I agree, although Libya our support for the rebels was seen as an effort of good faith for them.
Syria, I wouldn't side with anyone.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama Asks Pentagon For Syria No-Fly Zone Plan
- Thread starter maquiladora
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I agree, although Libya our support for the rebels was seen as an effort of good faith for them.
Syria, I wouldn't side with anyone.
Kinda strange how we sat by when Saudi Arabia crushed the democratic uprising in Bahrain.
Did not escalate to nearly this level, as we've been 'sitting by'. What are you talking about?
Did not escalate to nearly this level, as we've been 'sitting by'. What are you talking about?
For it to escalate like in Syria you would need an invasion of foreign fighters on top of powerhouses like Qatar/Turkey/CIA supplying them with weapons.
It's rather difficult on an Island, the Bahraini people are fucked until the Gulf Cooperation Council turns against the US or collapses.
What do the Russians think about it?
I think the more important question is what does Ja Rule think about this?
For it to escalate like in Syria you would need an invasion of foreign fighters on top of powerhouses like Qatar/Turkey/CIA supplying them with weapons.
It's rather difficult on an Island, the Bahraini people are fucked until the Gulf Cooperation Council turns against the US or collapses.
It's almost a total non sequitur. The situations have almost nothing in common. I'm not making excuses for the US.
RustyNails
Member
I understand the need to intervene and the moral gravity of a situation where you are in a position to help but do nothing. But my ideal situation would be to let Saudi, Qatar, Turkey and other regional powers to fix the situation while US, UK, France and other European countries provide civil support and nothing else. But of course nothing of the sort will happen because of the oil Sheiks are too busy rubbing oil and safegaurding their thrones.
Capital_Five
Member
Why is the US involved in this at all? Are we doing this as part of the UN or something? I'm just trying to get a feel for why this is our business and we are involving ourselves in any capacity. Why don't we just let other countries handle their own governments until they decide to war with us directly?
Freezie KO
Banned
But my ideal situation would be to let Saudi, Qatar, Turkey and other regional powers to fix the situation while US, UK, France and other European countries provide civil support and nothing else.
How do you propose they "fix the situation"? What is the ideal situation?
And why do you prefer Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey over the US and its European allies? The latter have much better human rights records, no?
I'm not saying the US should get involved. I'd rather not. I'm just curious about your views.
weremichael
Member
That was sarcasm about Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Sorry, I'm obtuse and can't read sarcasm as well as I should. Besides economics, I really don't understand why the USA has such close ties to those two countries. Maybe we can shape Syria in their image (did I do that right?).
Why is the US involved in this at all? Are we doing this as part of the UN or something? I'm just trying to get a feel for why this is our business and we are involving ourselves in any capacity. Why don't we just let other countries handle their own governments until they decide to war with us directly?
The US was involved in this before Bashar al-Assad was born. Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Mujaheddin of all creeds have been facilitated and exploited by the CIA to do their dirty work for many decades and continue to do so.
Why does the Syrian government need to go for the US? Syria gives Iran strength in the region, it's the lifeline to Hezbollah. It provides Russia with their last and essential naval bases in the Mediterranean. Syria determines which countries get to build pipelines to supply Turkey/EU over their territory. Neocons simply love war wherever simply to fuel the military industry..
And every involved party has a laundry list of such incentives to motivate regime change and giving them support now is an hopeful attempt to secure some future influence. Humanitarian concerns is nothing but a carrot on a stick.
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
- George Orwell
RustyNails
Member
Because first off this civil war that's going on is a highly sensitive proxy war between the monarchies and Iran, which itself is another cold war between US, Europe and China, Russia. Removing the middle-men and jumping right into the clusterfuck will inflame the situation and will give loonies more ammo against the evil West. I am assuming OIC and Arab League will not pass a unanimous consent. Second, it's better if the regional powers resolve the regional issue. It's not about human rights record, it's about what's the better method. Thirdly, if we do get involved and Assad's government falls, the outlook post-Assad is much more foggy than Libya's. I am not completely decided on this matter and ultimately the moral impetus may be too strong to ignore as the tyrant butchers his country.How do you propose they "fix the situation"? What is the ideal situation?
And why do you prefer Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey over the US and its European allies? The latter have much better human rights records, no?
I'm not saying the US should get involved. I'd rather not. I'm just curious about your views.
Freezie KO
Banned
Because first off this civil war that's going on is a highly sensitive proxy war between the monarchies and Iran, which itself is another cold war between US, Europe and China, Russia. Removing the middle-men and jumping right into the clusterfuck will inflame the situation and will give loonies more ammo against the evil West. I am assuming OIC and Arab League will not pass a unanimous consent. Second, it's better if the regional powers resolve the regional issue. It's not about human rights record, it's about what's the better method. Thirdly, if we do get involved and Assad's government falls, the outlook post-Assad is much more foggy than Libya's. I am not completely decided on this matter and ultimately the moral impetus may be too strong to ignore as the tyrant butchers his country.
Thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with you, but there's so many moving parts, I'd be lying if I had any certainty about it.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
If only there was some way for Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to kill each other off while leaving civilians alone....
then who would rule? warlords? like in Somalia?
Anything the West (US/EU/Israel) want to do, they better do it before the shipment of Russian missile defence platforms reaches Syria. Once that happens, you an effectively rule out any quick airstrikes or no fly zones.
you make it seem like US airstrikes/missile strikes can't hit said defense platfomr.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
dp
Sorry, I'm obtuse and can't read sarcasm as well as I should. Besides economics, I really don't understand why the USA has such close ties to those two countries. Maybe we can shape Syria in their image (did I do that right?).
Because economics is exactly why we have close ties with them. If we didn't need their oil at this moment, then we probably wouldn't have such close ties.
SouthernDragon
Member
A good description other than classifying it as the new Cold War.
then who would rule? warlords? like in Somalia?
you make it seem like US airstrikes/missile strikes can't hit said defense platfomr.
No I make it seem like US airstrikes/missile can't hit with ease. You're fooling yourself if you think the US or any allies want to risk sending a lot of fighters, use a lot of cruise missiles to neutralize said sites. They don't want to open another major war with a nation.
A single S300 defense platform can track over 100 targets and engage 12 at a time. Now it's easy to confuse or bomb said platform, but not without major risk.
The US and allies don't want to invade Syria. They don't want to reduce Syria to rubble. That's why this missile defense is crucial. You significantly raise the risk of casualties for the the US and the raise the cost of said strike.
And while these are pretty capable surface to air missile defense batteries, they are old and the US does have the stealth means to engage them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.