Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Moderator: GH Moderators
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Pressure grows for Syria strike as Damascus vows to defend itself
MOMENTUM appears to be building for Western military action against Syria, with the US and France saying they are in position for a strike, while the government in Damascus vowed to use all possible measures to repel it.
The prospect of a dramatic US-led intervention into Syria's civil war stemmed from the West's assertion - still not endorsed by UN inspectors - that President Bashar Assad's government was responsible for an alleged chemical attack on civilians outside Damascus on August 21 that the group Doctors Without Borders says killed 355 people. Assad denies the claim.
The Arab League also threw its weight behind calls for punitive action, blaming the Syrian government for the attack and calling for those responsible to be brought to justice.
British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament to hold an emergency vote on his country's response. It is unlikely that any international military action would begin before then
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke yesterday with US President Barack Obama, and today with Mr Cameron. Australia is due to take over the presidency of the UN Security Council on Sunday.
During the phone call Mr Rudd and Mr Cameron "agreed that it was increasingly certain that the (Syrian) regime was responsible for the attack, particularly since the regime had refused to give the UN immediate access to the site, which demonstrated that they had something to hide,'' a Downing Street spokesman said.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said US military forces stand ready to strike Syria at once if Mr Obama gives the order, and French President Francois Hollande said France was "ready to punish those who took the heinous decision to gas innocents."
Mr Obama is weighing a response focused narrowly on punishing Assad for violating international agreements that ban the use of chemical weapons. Officials said the goal was not to drive Assad from power or impact the broader trajectory of Syria's bloody civil war, now in its third year.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West should be under no illusion that bombing Syrian military targets would help end the violence in Syria, an ally of Moscow, and he pointed to the volatile situations in Iraq and Libya that he said resulted from foreign military intervention.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said his country would use "all means available" to defend itself.
"We have the means to defend ourselves and we will surprise everyone," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-dept ... 6705424520
MOMENTUM appears to be building for Western military action against Syria, with the US and France saying they are in position for a strike, while the government in Damascus vowed to use all possible measures to repel it.
The prospect of a dramatic US-led intervention into Syria's civil war stemmed from the West's assertion - still not endorsed by UN inspectors - that President Bashar Assad's government was responsible for an alleged chemical attack on civilians outside Damascus on August 21 that the group Doctors Without Borders says killed 355 people. Assad denies the claim.
The Arab League also threw its weight behind calls for punitive action, blaming the Syrian government for the attack and calling for those responsible to be brought to justice.
British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament to hold an emergency vote on his country's response. It is unlikely that any international military action would begin before then
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke yesterday with US President Barack Obama, and today with Mr Cameron. Australia is due to take over the presidency of the UN Security Council on Sunday.
During the phone call Mr Rudd and Mr Cameron "agreed that it was increasingly certain that the (Syrian) regime was responsible for the attack, particularly since the regime had refused to give the UN immediate access to the site, which demonstrated that they had something to hide,'' a Downing Street spokesman said.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said US military forces stand ready to strike Syria at once if Mr Obama gives the order, and French President Francois Hollande said France was "ready to punish those who took the heinous decision to gas innocents."
Mr Obama is weighing a response focused narrowly on punishing Assad for violating international agreements that ban the use of chemical weapons. Officials said the goal was not to drive Assad from power or impact the broader trajectory of Syria's bloody civil war, now in its third year.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West should be under no illusion that bombing Syrian military targets would help end the violence in Syria, an ally of Moscow, and he pointed to the volatile situations in Iraq and Libya that he said resulted from foreign military intervention.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said his country would use "all means available" to defend itself.
"We have the means to defend ourselves and we will surprise everyone," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-dept ... 6705424520
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
I've been finding this confrontation fascinating, particularly over the last few days. Potentially anything could happen.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
what scares me the most is we really dont know anything, yet this chemical strike could easily be used by the US for invasion.
im not for chemical weapons, but i also do not like mainstream media telling me what to think, and i do not think there should be an invasion for a single reason, that cannot be proven, but allows the response to be justified
the so called deal between russia and the sauds also interests me greatly, as it suggests the eastern dictators are getting more and more scared of the west destabilising all countries until iran and co are left.
your right, anything could happen
im not for chemical weapons, but i also do not like mainstream media telling me what to think, and i do not think there should be an invasion for a single reason, that cannot be proven, but allows the response to be justified
the so called deal between russia and the sauds also interests me greatly, as it suggests the eastern dictators are getting more and more scared of the west destabilising all countries until iran and co are left.
your right, anything could happen
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
What so-called deal?? I missed that bit.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
That whole area is a nightmare, reminds me of part of one of Jim Jefferies routines
I imagine ill be 80 years old and ill be sitting in my chair and my grandson will be out on the floor looking up at me adoringly and ill go “now, there use to be these people called Arabs, and they lived in the middle east, or as you call it ‘the radiation zone’. In 2020 president Macaulay Culkin got really upset with the Arabs and he nuked them all, but what Macaulay Culkin and the rest of the Americans didn’t realize was that china had slowly but surely become the super power of the world. so while the Americans were nuking the Arabs, the Chinese were nuking the Americans, so that’s why we have no Americans or Arabs”.
and my grandson will look up at me and go “多數民眾贊成驚人”
I imagine ill be 80 years old and ill be sitting in my chair and my grandson will be out on the floor looking up at me adoringly and ill go “now, there use to be these people called Arabs, and they lived in the middle east, or as you call it ‘the radiation zone’. In 2020 president Macaulay Culkin got really upset with the Arabs and he nuked them all, but what Macaulay Culkin and the rest of the Americans didn’t realize was that china had slowly but surely become the super power of the world. so while the Americans were nuking the Arabs, the Chinese were nuking the Americans, so that’s why we have no Americans or Arabs”.
and my grandson will look up at me and go “多數民眾贊成驚人”
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
i read an article yesterday claiming the saudis had opted to guarantee russias oil and gas contracts for relatively long term future, if they act favorably against the assad governmentThe Nickman wrote:What so-called deal?? I missed that bit.
to put this into perspective, i work with a syrian lad who was wondering why everyone was suddenly so interested in syria (in the past few weeks) as it was "normal life" for his country.
to me, along with the increased coverage and massive amounts of media over the attack, suggest that Possibly that the US feels they need to get involved as they may have lost their level of control within the region.
team america world police
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
jim jefferies has to be one of the most intelligent and hilarious comedians Australia has ever produced.Manbush wrote:That whole area is a nightmare, reminds me of part of one of Jim Jefferies routines
I imagine ill be 80 years old and ill be sitting in my chair and my grandson will be out on the floor looking up at me adoringly and ill go “now, there use to be these people called Arabs, and they lived in the middle east, or as you call it ‘the radiation zone’. In 2020 president Macaulay Culkin got really upset with the Arabs and he nuked them all, but what Macaulay Culkin and the rest of the Americans didn’t realize was that china had slowly but surely become the super power of the world. so while the Americans were nuking the Arabs, the Chinese were nuking the Americans, so that’s why we have no Americans or Arabs”.
and my grandson will look up at me and go “多數民眾贊成驚人”
And its o so true, Australia really better hope america doesnt go all roman on us
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Going into Syria will solve very little. The end result will be more death, more turmoil and more instability in a region that is already being pulled to pieces by foreign financial interests, religious and sectarian violence and oil.
This needs a diplomatic solution not a ****ing contest between the US and Russia.
This needs a diplomatic solution not a ****ing contest between the US and Russia.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
But that is exactly the question...a diplomatic solution that favours who?Green eyed Mick wrote:Going into Syria will solve very little. The end result will be more death, more turmoil and more instability in a region that is already being pulled to pieces by foreign financial interests, religious and sectarian violence and oil.
This needs a diplomatic solution not a ****ing contest between the US and Russia.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Obama's War of Choice in Syria Isn't Defensive or Humanitarian
The seemingly impending war the U.S. is about to launch on Syria is not about saving people from the Assad regime's violence. That is glaringly true given what the Obama administration is actually planning to do.
Airstrikes. No, not the kind that will last for months until the Assad regime is toppled. Regime change is pretty explicitly not the goal. Instead, the Obama administration and senior officials speaking to the press have suggested the airstrikes will be limited.
Limited to what? Is the goal to bomb the Assad regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons so that he can never again use them on his own people? According to Mark Thompson at Time, taking out Syria's chemical weapons caches "is fraught with perils," because not only is the U.S. unsure of where they are located, but bombing them could create "plumes of deadly vapors that could kill civilians downwind of such attacks." If Obama takes this route, he'll kill more civilians with chemical weapons than would have died without a U.S. military response.
Instead, Obama may target "military, and command and control, targets -- including artillery and missile units that could be used to launch chemical weapons -- instead of the bunkers believed to contain them." Ok, and what appreciable effect will this have? On the one hand, such strikes wouldn't amount to leveling Assad's entire military infrastructure since Obama is intent to "maintain the functions of the state" in order to avoid a power vacuum that would boost the al-Qaeda-linked rebels and possibly allow them to get their hands on Assad's chemical weapons (which they have said they would use). As Phil Giraldi, former CIA intelligence officer, told me back in March, "Obama has come around to the view that regime change is more fraught with dangers than letting Assad remain."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-glas ... 22652.html
The seemingly impending war the U.S. is about to launch on Syria is not about saving people from the Assad regime's violence. That is glaringly true given what the Obama administration is actually planning to do.
Airstrikes. No, not the kind that will last for months until the Assad regime is toppled. Regime change is pretty explicitly not the goal. Instead, the Obama administration and senior officials speaking to the press have suggested the airstrikes will be limited.
Limited to what? Is the goal to bomb the Assad regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons so that he can never again use them on his own people? According to Mark Thompson at Time, taking out Syria's chemical weapons caches "is fraught with perils," because not only is the U.S. unsure of where they are located, but bombing them could create "plumes of deadly vapors that could kill civilians downwind of such attacks." If Obama takes this route, he'll kill more civilians with chemical weapons than would have died without a U.S. military response.
Instead, Obama may target "military, and command and control, targets -- including artillery and missile units that could be used to launch chemical weapons -- instead of the bunkers believed to contain them." Ok, and what appreciable effect will this have? On the one hand, such strikes wouldn't amount to leveling Assad's entire military infrastructure since Obama is intent to "maintain the functions of the state" in order to avoid a power vacuum that would boost the al-Qaeda-linked rebels and possibly allow them to get their hands on Assad's chemical weapons (which they have said they would use). As Phil Giraldi, former CIA intelligence officer, told me back in March, "Obama has come around to the view that regime change is more fraught with dangers than letting Assad remain."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-glas ... 22652.html
- Baywatch
- John Ferguson
- Posts: 2757
- Joined: April 7, 2013, 9:43 pm
- Favourite Player: Shaun Fensom
- Location: Coogee
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Going to free the **** out of them.Gus- wrote:
team america world police
Would Russia really risk their economy by possibly getting into a fight with the US over the middle east?
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
This needed a diplomatic solution 2 years ago.. Instead 100,000 people have been killed and 2 million displaced..
America only said chemical weapons was the 'Red line' because they don't want to get involved and they thought it wouldn't come to this..
Now it seems they'll send troops in purely so they don't look politically 'weak'..
Also tanks were rolling in shelling communities for ages but apparently blatantly killing people with chemicals is different to killing them with shells..
America only said chemical weapons was the 'Red line' because they don't want to get involved and they thought it wouldn't come to this..
Now it seems they'll send troops in purely so they don't look politically 'weak'..
Also tanks were rolling in shelling communities for ages but apparently blatantly killing people with chemicals is different to killing them with shells..
- Conor
- Simon Woolford
- Posts: 466
- Joined: May 14, 2012, 10:54 am
- Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
- Location: Virginia
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
So, What’s It Going To Be?
COMMENTARY • Opinion • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 28, 2013
By Bashar Al-Assad
Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.
So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?
I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.
So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.
Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.
Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.
Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.
Moving on.
I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.
And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.
Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.
So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.
I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.
Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.
Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-wha ... /?ref=auto
COMMENTARY • Opinion • ISSUE 49•35 • Aug 28, 2013
By Bashar Al-Assad
Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.
So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?
I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.
So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.
Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.
Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.
Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.
Moving on.
I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.
And, hey, as long as we’re just throwing stuff out there, let’s consider a ground invasion for a moment. Now, even if you could reasonably fund a ground invasion, which I’m pretty sure you can’t, what exactly would such an invasion accomplish in the long term? I suppose it’s possible that you could come in and sweep me out the door and that would be the end of it. It’s possible. You know, like, in the sense that seeing a majestic white Bengal tiger in the wild is possible. Or, more likely, you could find yourself entrenched in a full-blown civil war that drags on for 15 years and sets off further turmoil in the rest of the region, leading to even more dead bodies for your country and mine, and even more virulent hatred of America. In fact, boy, maybe this is the one option that should be totally off the table.
Oh, and speaking of me being toppled from power, let’s say, just for fun, that tomorrow I were to somehow be dethroned. Who’s in charge? Half of these rebel groups refuse to work with one another and it’s getting harder to tell which ones are actually just Islamic extremists looking to fill a potential power vacuum. We’ve got Christians, Sunnis, and Shias all poised to fight one another for control should I fall. You want to be the ones sorting through that mess when you’re trying to build a new government? I didn’t think so.
So, all in all, quite the pickle you’re in, isn’t it? I have to say, I do not envy you here. Really curious to see where you go with this one.
I’ll leave you with this: I am insane. Not insane enough to generate worldwide unanimity that I cannot remain in charge of my own country. That would make this a lot easier. No, unfortunately, I’m just sane and stable enough to remain in power and devise cunning military and political strategies while at the same time adhering to a standard of morality that only the most perverse and sociopathic among us would be capable of adopting. But nevertheless, I am insane, so do with that information what you will.
Long story short, I’m going to keep doing my best to hold on to my country no matter what the cost. If that means bombing entire towns, murdering small children, or shooting at UN weapons inspectors, so be it. I’m in this for the long haul. And you will do...whatever it is you’re going to do, which is totally up to you. Your call.
Anyway, let me know what you decide. I’ll be waiting.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-wha ... /?ref=auto
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
there is no place in the world for chemical weapons, what do you think is going to happen if the rest of the world lets them get away with this ?
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
The interseting thing is the weapons being used would be the ones iraq took across the border prior to the war.Shadow Boxer wrote:there is no place in the world for chemical weapons, what do you think is going to happen if the rest of the world lets them get away with this ?
- Please
- Gary Belcher
- Posts: 6826
- Joined: June 26, 2012, 11:43 am
- Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
- Location: Canberra
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
I can't see a solution as to which everyone in the world is happy with. America don't go in, these atrocities keep happening. America does go in, it starts another war
Well, at least Jack got paid.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
That is a very good post, Conor. I have no idea what the solution is. Surely Russia and China cannot continue to back Syria in the face of chemical weapons??
- Conor
- Simon Woolford
- Posts: 466
- Joined: May 14, 2012, 10:54 am
- Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
- Location: Virginia
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
The Onion has been on a roll of late. I don't know what the answer is, it's all complicated by the fact there are two militant Islamic groups on opposing sides. Hezbollah (Militant Shi'a) with the Government and Jabhat al-Nusra (Militant Sunni + Al-Qaeda affiliates) with the rebels. They are taking advantage of the situation and have played a role in it escalating. They don't represent the wishes of the initial protesters (that arose with the Arab Spring), nor even the vast majority of Shi'a and Sunni living in Syria. Or anywhere for that matter. It should be noted, I think, that plenty of other countries went through very bloody civil wars in their early days as they developed into democracy, it's not something unique to that part of the world. I suspect that US involvement would be a mistake.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Maybe the best course of action really is for the US to do nothing, just let them punch themselves tired. The biggest problem though, is Obama said use of chemical weapons would be his "Red Flag", and it seems Syria has called his bluff. To do nothing now will seem like backing down.
- Conor
- Simon Woolford
- Posts: 466
- Joined: May 14, 2012, 10:54 am
- Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
- Location: Virginia
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Yeah, I think you're right. Sometimes making the decision to back down is not only the more prudent course of action, but also the more courageous. Making the choice to not act is not the same as inaction. But, that's a hard sell to make politically. I hope Obama has better advisers than Bush.The Nickman wrote:Maybe the best course of action really is for the US to do nothing, just let them punch themselves tired. The biggest problem though, is Obama said use of chemical weapons would be his "Red Flag", and it seems Syria has called his bluff. To do nothing now will seem like backing down.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
well the decision to not act worked out well in places like Rwanda, the world has no choice here.
Surgical strikes to disable the air force, enforce a no-fly zone and bombing selected targets are the only option really.
Surgical strikes to disable the air force, enforce a no-fly zone and bombing selected targets are the only option really.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
The massive concern is that the government gets toppled and the vaccuum is filled by rebels linked to Al-Qaeda. I think that's why the Americans' hands really are tied.
- Travis
- David Grant
- Posts: 725
- Joined: May 5, 2013, 7:53 pm
- Favourite Player: Josh Papalii
- Location: Capalaba
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
In many African countries it is still happening, some sixty years after independence. I don't think there is a workable solution. When you have two opposing / fundamentally different groups vying for power in the one region, there is no diplomatic response that is mutually palatable. The Palastine - Israel conflict has its foundations in the 1920s and is still unresolved. Nationalism has been a key cause of all major wars in modern history. Even if there is US intervention, any short-term peace (gained by much death) will be undermined eventually. My opinion is that the developed world's duty of care is to the innocent civilians caught up in these conflicts. Perhaps more humanitarian solutions should be considered. It might also help to enact embargoes against the supporters of these conflicts (ie. Russia and China in this instance).Conor wrote:The Onion has been on a roll of late. I don't know what the answer is, it's all complicated by the fact there are two militant Islamic groups on opposing sides. Hezbollah (Militant Shi'a) with the Government and Jabhat al-Nusra (Militant Sunni + Al-Qaeda affiliates) with the rebels. They are taking advantage of the situation and have played a role in it escalating. They don't represent the wishes of the initial protesters (that arose with the Arab Spring), nor even the vast majority of Shi'a and Sunni living in Syria. Or anywhere for that matter. It should be noted, I think, that plenty of other countries went through very bloody civil wars in their early days as they developed into democracy, it's not something unique to that part of the world. I suspect that US involvement would be a mistake.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
this was discussed in the truth thread some time ago
The rebels are armed and funded by the US - its a proxy war, and we shouldnt believe the US views that Assaad used chemical weapons, when they still havent found Suddaams chemical weapons. it could be false flag, like Iraq was. the evidence is not cut n dry, the UN has a lot of work to do yet.
The rebels are linked to Al-queda - the same mob which apprantly did 9/11, and the US want to alligne themselves with these people - you have to be kidden me right?
this video was posted nearly a year ago - western involvement should not happen, it could have grave consequences
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4
The rebels are armed and funded by the US - its a proxy war, and we shouldnt believe the US views that Assaad used chemical weapons, when they still havent found Suddaams chemical weapons. it could be false flag, like Iraq was. the evidence is not cut n dry, the UN has a lot of work to do yet.
The rebels are linked to Al-queda - the same mob which apprantly did 9/11, and the US want to alligne themselves with these people - you have to be kidden me right?
this video was posted nearly a year ago - western involvement should not happen, it could have grave consequences
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
A few things I believe that may/may not be true.ak47 wrote:this was discussed in the truth thread some time ago
The rebels are armed and funded by the US - its a proxy war, and we shouldnt believe the US views that Assaad used chemical weapons, when they still havent found Suddaams chemical weapons. it could be false flag, like Iraq was. the evidence is not cut n dry, the UN has a lot of work to do yet.
The rebels are linked to Al-queda - the same mob which apprantly did 9/11, and the US want to alligne themselves with these people - you have to be kidden me right?
this video was posted nearly a year ago - western involvement should not happen, it could have grave consequences
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4
1. The chemical weapons are Suddam's that he moved across the border just before the US attacked.
and
b. America is reluctant to take out Assad's regime for the very reason that the opposition, who are aligned with Al-Qaeda, fill the breach. I think Obama's hands are very much tied on this one, which is why he's trying not to get involved.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
The US doesn't give a **** about civilian deaths. The US only intervene when they have a commercial interest. At all other times they either do nothing (see African Civil War and Genocide) or they wait for the UN.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Yep pretty much nailed my problem with America GEM, if they want to act like world police fine I wouldnt be too upset about it but do it where the people need it not just where there's financial benefit
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Ricky Stuart
- Posts: 9174
- Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Syria is getting a bit big for its boots, it would be good to see them bombed back to the point they can't hurt the rest of us any more.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Well Syria missed a deadline to handover chemical weapons.. What the results of this means is anyone's guess.
It's all just becoming and even bigger mess. There needed to be more of an attempt to get a political solution about 2 years ago. Instead the world pretty much ignored it.
btw saw this video yesterday..
Really don't know how to react to it.. Shows how people are finding humour in the darkest of situations.
It's all just becoming and even bigger mess. There needed to be more of an attempt to get a political solution about 2 years ago. Instead the world pretty much ignored it.
btw saw this video yesterday..
Really don't know how to react to it.. Shows how people are finding humour in the darkest of situations.
- Please
- Gary Belcher
- Posts: 6826
- Joined: June 26, 2012, 11:43 am
- Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
- Location: Canberra
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Because of this war I can't travel as freely in Turkey when I go there... Bastards.
Well, at least Jack got paid.
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51546
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
You'll be fine Luffty. Just grow your beard back and whack a milk-crate on your head.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
So after helping fund and arm a bunch of rebels with an unknown identity that turned into ISIS and took over half of Iraq the new solution is to arm a new group of rebels whose identity isn't really known..
This will totally work.
Anyway it's not like anyone in Congress benefits from having to purchase so many weapons.........
This will totally work.
Anyway it's not like anyone in Congress benefits from having to purchase so many weapons.........
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Definitely worth sharing this.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
There is now some talk that the US should 'side' with Assad as it would help to battle ISIS.. Would never publicly do it but cutting of aid to some rebels and sharing intelligence would help them..
Basically they know Assad isn't a threat at all to them. It would however be a massive backflip as they spent so much money and effort trying to oust him and actually armed the rebels and helped them become more powerful and eventually ended up helping form and strengthen ISIS..
What a complete cluster**** the whole situation is..
So it could come down to "we'll help you defeat ISIS if you do A,B and C which would of course lead to Assad agreeing then doing whatever he wants once they are defeated and we probably end up in the situation where they start arming rebels again.
Basically they know Assad isn't a threat at all to them. It would however be a massive backflip as they spent so much money and effort trying to oust him and actually armed the rebels and helped them become more powerful and eventually ended up helping form and strengthen ISIS..
What a complete cluster**** the whole situation is..
So it could come down to "we'll help you defeat ISIS if you do A,B and C which would of course lead to Assad agreeing then doing whatever he wants once they are defeated and we probably end up in the situation where they start arming rebels again.
Re: Pressure grows for Syria strike...
Assaad is not the problem and has never been the problem. Syria literally havent hurt anybody. The USA just dont like them dealing with Iran, coz thats Russias alliance in the region.
Assaad is painted by mainstream media as a bad guy and fast forward a few months/years and now those rebels the US armed and funded to topple Assaad (the bad guy) are now ISIS (even badder guys)
So basically the US funds and arms the entire region and then goes home and waits until someone is getting the upper hand and comes back and stops them. Its like dropping a basket of BB guns into kindergarten and coming back at the end of the day to persecute whoever is winning the battle of the playground. This is all a ploy to get support for invasions so that they can democracise the region for their own oil exploitation.
ISIS wouldnt exist if Sadaam wasnt illegally invaded under the false pre-tense of WMD's. Thanks to the UN and Bushes bronies. None of this happened in Iraq prior, and has only happened since. The Chemical weapons in Syria were not deployed by Assaad, but were used by the rebels aided by the West to topple Assaad.
We have a high terror alert because we fight these wars and its none of our business. Bali only happened because of our involvement in the Iraq war. The more we participate and kill Middle Eastern people, the more enemies you make. This is none of our business, our military is minute compared most (ranked 43 in the world), we dont need to be frontline with the US pushing democracy, its a waste of taxpayer funds and only puts a cross-hair on our shores, that no amount of security can stop.
Assaad is painted by mainstream media as a bad guy and fast forward a few months/years and now those rebels the US armed and funded to topple Assaad (the bad guy) are now ISIS (even badder guys)
So basically the US funds and arms the entire region and then goes home and waits until someone is getting the upper hand and comes back and stops them. Its like dropping a basket of BB guns into kindergarten and coming back at the end of the day to persecute whoever is winning the battle of the playground. This is all a ploy to get support for invasions so that they can democracise the region for their own oil exploitation.
ISIS wouldnt exist if Sadaam wasnt illegally invaded under the false pre-tense of WMD's. Thanks to the UN and Bushes bronies. None of this happened in Iraq prior, and has only happened since. The Chemical weapons in Syria were not deployed by Assaad, but were used by the rebels aided by the West to topple Assaad.
We have a high terror alert because we fight these wars and its none of our business. Bali only happened because of our involvement in the Iraq war. The more we participate and kill Middle Eastern people, the more enemies you make. This is none of our business, our military is minute compared most (ranked 43 in the world), we dont need to be frontline with the US pushing democracy, its a waste of taxpayer funds and only puts a cross-hair on our shores, that no amount of security can stop.