Russia and Iran will not accept an attack of the USA.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
UN Inspectors attacked by snipers while attempting to visit chemical attack site
- Thread starter phosphor112
- Start date
- Status
Russia and Iran will not accept an attack of the USA.
captainnapalm
Member
Probably not. Only Russia's involvement is so far keeping this eventuality at bay.
Goddammit. Egypt, Libya and Syria make me lose faith in humanity.
What forms do these means of delivery take? Do we know where the regime keeps theirs? Do we know if the rebels have these and where they keep them?
Whatever happens, we need to sure first on who conducted the chemical weapon attack - Assad or the rebels. Iraq happened based on Western Propaganda. Only much later after the war this is now public domain common knowledge. But there's already plenty of reports regarding this incident pointing fingers at such possibilities again.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Indeed, they will be writing harsh letters and publicly condemning any such action.
Other than that though, they won't do shit.
What will they do? Make angry faces in diplomatic meetings? More so why do you wish a conflict between two major states?
Exactly. They won't really do anything. Russia will complain to whoever will listen but will not actually help Syria when it comes down to it.
maquiladora
Member
The goals of an operation will probably be to punish Assad for the chemical attack and try to prevent/deter it from happening again, not to overthrow him. That will be the plan on paper anyway, but who knows what will happen the day after. Dangerous situation, but Obama has painted himself into a corner now.
Syria is the last bastion against the US for the Iran, after this war the Iran/US war can begin. I hope Iran will send troops to syria and russia will deliver more weapons too assad. I hope the U.S. will get a bloody nose.
Yeah punish him by overthrowing him. I can't really see another way this would go down.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Obama played Black Ops 2. He wants his own ship.
You hope for war?
When the US will attack syria, it's a defensive war.
If US intervenes unjustly, war seems like a fair option.
maquiladora
Member
I don't think so, probably a limited number of strikes against some air bases, rocket units and command/control/communication sites. A 1 or 2 day operation with the threat to expand it if Assad uses chemical weapons again etc. There won't be a bomb aimed at his bedroom.
The question what happens in response to that...
You do know that chemical weapons are banned for a good reason, right? If Syria really used them then there's really only one choice how this should/will end.
First of all even if it was Assad the first time he isn't stupid enough to do it again. Every attempt to use air strikes by the US would inevitably lead to Assad losing the war.
Hah, wow...
Eighty Deuce
Banned
I remember the only channel we got on TV was from Syria. It was a dancing girl channel where hot ladies would dance for an hour. There was a phone number on the bottom of the screen, probably to hire one for a night. I wonder how many of those sexy ladies are dead now :/
The thing is I doubt China and Russia would allow an intervention even if Syria did all kinds of shady shit on top of this. Thus intervention would be "unjustified" whatever it really means (is war ever justified?).
It's not really about Syria to China and Russia. It's a more global approach to challenge USA on all areas possible.
Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/2012/198393.htm
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/hr_1905_pl_112_158.pdf
The US and Israel want a war against iran.
littleworm
Member
Russia and China would never dare directly try to stop the US/West if they went into Syria, which lets make clear now is not what is happening. Just like the West did shit all when Russia rolled into Georiga in 08' 99% of the shit that gets said by the US/West/Russia/China is just lip service.
Syria is a partner of russia and russia has some military bases in syria.
Of course they wouldn't. I was just referring to what is a justified intervention. It would have to be approved by The UN Security Council. China and Russia both being permanent members would say no if USA went ahead and asked for a mandate.
Perhaps, but say it is the Rebels who possess the weapons. Do you think they're going to take the usual NATO occupation well? Is the cure may be worse than the disease?
I don't think we'll full invade. Probably waste couple hundred million in ordinance to save political face. Too little national interest, and far too much to lose playing around with insurgents who may have access to chems.
Meanwhile its clear the US wants to go war with Iran. Only way for that to happen is through Syria. So is this really about the chemical attack, where there are reports stating it is a repeat of Iraq-tier fabrications to pin it on Assad?
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
There will be no invasion, there will be cruise missile launches from naval assets and long-range strikes from the air, a severe "shock and awe" attack designed to send a message and reduce significantly Syria's capability to launch a similar attack again.
It will greatly reduce Syrias air and missile launch power, but most of all it will be a "show of force" for the world stage rather than anything else.
littleworm
Member
What and you think we'd attack Russian assets and personnel? No. Syria is an asset to Russia and nothing more. Sure they would be upset to lose that asset. They will issue "statements of condemnations" and say that they stand behind the Syrian government and its people, but they would never go "all in" to protect Syria or Iran.
I don't know about Iran but it has been pretty clear for a while now that USA and its allies wouldn't watch from sidelines countries using chemical weapons. They are banned for a good reason.
Politic and never? The US would never dare to attack syria or iran when russia protect them and I hope russia will do that.
Obama attacks a country without a UNO mandate, a true nobel prize winner.
littleworm
Member
I see what your saying now, Yes I agree that China and Russia would of course use there veto power at the UN, but I really wouldn't be surprised if the west just goes through NATO to carry out the strikes.
Well Britain already said that they wouldn't feel it's unreasonable to intervene countries using chemical weapons even without a UN mandate. I kind of agree with Britain there.
Really? Afghanistan was invaded without Security Council approval and without the US attempting to come to a diplomatic solution. Bin-laden's head was demanded, and when the Afghan Government requested evidence, the US refused to comply -- you think that was justified? Had the US chosen to engage with them, gone through the proper UN channels to make it legal, then I could see a case being made for the invasion being justified.
captainnapalm
Member
It blows my mind that people are so ready to believe Assad used chemical weapons literally days after allowing UN inspectors into the country precisely to prove that they're not.
The only side the UN has so far accused of using chemical weapons is the rebel side. This was back in May. Considering this is the same group who back when this conflict started killed the top two defense officials, the president's national security advisor, and seriously wounded the interior minister and the chief of the national security office in a suicide bomb attack at a high-level meeting, it's not exactly hard to believe. They're terrorists doing terroristy things. They've also been captured on film being totally badass, eating people's hearts. And yet these are the people the US is looking out for and supporting with weapons? Just because the media and the politicians spew their propaganda and finger Assad based only on the claims of these Hannibal Lector wannabes with Al-Qaeda links, people just automatically believe it.
Didn't the bad guys used to be the heart eaters, the suicide bombers and the Al-Qaeda terrorists? What happened? Why are these people suddenly being given free reign and free guns to use against Middle Eastern leaders? Why are people not questioning this massive about face from their leaders?
The only side the UN has so far accused of using chemical weapons is the rebel side. This was back in May. Considering this is the same group who back when this conflict started killed the top two defense officials, the president's national security advisor, and seriously wounded the interior minister and the chief of the national security office in a suicide bomb attack at a high-level meeting, it's not exactly hard to believe. They're terrorists doing terroristy things. They've also been captured on film being totally badass, eating people's hearts. And yet these are the people the US is looking out for and supporting with weapons? Just because the media and the politicians spew their propaganda and finger Assad based only on the claims of these Hannibal Lector wannabes with Al-Qaeda links, people just automatically believe it.
Didn't the bad guys used to be the heart eaters, the suicide bombers and the Al-Qaeda terrorists? What happened? Why are these people suddenly being given free reign and free guns to use against Middle Eastern leaders? Why are people not questioning this massive about face from their leaders?
The US wants to fuck russia/iran, russia/iran wants to fuck US.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
Afghanistan was not in a position to offer the US what was needed, which was to stop being a training ground for terrorist organizations, it was a fractured nation ruled in name only by the Taliban, whereas in truth regions we're ruled locally by multiple clans and warlords.
Bin Laden would not have been enough.
After hundreds of thousands dead people, after countless miscarriages caused by uranium ammunition simply encouraging.
The war is lost, the US can kill a taliban leader every day, tomorrow another one takes his place. The next adventure is already here, syria/iran, let's see if the Chinese give the U.S. a loan once again, the bankruptcy is near.
captainnapalm
Member
Yeah, and hundreds of thousands more people are dead while the US and its European/Arab capos set about reorganizing the Middle East so they can go and kill a couple of hundred thousand more in Iran. And what will be left of these countries once the crazies have all taken over. Nothing.
People forget that the initial "invasion" of Afghanistan was mostly air strikes and special forces operations supporting an Afghani rebel group. It's not like we committed tens of thousands of troops to an occupation from the outset. The goal was simply to overthrow the Taliban and fuck up Al-Qaeda. That was basically accomplished in the first few months. The problem was we basically did nothing to support the new government for 2 years after invading Iraq, allowing the Taliban to regather their strength and start taking back ground. That's what led to the decade+ long cluster fuck we find ourselves in now.
..you do realize none of this has changed, right? The only thing the invasion did was ramp up anti-US sentiment and cause the deaths tens of thousands of people. It's still an incredibly fractured region, and it has the potential to get even worse. The Taliban could even regain control over the country again.
You will never, ever "stabilize" a country by bombing it to ashes.You just leave a power vacuum.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
That was because the US took its eye off the ball and got distracted by Iraq, resources that should have gone into tying up that loose end were send on a fools errand.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justified, the execution of it however was flawed and incomplete due to the rush to topple Saddam.
Then can you give me even one example where a US intervention did work out for the people?
Saddam was many times more dangerous and abusive to his own people than Assad ever dreamed of being. Even if these chemical attacks turn out to have been ordered by Assad, Saddam killed 5 times as many people with the same type of weapon. How is one Unjustified and the other Absolutely Justified?
If the US conducts strikes against Syria, Russia won't "declare war" on the US. That is one wild ass assumption.
Russia and the US would only go to war if their vital interests (i.e. survival of the state) are threatened. We survived the Cold War, and its countless proxy wars, without the US and Russia going to war.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked