Syria - What should we do if anything?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Muslim brotherhood rebellion during the wartime you mean? Just average reaction of every regime for such things.

Standard ? With thousands of deads ?

Well, anyway i think France should be more concerned by his UN soldiers in Lebanon; Syrian backed Hezbollah already killed a lot of French soldiers in the past, and they are ready to do it again.

Edited September 8, 2013 by ProfTournesol

[spooky lynx 73]

Standard ? With thousands of deads ?

Yes. The same things were in Iraq during the war with Iran. The same things happened in the USSR during WW2. The government has to do something with such rebellions, especially if they are happening at the wartime. To do as quickly as possible. And somebody had been put into prison camps even just because of war hysteria.

[ballistic09 241]

Some funny news

How is that funny... Maybe the fact that you were gullible enough to believe it? :rolleyes:

First off, the U.S. "newspaper" that most articles have cited, the Oklahoma Post, does not exist.

Secondly, this little line of BS, "the Syrian defense forces have shot down four missiles launched by the Americans type Tomahawk" should have raised eyebrows immediately.

That article is nothing but bad Syrian propaganda.

Why have the BI forums become such a mecca for conspiracy nuts?

[Dwarden 1126]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/08/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

not good ... seems like these revolts and rebelions put nail into coffin of any christian community in middle east and northern africa ...

irony that in 50y might be lost what was able survive 2k

even the biggest islamic expansions respected local religions , just with edict preventing non islam citizens to gain critical gov roles

don't get me started about the tragedy in destroyed historical materials, books, buildings, artefacts ...

Edited September 8, 2013 by Dwarden

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, not good. Islamic extremists even destroyed Islamic monuments in Mali. Completely brainwashed.

[Dwarden 1126]

they already left the city http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23986076

i wonder in what state and who of citizens is 'missing'

[spooky lynx 73]

How is that funny... Maybe the fact that you were gullible enough to believe it? :rolleyes:

Why did you think I believed it? I've said - funny news.

[scrim 1]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/08/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

not good ... seems like these revolts and rebelions put nail into coffin of any christian community in middle east and northern africa ...

irony that in 50y might be lost what was able survive 2k

even the biggest islamic expansions respected local religions , just with edict preventing non islam citizens to gain critical gov roles

don't get me started about the tragedy in destroyed historical materials, books, buildings, artefacts ...

Yeah. Eff it, go ask Assad about where he wants to see the Tomahawks slam down. Don't really flipping matter that they asked the somewhat secular opposition, in the end of the day it's al Qaeda that will benefit from any strikes. Enough is enough already, as a Christian I can't help but feel that Assad would be the clearly better alternative, and that's without mentioning other factors, like how it could be really really really bad to have an entire country under al Qaeda management next to Israel, and next door to Europe. Why should Western military resources be wasted on something that will only contribute to genocide and possibly hundreds of fatalities in Europe due to terror attacks.

[Dwarden 1126]

i fear the opposition cause is already lost and the militant branch of islam gained the upper hand ...

one hear about radical drop of deserters from Syrian army, just because radical islamists groups simply executing them

one hear about Kurdish and Christian and even some Arab rebels groups fighting the islamists because they terrorize theirs civil populate

bleak future if you ask me

[mistyronin 1181]

What should we do about Syria if anything?

Well what we could do is an interesting mod for Arma 3 ( we have almost all the vehicles for the isrealian side! ).

Besides that if the west doesn't do anything it's gonna be like Rwanda, if they do a limited actions may end like Somalia ( Black Hawk Down ) and if the west goes with all the strengh it can end like Irak. Either way it doesn't look like a happy ending.

Syria has been perverted by so many hands ( ottoman/turkish, french, british, etc. ), that I don't think an external solution can help. Putting down Assad, would finish with his crimes, but would turn the country into anarchy. My opinion would be to stay away until Assad regain control or the opposition makes a strong unified front prodemocracy.

But as it's a crucial piece of the US vs Iran chess game, I believe its fate is already decided. And after that the US would had all the pieces in position to attack Iran.

[scrim 1]

No, it won't be anarchy. al Qaeda and affiliates will seize control sharpish, and the secular opposition might end up fighting them alongside the Kurds in the North, Northern Alliance style.

No, the American's aren't there to attack Iran. It is nothing short of stupid to say that they would actually attack Syria in order to attack Iran. If they truly wanted to attack Iran, then Iran has plenty of neighbours who aren't too fond of her, and there are two neighbours with very strong American influence (Iraq and Afghanistan) already. Given the feelings between Iranians and Iraqis after a certain war, the latter would be more than happy to serve as a staging area for an invasion. Not that it's going to happen, since even the Americans get weary of war after a combined ~20 years of it.

The chess game is between the US and Russia, not Iran. It's not Iran that ensures that the regime survives, nor are they the ones who can actually put up serious obstacles to a NATO strike. Iran is nearly a 3rd party in the whole mess, yielding next to no power at all when compared to the Americans and the Russians.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Assad may give up chemical weapons so they cant be used again? How will it be verified and who will guard them?:confused:

[mistyronin 1181]

No, the American's aren't there to attack Iran. It is nothing short of stupid to say that they would actually attack Syria in order to attack Iran. If they truly wanted to attack Iran, then Iran has plenty of neighbours who aren't too fond of her, and there are two neighbours with very strong American influence (Iraq and Afghanistan) already. Given the feelings between Iranians and Iraqis after a certain war, the latter would be more than happy to serve as a staging area for an invasion. Not that it's going to happen, since even the Americans get weary of war after a combined ~20 years of it.

The chess game is between the US and Russia, not Iran. It's not Iran that ensures that the regime survives, nor are they the ones who can actually put up serious obstacles to a NATO strike. Iran is nearly a 3rd party in the whole mess, yielding next to no power at all when compared to the Americans and the Russians.

Yeah, the US don't have any intention to attack Iran, that's why during the last 20 years they have been installing this bases encircling it:

The problem with Iran, is that it's a country with a strong economy and military, nothing compared to Syria, Irak, Lybia, etc. So instead of a frontal attack, the US ( encouraged by Israel ) are first attacking and weaken all his allies, waiting to the best moment to attack Iran.

Nthen Iran has plenty of neighbours who aren't too fond of her, and there are two neighbours with very strong American influence (Iraq and Afghanistan) already. Given the feelings between Iranians and Iraqis after a certain war, the latter would be more than happy to serve as a staging area for an invasion. Not that it's going to happen, since even the Americans get weary of war after a combined ~20 years of it.

Yeah, Irak has so strong American influence that allow Iranians to send weapons to Syria through it's territory... How many hate... Did you know that when to brothers that are arguing are being attacked by an external person, they stop fighting themselves and attack together the other?

Of course in a long term US is also debilitating Russia. But if it was their main target, why the US is not trying by all means to include Sweden or Finland to the NATO, or to settle bases there? After all Finland is just a few km from the second Russian main city.

Nope, IMO their main goal right now is the to control the Middle east, the axis between the three continents ( Europe, Asia and Africa ), specially with the eyes looking at China and Russia.

[ProfTournesol 956]

(BBC) How feasible is Russia's proposal on Syria?. Putin (the real soft dictator^TM :)) played his joker.

Joke aside, i'm glad that diplomacy is back on track.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ProfTournesol

[mistyronin 1181]

(BBC) How feasible is Russia's proposal on Syria?. Putin (the real soft dictator :)) played his joker.

Good article. I'm completly agree with:

Possibly both the Russians and the Syrians see it more as a stalling tactic to try to delay American military action or to undermine already weak public support for military strikes.

I don't belive that Syria is gonna get rid of them, because the main reason of having them is to deter Israel from big military operations / invasion ( like the Golan's heights one ). And as long as Israel exists...

[spooky lynx 73]

Of course in a long term US is also debilitating Russia. But if it was their main target, why the US is not trying by all means to include Sweden or Finland to the NATO, or to settle bases there? After all Finland is just a few km from the second Russian main city.

De-facto both Sweden and Finland are in the NATO already as they participate in joint campaigns and use the same weaponry. Oh and Estonia is not so far from St. Petersburg too. So no need to sett le bases in Finland, they are already in Baltic countries (who have borders with more developed and important Russian regions, not only Karelian forests).

[mrcash2009 0]

Its a new stance from get him he did it, to, we know these toys are bad we need to take care of them as we think he must have done it.

Assad may give up chemical weapons so they cant be used again? How will it be verified and who will guard them?

I have exactly the same thoughts, im guessing the good guys .... which under the current mess is hard to work out who. :386:

I don't belive that Syria is gonna get rid of them, because the main reason of having them is to deter Israel from big military operations / invasion ( like the Golan's heights one ). And as long as Israel exists...

Chess pieces being moved in a large game at the moment for sure.

The chess game is between the US and Russia, not Iran.

Read up John Bolten and the years since Afghanistan, there's an itch to be scratched on that one for sure.

Edited September 10, 2013 by mrcash2009

[mistyronin 1181]

De-facto both Sweden and Finland are in the NATO already as they participate in joint campaigns and use the same weaponry. Oh and Estonia is not so far from St. Petersburg too. So no need to sett le bases in Finland, they are already in Baltic countries (who have borders with more developed and important Russian regions, not only Karelian forests).

I woudn't like to contradict you. But right now Sweden and Finland have the same consideration in NATO eyes as Russia itself ( they are inside the Partnership for peace project ):

Map with the different NATO affiliations in Europe (454 kB)

And we were talking about which one is the priority right now ( Iran or Russia ). The US are surrounding Iran with bases and weaken its allies; while there's not seem to be a close term focus on Russia ( I'm listening right now the US Senate committee talking about the Syria war, and they are even commenting that the real actual major concern and target is Iran ).

BTW about that they use the same weaponry you may want to check this Finnish army equipment and check which one is the most wide used rifle in the Finnish Army.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MistyRonin
Added BTW note at the end.

[scrim 1]

Yeah, the US don't have any intention to attack Iran, that's why during the last 20 years they have been installing this bases encircling it

The problem with Iran, is that it's a country with a strong economy and military, nothing compared to Syria, Irak, Lybia, etc. So instead of a frontal attack, the US ( encouraged by Israel ) are first attacking and weaken all his allies, waiting to the best moment to attack Iran.

Yeah, Irak has so strong American influence that allow Iranians to send weapons to Syria through it's territory... How many hate... Did you know that when to brothers that are arguing are being attacked by an external person, they stop fighting themselves and attack together the other?

You have completely discredited yourself from the start of the quoted post:

#1, Constructing bases in friendly countries =/= targeting Iran. They've built plenty of bases in countries nowhere near Iran, and further, if you believe that they need to surround a country with military bases in order to be able to invade it, you have the knowledge of a child regarding strategy, or the capabilities of any military that isn't from the 3rd world and has an annual budget of less than a million dollars.

#2, Are you a troll? Iran has a strong economy and military? Yeah, maybe in your fantasy world. In the real world, where reality rules, Iran has a crumbling economy due to sanctions, and has not been able to maintain a strong or up to date military since the Shah was ousted. Especially Iraq was far superior both militarily and economically during the Gulf War (estimated to have the world's 8th most powerful military, second only to Israel in the Middle East), and look what happened to that army of theirs after no more than 5 days of shooting.

#3, Oh my, what a convincing article. Not one, not two, but three anonymous sources. No other sources. Mind blowing. Impressive. Staggering. Incomprehensibly convincing.

And since when are Iraq and Iran "brothers"? I certainly can't recall Iran coming to Iraq's rescue during the Gulf War. Or the 2003 invasion.

Yeah, nah, they're on great terms, aren't they? True brothers, just like let's say Bosnia and Serbia.

[mistyronin 1181]

#1, Constructing bases in friendly countries =/= targeting Iran. They've built plenty of bases in countries nowhere near Iran, and further, if you believe that they need to surround a country with military bases in order to be able to invade it, you have the knowledge of a child regarding strategy, or the capabilities of any military that isn't from the 3rd world and has an annual budget of less than a million dollars.

Uhm? Do you have any military studies? I mean sincerely, have you ever been in a military academy? Because I have ( in two, and not in Finland, in my homecountry that is a NATO one ), and it's quite a pattern that a lot of countries have followed in history ( we could talk for example about the URSS and US in the Cold War: Cuba, Vietnam, Turkey, etc. ).

#2, Are you a troll? Iran has a strong economy and military? Yeah, maybe in your fantasy world. In the real world, where reality rules, Iran has a crumbling economy due to sanctions, and has not been able to maintain a strong or up to date military since the Shah was ousted.

That's why Iran is in 21-22th position in the countries by GDP. On the other hand, I don't see the need of insults. We are here talking about ideas/opinions, not about my persona ( which btw is against forum rules ).

EDIT: About Iran Military budget for 2012

#3, Oh my, what a convincing article. Not one, not two, but three anonymous sources. No other sources. Mind blowing. Impressive. Staggering. Incomprehensibly convincing.

And since when are Iraq and Iran "brothers"? I certainly can't recall Iran coming to Iraq's rescue during the Gulf War. Or the 2003 invasion.

Yeah, nah, they're on great terms, aren't they? True brothers, just like let's say Bosnia and Serbia.

That article is more than you have presented to defend your position. If you want I can find you more articles about that.

BTW the huge difference that Bosnia and Serbia have different religions, traditions etc. While Iran/Irak have quite much the same culture ( as a broad vision, not entering in regional focus ).

Edited September 10, 2013 by MistyRonin
Add EDIT about Iran military budget

[spooky lynx 73]

I woudn't like to contradict you. But right now Sweden and Finland have the same consideration in NATO eyes as Russia itself ( they are inside the Partnership for peace project ):

Map with the different NATO affiliations in Europe (454 kB)

Maybe de-jure they are in the same position as Russia but in fact they aren't. Especially Sweden: some joint weaponry programms and deals, ISAF participation for example.

And we were talking about which one is the priority right now ( Iran or Russia ). The US are surrounding Iran with bases and weaken its allies; while there's not seem to be a close term focus on Russia ( I'm listening right now the US Senate committee talking about the Syria war, and they are even commenting that the real actual major concern and target is Iran ).

Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq were both countries friendly to Russia. NATO had been stretched to the East till our borders, some CIS countries were converted to pro-US with so called 'flower revolutions'. Now there is 'spring' in Syria, our ally, hosting our naval base. Do you still say there's no close focus on Russia?

BTW about that they use the same weaponry you may want to check this Finnish army equipment and check which one is the most wide used rifle in the Finnish Army.

That's true about rifles/MGs. But at the same time more heavy systems such as ATGMs, anti-air systems, artillery pieces are becoming mainly of NATO standarts.

[mistyronin 1181]

Maybe de-jure they are in the same position as Russia but in fact they aren't. Especially Sweden: some joint weaponry programms and deals, ISAF participation for example.

Thought it's true what you said, and you could probably said that right now Sweden is more close to the NATO weaponry than to Russian. I don't really believe that this countries ( Sweden and Finland ) are proNATO. In fact, as you live in Russia you will surely know, there are close economical ties between these both and Russia ( which in Finland is quite notable, in fact they are even thinking to add Russian as a subject in the eastern half of the country ). For example my wife ( whom is finnish ) already studied russian in school ( she is even trying to teach me... xD ).

Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq were both countries friendly to Russia. NATO had been stretched to the East till our borders, some CIS countries were converted to pro-US with so called 'flower revolutions'. Now there is 'spring' in Syria, our ally, hosting our naval base. Do you still say there's no close focus on Russia?

Though technically the NATO has tried to gain their affiliation to its side. Watching the developments in that countries, I would hardly ever said that they are proNATO ( well the non Serbian part of Yugoslavia in deed is ).

In my opinion the intervention in Syria is more due to its links to Iran than to Russia. Thought of course, its also affects, you could say they are killing two birds with the same stone.

That's true about rifles/MGs. But at the same time more heavy systems such as ATGMs, anti-air systems, artillery pieces are becoming mainly of NATO standarts.

Well regarding artillery, Finland uses russian BMP-1TJ as scouts. Russian 152 TELAK 91 and 122 PSH 74 as Self propelled artillery. Also Russian 122 H 63A as main field artillery. So well, mainly its russian equipment.

Thought Finland as Sweden play a bit a two sides game, as neutral, they are trying to take a bit of both. But clearly Finland Army / Politics are more Russian influenced.

[scrim 1]

Uhm? Do you have any military studies? I mean sincerely, have you ever been in a military academy? Because I have ( in two, and not in Finland, in my homecountry that is a NATO one ), and it's quite a pattern that a lot of countries have followed in history ( we could talk for example about the URSS and US in the Cold War: Cuba, Vietnam, Turkey, etc. ).

That's why Iran is in 21-22th position in the countries by GDP. On the other hand, I don't see the need of insults. We are here talking about ideas/opinions, not about my persona ( which btw is against forum rules ).

EDIT: About Iran Military budget for 2012

That article is more than you have presented to defend your position. If you want I can find you more articles about that.

BTW the huge difference that Bosnia and Serbia have different religions, traditions etc. While Iran/Irak have quite much the same culture ( as a broad vision, not entering in regional focus ).

Yeah, and I'm the headmaster of both schools. Which is just as possible as your claim that you've attended even one (it's the Internet, people can actually lie). And if you had actually been there for any longer period of time, and received even remotely decent grades, I find it hard to believe that you would make such naive swiping statements about things that you obviously don't know squat about. Like the quite frankly laughable state of relations you perceive to exist between Iraq and Iran.

The rest of that rubbish isn't even worth responding to, so I'll leave you with this: A, Nah, that article isn't worth squat compared to anything that has been said by anyone to you in this thread. You can't post nonsense articles and then essentially say "but I haz posted 1 more than u, so I is right, and if u dont agree, u can find articles supporting my claims". B, Fine, let's say Serbia and Croatia then. They are pretty much Iraq and Iran but in Europe. The only difference is that the war between Iraq and Iran lasted for much longer, and was considerably more costly economically and in blood.

I'd like to add to what Lynx has written, because though we hardly ever agree, he is very much right I admit on this: If you'd actually been so highly educated regarding military and NATO matters, you'd have known by now that it has been an official secret for over a decade that every Swedish administration and the USA from the birth of NATO had closely coordinated a short token period of feigned Swedish neutrality, followed by closing ranks with the NATO camp in the event of a large scale conventional conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. And it has been an unofficial secret from day one.

Edited September 10, 2013 by scrim

[mistyronin 1181]

Yeah, and I'm the headmaster of both schools. Which is just as possible as your claim that you've attended even one (it's the Internet, people can actually lie). And if you had actually been there for any longer period of time, and received even remotely decent grades, I find it hard to believe that you would make such naive swiping statements about things that you obviously don't know squat about. Like the quite frankly laughable state of relations you perceive to exist between Iraq and Iran.

The rest of that rubbish isn't even worth responding to, so I'll leave you with this.

Of course sir. If you allow me to make a simple point: People who are unable to debate with facts due to their weak knowledge, tend to disqualify and insult their opponents.

That said, and as I can see you are not willing to talk about the subject and rather go through personal attacks. I don't see the point of keep talking with you.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MistyRonin
Orthography

[scrim 1]

I don't see the point of keep talking with you.

So in that case, please don't send me silly PM's about "show me yours and I'll show mine" about military ID's?