsies and puppets, and turn the likes of Al Nusra Front against them (which actually already happened already). This will make the fight against Assad even more difficult than before.

Hardly a diabolical master-plan by the West to take over the world...

Take care.

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#43

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:03 PM

US Special forces carried out false flag attacks in Panama in '89, so they have previous.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#44

Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:50 PM Edited by Raavi, 27 August 2013 - 02:57 PM.

Are some people genuinely that imbecilic and out of touch with reality. Or are they just not interested in facts that go outside of the by the mainstream media established status quo?

Very simple question: Who has more to gain by deploying a chemical agent in Syria?

Assad, who is winning the conflict, and who's every step is closely monitored by the UN present in the city of Damascus.

Or

The rebels whom are desperately trying to convince the West via doctored footage and other trickery to intervene in the conflict and remove Assad from power. So that they can take over and impose their strong religious tosh on Syria.

Landing Syria in the EXACT same spot Libya is now. Making the situation in the country worse than ever before. By then, like with Libya, Western interest will have shifted away. On to the next victim.

K20
  • K20

    suckmyrocket

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012
  • None

#45

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:03 PM

OP.... i agree. totally true. kill the innocent and point the finger in the other direction. it gets great support. and financial backing.

western countries are taking over the world. but quietly.

EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#46

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:04 PM

The rebels have elements within their ranks that definitely would have no problem sacrificing more than a thousand Syrian civilians if they thought it would please mighty Allah and their agendas could be furthered. You also have to consider some of the best and battle hardened rebel fighters aren't even Syrians to begin with.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#47

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:12 PM Edited by Raavi, 27 August 2013 - 03:22 PM.

Well, the Arab Liga now also points its sandy finger towards Assad.

http://www.reuters.c...E97Q0IX20130827

EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#48

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:25 PM

Hezbollah and other factions are in Syria fighting on Assad's behalf as well though so it can't be ruled out that they might have committed the chemical attack as a reprisal for recent sectarian violence that has been occurring in Lebanon and Iraq which is most likely linked to the violence in Syria. It's a messy situation.

Devil lt
  • Devil lt

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2009

#49

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:59 PM

Inb4 Iraq v2.0

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#50

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:05 PM

QUOTE (EscoLehGo @ Tuesday, Aug 27 2013, 15:25)
Hezbollah and other factions are in Syria fighting on Assad's behalf as well though so it can't be ruled out that they might have committed the chemical attack as a reprisal for recent sectarian violence that has been occurring in Lebanon and Iraq which is most likely linked to the violence in Syria. It's a messy situation.

It was the Al-Nusra front, who are made up of Chechen fighters and Islamic militants from other countries. They are funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are ultimately backed by the US.

Some good evidence of previous sarin attacks here:

http://www.wnd.com/2...ttack-in-syria/

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#51

Posted 27 August 2013 - 06:34 PM Edited by D- Ice, 27 August 2013 - 06:40 PM.

QUOTE (Raavi @ Tuesday, Aug 27 2013, 09:50)
Are some people genuinely that imbecilic and out of touch with reality. Or are they just not interested in facts that go outside of the by the mainstream media established status quo?

Very simple question: Who has more to gain by deploying a chemical agent in Syria?

Assad, who is winning the conflict, and who's every step is closely monitored by the UN  present in the city of Damascus.

Or

The rebels whom are desperately trying to convince the West via doctored footage and other trickery to intervene in the conflict and remove Assad from power. So that they can take over and impose their strong religious tosh on Syria.

Landing Syria in the EXACT same spot Libya is now. Making the situation in the country worse than ever before. By then, like with Libya, Western interest will have shifted away. On to the next victim.

And @ JOSEPH X:

I admire your passion for not automatically believing, and always questioning, mainstream media. I petrsonally try to live by a similar mantra.

I don't doubt that some rebels have used doctored videos and images in their dreadfully desperate situation, as has Assad's government.

What I disagree with you on is the Rebel's desire for Western intervention, especially one so great, as you claim, that they are willing to deploy their coup de grace chemical weapon on their own fighters and the civilians they are fighting for, just so that the West intervenes.
You two are also neglecting the fact that many of the Rebel Fighters are against Western intervention, and the best organised and most capable at Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front are inherently anti-West these days. Do you guys remember the assassination of a top FSA Commander because they suspected him of being a Western Puppet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-23285869

So how could these same people ever want for the West to intervene? They know full well Western intervention is never free, and it will result in Western influence spreading in Syria afterwards - the very thing they are fighting against.

EDIT:
Also, Assad has a lot to gain in using the chemical weapons to create fear in, and dissuade the rebels attacking right on the doorstep of the capital, and the seat to his power.

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    Globalism BTFO

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#52

Posted 27 August 2013 - 07:05 PM

If it was the rebels who carried out the attack, then why would the Syrian government deny UN weapons inspectors access to the site for days? And continue to shell the area, thereby destroying crucial evidence? If it wasn't the government, and they have so much to lose, then why wouldn't they simply allow the inspectors in and be more transparent. I'm not saying it was the government, but this kind of behaviour doesn't exactly scream innocence to me. This is in an area where the government has been trying to take control away from the rebels for a long time, and had been under siege by government forces for months.


JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#53

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:19 PM

QUOTE (D- Ice @ Tuesday, Aug 27 2013, 18:34)

Do you guys remember the assassination of a top FSA Commander because they suspected him of being a Western Puppet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-23285869


The Al Nusra front and the FSA are not allies, they are just fighting a common enemy. They would have no qualms about attacking the FSA with chemical weapons (which they are getting from Saudi Arabia btw) if it led to the US/UK taking out the Assad regime. Once Assad is gone they can then go to war with the FSA.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#54

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:28 PM

What worries me is that the Russians might get involved. Sad as it is to admit, successful wars are a vote winner. Cameron wants to assert himself as a strongman. Hence the quarrel with Spain over Gibraltar, hence the puritanical plan for a Porn ban, hence his impending war against the Syrians.
I have no problem with military conquest, if our enemies are weak and easily scattered. But Russia could prove quite the fly in our ointment. I've heard that the Saudi's have attempted to coerce them into submission with oil contracts, but who knows what way Putin will swing? No one even knows what that man had for breakfast until it's floating in his toilet bowl.

What I want to know is what Britain gains from this war. Attacking Syria for the sake of Mr. Cameron's political career is understandable, but we need more than that. Are we simply going to bomb these people and wander away as though nothing happened? Or are we going to replace Assad with someone under Anglo-American control?
A war for plunder, for greater control of the region would be a messy, protracted affair, but it would at least offer the slim possibility of a return of the massive investment we are about to make. I don't know if airstrikes alone are sufficient, especially if they simply help replace one troublemaker with a whole country full of competing troublemakers.

At the moment, I hope they hold off until Russia is in our pocket. Iran has been threatening retaliation, but they're nothing but a paper Tiger and everyone knows it. But Russia is that awful combination of an untrustworthy ally and a powerful foe, we need to tread carefully around them.

JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#55

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:56 PM

The Russians won't do sh*t. They need to beat up gay guys to look hard.

The US has naval supremacy on the oceans either side of its mainland, and any conventional war with the US by Russia would lead to defeat or some mutually assured destruction craziness. They might have a few words to say once those cruise missiles start hitting Syrian military bases but that's about it.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#56

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:22 PM

QUOTE (JOSEPH X @ Tuesday, Aug 27 2013, 20:56)
The Russians won't do sh*t. They need to beat up gay guys to look hard.

The US has naval supremacy on the oceans either side of its mainland, and any conventional war with the US by Russia would lead to defeat or some mutually assured destruction craziness. They might have a few words to say once those cruise missiles start hitting Syrian military bases but that's about it.

If it ever escalated to WWIII type scenario with Iran defending Syria by eg launching an attack against a US warship, then both Russia and China might stand on the side of Iran to PREVENT WWIII from happening
US would be forced to back down because even if they have military presence and power, ISRAEL would be the first target to be hit and US would never engage in a massive war that would include the destruction of Israel

Der_Don
  • Der_Don

    Obergefreiter der Reserve

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2008
  • Germany

#57

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:40 PM

The upcoming military intervention is just a demonstration of power, it won't have any (positive) effects on the civil war. I don't really understand what the US expect of this. Do they think some bombs will change Assad's mind? It will only get worse...

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#58

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:50 PM Edited by D- Ice, 28 August 2013 - 09:50 AM.

QUOTE (Typhus @ Tuesday, Aug 27 2013, 15:28)
What worries me is that the Russians might get involved. Sad as it is to admit, successful wars are a vote winner. Cameron wants to assert himself as a strongman. Hence the quarrel with Spain over Gibraltar, hence the puritanical plan for a Porn ban, hence his impending war against the Syrians.
I have no problem with military conquest, if our enemies are weak and easily scattered. But Russia could prove quite the fly in our ointment. I've heard that the Saudi's have attempted to coerce them into submission with oil contracts, but who knows what way Putin will swing? No one even knows what that man had for breakfast until it's floating in his toilet bowl.

What I want to know is what Britain gains from this war. Attacking Syria for the sake of Mr. Cameron's political career is understandable, but we need more than that. Are we simply going to bomb these people and wander away as though nothing happened? Or are we going to replace Assad with someone under Anglo-American control?
A war for plunder, for greater control of the region would be a messy, protracted affair, but it would at least offer the slim possibility of a return of the massive investment we are about to make. I don't know if airstrikes alone are sufficient, especially if they simply help replace one troublemaker with a whole country full of competing troublemakers.

At the moment, I hope they hold off until Russia is in our pocket. Iran has been threatening retaliation, but they're nothing but a paper Tiger and everyone knows it. But Russia is that awful combination of an untrustworthy ally and a powerful foe, we need to tread carefully around them.

I completely agree with you about war mate. I personally think the West does have wider interests in this War than simply winning votes - I guess the plan is to remove Assad and install someone under our influence.

If you think about the massive $1 Trillion investment by the US alone in Iraq, and how that went completely pear-shaped, and now Iran is pulling Maliki's puppet strings. He is also less-than-democratically getting rid of all opposition with laughably groundless accusations of being Ba'athi or Wahabi, so there is no chance of the West gaining influence there.
We also invested a hell of a lot in Afghanistan, and Karzai is most certainly not under the West's control, and the Taliban is still going strong.
At these hard economic times, the loss of these massive investments is only made more hard-hitting.

In addition to this Islamism is spreading like wildfire across the Arab world, and I don't think many people know if it can be contained to our favour (like with Saudis), or if it can be successfully defeated. Russia is acting ballsy and anti-West/-NATO as always. China, the US' biggest trading partner and manufacturer of almost everything everywhere, is for some reason deciding to side against the West.
You also have loss of confidence in government amongst most people in the West with the Whistle-Blowers and leaks of secrets.

So all in all, I think the West is somewhat desperate for this victory - even if it just means giving Iran the finger by causing them to lose influence. It will also prove the point that the West wont stand idly by while they steal away our investment in Iraq.

I completely agree with you on Putin - he is some character. However,personally, I can't see Russia getting involved directly as much as Iran. If the strikes on Syria go ahead, I expect Iran will get Hizbollah to fire rockets at Israel. Maybe they'll get Iraq to lash out a bit, by ending contracts with Western companies and kicking them out.At worst, I think they might activate some sleeper cells against Western/Isreali targets.
I can't see Russia acting directly - they aren't that stupid. Remember them cutting that shipment of S300 missiles to Syria once Israel started threatening? They also lack much influence - if any - in the region to retaliate via proxies.

Take care mate.

@ JOSEPH X:
I agree with you completely about the FSA and Al-Nusra Front not being the best of friends - as well as the post-Assad fighting between them that you posit.
However, I'm not sure it is Saudi funding them. Saudi is a strong allie of the West, I really can't see them funding anti-West factions like Al-Nusra Front. Saudi and Qatar are acting as conduits to fund and transport aid to factions that the West instructs them them to.

Also, I think Al-Nusra Front know that if the West will get involved, they will spread their influence, and Al-Nusra will ultimately have to fight them alongside the FSA for control over Syria. I don't think they're quite that stupid to think the West will just remove Assad for them and leave them in charge.

Take care.

darthYENIK
  • darthYENIK

    Born to kick your ass

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2002
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Movies/TV] 2015
    Best Poster [Movies/TV] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Movies/TV] 2013

#59

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:53 PM

It might be superficial, but this is why I don't want the US to participate in any action against Syria...

user posted image

There are other countries and armed forces in the world to lead this charge.

EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#60

Posted 28 August 2013 - 12:02 AM

QUOTE (darthYENIK @ Tuesday, Aug 27 2013, 21:53)
It might be superficial, but this is why I don't want the US to participate in any action against Syria...

user posted image

There are other countries and armed forces in the world to lead this charge.

France was talking a lot of sh*t about jumping in for a while, have they backed down since the US started thumping their chest as well?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users