Plus Russia are not going to upset Syria.
Printable View
Plus Russia are not going to upset Syria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pickles2
As an American by birth I'd say it is high time people saw through the nonsense presented by complicit western media and see American (or their derivative U.K) interventions for what they are; crass imperialism draped in the fiction of democracy and legitimacy.
It's easy to keep sitting on our hands and "let them sort it out", but I think that is the wrong thing to do. I cannot believe the EU, US and Asia did nothing in Dafur and have let Syria destroy itself for the past two odd years. I also think North Korea requires intervention. Unfortunately it always seems to fall back on the US, and they are criticized when they do nothing and criticized when hey intervene. The EU intervened in Libya and in he past in he former Yugoslavia, but in general, mainland Europe are typically useless at offering assistance... Perhaps the Dutch and French are exempt from that judgement because they ofen do lend a hand.
War is expensive. I can understand if countries look for an economic benefit or offset to getting involved... Syria has little benefit to the US and EU getting involved, which is why it has been left to canibalise itself.
The UN is a complete farce. Russia and China should not be on the security council as they veto everything and are completely obstructionist and devoid of any feeling of obligation to preventing humanitarian crises.
I often wondered where the weapons of mass destruction were hidden after they were spirited out of Iraq hidden inside the tanks of those trucks carrying oil out into Syria.
So was this explosion of nerve gas the result of a unlucky direct hit, on one of the deposit's of those WMD?
.
its their problem, not ours. what right do we have to get involved in someone else's affairs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanguard
The safest option for the West is to supply arms to the rebels. Whether that's the best option.......... Here's what the locals think, Bob
Assaf Aboud BBC Arabic, Damascus
A good number of Syrians, in particular those supporting the regime, believe the visit of the UN chemical weapons investigation team is nothing but a move to justify a military attack on Syria. The opposition, however, thinks that these visits will lead to some evidence being unearthed, proving that chemical weapons have been used against civilians by the Syrian regime.
Above all, fear and discomfort are palpable among those living in the capital. People are haunted by the possibility of a Western military strike on Syria, discussion of which is dominating the headlines of satellite channels.
"I don't want Syria to become another Iraq... Enough bloodshed," cried one Syrian woman.
"We, and thousands like us across Syria, will face any country that tries to attack us," threatened a young man, pointing at his weapon, which he uses to protect his neighbourhood. "These are Syria's problems and it is up to us, Syrians, to solve them."
why should Australians die helping them turn Syria into an Islamic country run under sharia law
But which rebels?Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
This is not a case a two distinct sides fighting a civil war. There are many sides here, all for their own reasons. If / when the current side in power (Assad) is finally destroyed (by intervention or otherwise) the remaining sides will simply continue fighting among themselves for that power.
It has been shown the US, UK, France and all their western allies can not deliver government (peace, prosperity, stability etc.) by imposing it from above when a significant fraction of the population do not necessarily agree with their vision of how their world should work.
Having said that, there are a host of other state players here - Iran, Russia, Saudi etc. all trying to impose their visions of how the world in Syria should work also.
Then there are the non state actors, Hezbolla, Al Quada etc. all with ambitions to have a say about how the world should work.
Mix it all with the strong ethnic, sectarian, and tribal loyalties which exist in that part of the world and you have a problem for which there would seem to be no solution in the foreseeable future.
The place is a mess. Intervening will only leave a mess.
Send arms to different tribes is not going to be a solution, these arms will be used against civilians now in Syria and the next on the list will be Jordan :(Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
A real can of worms, mate. The Taliban were very grateful for the US weapons sent to the Afgans in their fight with Russia. From NBC News;Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
Updated
6
hours
ago
Ripple effect: How the US move on Syria could reverberate around the world
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...013/08/127.jpgUS Navy via Reuters file
The guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage is one of four U.S. destroyers currently deployed in the Mediterranean Sea equipped with long-range Tomahawk missles that could potentially be used to strike Syria, according to officials.
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
The decision the United States is about to make on Syria — how and where to punish President Bashar Assad for using poison gas on his own people — will touch just about every important piece on the geopolitical board.
China, Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, al Qaeda. Even North Korea, half a world away and always eager to make trouble, tried to export gas masks to Syria — believed to be for government forces — before they were seized in Turkey along with arms and ammunition, a Japanese newspaper reported Tuesday.
And of course Russia, whose relationship with the United States has not exactly been warm lately.
Here’s a glance at the potential global ripple effect if, as expected, the American military sends cruise missiles into Syria in coming days
CHINA
China and Russia both hold veto power in the United Nations Security Council and would block American efforts to work through the U.N. to punish Assad. That’s one reason everyone expects the United States to act mostly on its own.
For China, the issue is sovereignty: The Chinese don’t like countries getting into each other’s business because they don’t want anyone in theirs, said Kenneth Pollack, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
China picked at a particularly sore wound on Tuesday — reminding the United States, through a commentary in the government-run Xinhua news service, that it invaded Iraq 10 years ago on the pretext of banned weapons that were never found.
“The recent flurry of consultations between Washington and its allies indicates that they have put the arrow on the bowstring and would shoot even without a U.N. mandate,” Xinhua said. “That would be irresponsible and dangerous.”
RUSSIA
Here the language was a little more pointed. A Russian deputy prime minister said Tuesday that Western countries were behaving in the Islamic world like a “monkey with a grenade,” according to the al Arabiya news channel.
It doesn’t take a long memory to recall that relations between Washington and Moscow are chilly, most recently because of Russia’s decision to grant National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden a year’s asylum.
Remember the famously awkward press conference earlier this year between a slouching President Vladimir Putin and a stiff President Barack Obama? The topic that day was how to come together to stop the bloodshed in Syria.
The Russians care about clout — being a major player on the world stage, Pollack said. And the U.S. insistence early in the Syrian crisis that Russia was vital to the process only elevated their stature, he said.
“Before the Syria crisis, Russia had no say in the Middle East,” Pollack said. “They had nothing going. The Obama administration kept saying we can’t do anything in Syria without the Russians. Which I don’t think was ever true. That made Russia important.”
THE ARAB LEAGUE
The Arab League, an association of 22 countries, said Tuesday that the Syrian regime is responsible for the gas attack last week, and demanded that “all the perpetrators of this heinous crime be presented for international trials.”
The league suggested that the U.N. Security Council members should get over their differences and find a solution — unlikely to say the least. Still, the league’s support offers some diplomatic cover for the West to hammer Assad.
The backdrop here is centuries old. The Arab League is dominated by countries with Sunni Muslim leaders. (Iraq is more mixed, and pointedly withheld support for parts of what the league said Tuesday.) Assad is backed by Shiites.
And when the Sunni countries worry about divisions with the Shiites, what they’re mostly worried about is one country.
IRAN
Assad, two years into a civil war with the rebels, depends heavily on Iran and on the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
The Syria-Iran alliance presents a big problem for the United States: Too heavy a strike against Assad could embolden Iran to come to the rescue and take action against U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. Or unleash Hezbollah against Western targets.
“That’s the reason why our military professionals have been so reluctant to get involved,” Jeremy Bash, who was chief of staff to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, said on the MSNBC program “Andrea Mitchell Reports.
That’s why the Obama administration believes that, even if it doesn’t end the Syrian civil war, “We can punish, deter and degrade, and that is an important military objective.”
AL QAEDA
On the other hand, if the United States launches a purely symbolic attack against Assad, hitting non-critical targets as a warning rather than those that might actually disable the regime, opposition fighters could be demoralized.
That would leave them more likely to turn to extremist Islamist groups, and specifically al Qaeda, for support. Assad has upbraided the West for supporting al Qaeda militants on the loosely organized rebel side.
ISRAEL
Israel doesn’t want to see chemical warfare spread any further than it already has. If unconventional warfare becomes commonplace in Syria, it’s more likely to spread to international terrorist groups.
“They don’t want to see large-scale CW,” Pollack said, using the abbreviation for chemical weapons. “It’s going to end badly for Israel.”
Israel, which has its hands full trying to beat back Iran’s nuclear ambition, is depending on the Americans not just to deal with Assad but to send a message to Tehran, he said.
Otherwise, “You are going to get spillover, refugees, terrorism. A greater risk that one side is going to drag the Israelis in,” Pollack said. “The longer the war goes on, the worse it’s going to be for Israel.”