• Posts: 4,290
  • Tag points: 80

Topic: Syria

Now that the UN confirmed they are using chemical weapons on the rebels, and with Obama saying this would be the last stand for the US before it does something. Does anyone think we will have boots on the ground, or just use everything we have expect people like we did a few years ago.

[13:43] <@RisingDown> never thought i'd say it, but TBO actually did something useful.
[13:43] <@arsy> dont let him see you say that
[13:43] <@RisingDown> oh shit
[13:43] * You were kicked from #room by arsy (kapow!)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Syria

The UN didn't confirm crap.  It was a US report.  tongue

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,290
  • Tag points: 80

Re: Syria

CNN said UN. I guess I'll look into it

[13:43] <@RisingDown> never thought i'd say it, but TBO actually did something useful.
[13:43] <@arsy> dont let him see you say that
[13:43] <@RisingDown> oh shit
[13:43] * You were kicked from #room by arsy (kapow!)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Syria

Back on topic, I don't think the US would go so far as to send ground troops into Syria.  Rather, the same tactics used in Libya could easily be applied here (the establishment of a no-fly zone, and perhaps some bombings against military targets and installations).  I'd also assume any operation would include an increase in military assistance to Syrian rebels.

That being said... there's still one unaddressed issue here: Russia.  When the reports of chemical weapons use started spreading, Russia was one of the first to accuse the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons.  They've been a strong supporter of Syria during the whole conflict.  It's very possible that even if Obama drew the red line in the sand and Syria crossed that line, Russia will say no.  And Russia's not exactly a nation which will sit back idly and watch a member of its sphere of influence fall due to US intervention without pushing back.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,124
  • Tag points: 11

Re: Syria

I doubt it. Core embarrassed and ole' Pres. Nikki were, "The Optics" of late. Iron curtains oldest fall back point, as well as middle eastern skirmish war . Where there since Bethlehem and Talmudist terrorists existing that far east the border of china. Ever since Russians totally terrorized Muslims initially.... We've already been down there throats just haven't shove the boot that deep in yet.
If it's a threat of general public devastation in any event, main goals of US commission and the U.N. as an entire outfit is to branch out and stop such atrocities from happening again, so I can say, "If the shoe don't fit don't wear it" Meaning if we don't like the feel of things grips might tighten and laden meandering this isn't an opt for global control anymore... Or a race to space... There isn't much else to worry about, if it means saving millions from gov't conflicts out side our own, we've seen enough of that....

One life to live in is all that a person needs. When traveling down a road looking for the ascension to greater things, all that really matters is the way you got to the end, when you reach your final destination did you help or hurt more?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

6 Reply by The Great Eye (edited by The Great Eye 26-Apr-2013 04:55:15)

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Syria

Three words:

Mutually
Assured
Destruction.




Okay, let me explain that:

Russia can't exactly ditch an ally and let them die.  Russia is trying to amass allies for its own protection, similar to how the US has aligned itself with Europe as a mutual defense cooperative.  In the case of states like Syria, they provide small satellites to expand Russian influence, particularly in naval force projection.  Syria is kind of important to the Russians, then.

More importantly, the domino theory in diplomatic relations still applies.  If Russia were to sit back and let the rebels overtake Syria, existing Russian allies would lose confidence in the fact that Russia would assist them if needed.  So Russia would look like a pretty bad ally in their eyes, and they'd be more inclined to seek alternative alliances (i.e., US/Europe, or anyone but Russia).  Russia can't have that.

Yes, we would probably curbstomp Russia if they thought to militarily intervene.  The Russians know that.  The US knows that.  However, if Russia did decide to intervene and defend its ally, the country has one, and only one, choice which would allow them to even the battlefield: tactical nuclear weapons targeted at forces in Syria.  That is a level of military escalation nobody wants to go into, but in the case of Russia, they may perceive that they have as much to lose by losing their credibility as an ally as they do from looking batshit crazy for using a tactical nuclear weapon.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • esa
  • esa
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1,106
  • Tag points: 2

Re: Syria

The russians did't help their ally in the Korea war.
They didn't help Egypt in the Yom Kippur war
They didn't help Serbia
They didn't help Libyia

All talk,no action

The inmates are running the asylum

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Syria

Korea: China walked in first.  No need to step in and defend your friend when your southern neighbor can be your meat shield.
Egypt in Yom Kippur war: Small shit, relatively speaking.
Serbia: Yeltsin Administration.  Yeltsin was a much closer ally of the West than Putin.
Libya: Now this one's interesting.  See, one of Russia's major interests in Syria is the fact that Russia can have access to a Mediterranean Sea port.  In the case of Libya, Russia could have easily said "ah, screw it.  We still have Syria."  Well... now Syria's up for grabs, and this time, there's not as simple an "eh, it's alright, we still have ______" as there was during Libya.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,163

Re: Syria

Nukes are very unlikely but Russian anti air might complicate an air mission. Boots on the ground is no option for various reasons. So they wait it out hoping the rebels win and the fanatics don't get the upper hand in that movement.

That sums it all up.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Syria

Some of us SAID to weaponize space

Russia can't match that we said

Might come in handy we said

BUT OH NO SPACE IS SPECIAL

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,595
  • Tag points: 241

Re: Syria

Please google "Kessler Syndrome" before ever proposing that again.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Syria

That's silly on several levels

1.  Of course our space weapons would fall out of orbit onto earth, negating any danger of increased orbital degree

2.  All you have to do to solve the space debris problem is accelerate all that junk to escape velocity, such as, throwing heavy particles into the junk from below them.  Which is a fine mission for space weapons

3. hahahaha we bomb on Russia et al and this PLANET will be orbital debris! MUHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,163

Re: Syria

"Of course our space weapons would fall out of orbit onto earth, negating any danger of increased orbital degree"
I propose painting it black and white. We could call it retaliation weapon 4 (just a random name and number) and launch them from a mobile platform we hide in the trees (in case they bomb them.)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,163

Re: Syria

If you want to know about the number, I already had  an idea for retaliation weapon 3: a very large cannon to shoot Russia directly, but not sure it would get ready in time.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Syria

Read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Syria

speaking as a rightwing nutjob, this Pentagon and this Administration couldn't beat the Taliban, so, why should I support sending troops into Syria under them?

There may be a moral argument for America winning a war in Syria, but there ain't none for losing one.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

17 Reply by The Yell (edited by The Yell 29-Apr-2013 16:02:04)

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Syria

esa wrote:

The russians did't help their ally in the Korea war.
They didn't help Egypt in the Yom Kippur war
They didn't help Serbia
They didn't help Libyia

All talk,no action

They did help Serbia at the end, they sent paratroops into the area to keep the Serbian state in power (though they handed over their top guy).   The American general Wesley Clark ordered the Brits to block the runways to keep the Russians out and the Brit refused saying he wasn't going to spark WW3 for Wesley Clark, which was an unparalleled political victory for Moscow over NATO forever.

I mean we expect that from the French, but, sheesh

There's an old old US military joke about a division playing wargames, and this general is out in his jeep and it gets bogged down in mud right in front of some GIs who are loafing under a tree.  And the general says "You men, come shove me out of this mud"  and the GIs say "Sorry sir, we're "killed" and we're out of this exercise"  and the general turns to his driver and says "Sergeant, shove those corpses under the tires for traction" so then they run to shove him out.   That's what I think of when I hear some Brit wants a job in our world police force but then won't do it

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,093
  • Tag points: 54

Re: Syria

That isn't how it looks here Yelly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Cla … t_incident

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

19 Reply by The Yell (edited by The Yell 30-Apr-2013 00:41:47)

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Syria

One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation to attack Russian troops at Pristina International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. A joint NATO–Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo.

This is why your teacher knocked points off for the passive voice.
Name the human beings who made that agreement.  You will have a hard time doing that, because Russia thought it should be there, and nobody but the Serbs thought so too.   So "supposed to" confuses this key point, that NATO didn't authorize the Russian troops.

Russia wanted their peacekeeping force to operate independent of NATO, but NATO refused. British forces were supposed to occupy Pristina International Airport, but a contingent of Russian troops arrived before they did and took control of the airport.
Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, who told him "you have transfer of authority" in the area. General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain James Blount leading the British troops questioned this order[81] and was supported in this decision by General Mike Jackson, the British commander of the Kosovo Force.

Absolutely unacceptable.

Jackson refused to sanction the attack, reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."[82][83] Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians, instead insisting that troops encircle the airfield. After two days of standoff and negotiations, NATO agreed to an independent Russian peacekeeping force, and Russia relinquished control of the airport.

Not his call at all. 

The refusal was criticized by some senior U.S. military personnel, with American general Hugh Shelton calling Jackson's refusal "troubling". During hearings in the United States Senate, Senator John Warner suggested that the refusal might have been illegal, and that if it was legal rules potentially should be changed.[84] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie agreed with Jackson.[85]

Here's another article:

Blunt, who was at the head of a column of 30,000 Nato troops with his unit, told Pienaar's Politics it was a "mad situation".

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

That sense of moral judgement is drilled into us as soldiers in the British army”

James Blunt
He said he had been "party to the conversation" between senior officers in which Gen Clark had ordered the attack.

"We had 200 Russians lined up pointing their weapons at us aggressively, which was... and you know we'd been told to reach the airfield and take a hold of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11753050

What if it was 20 Russians?  At what point can Russia shove NATO around just by showing up?  We know 200 is enough, and definitely 40,000 in Georgia was enough.  How about 2?  Would 2 Russians in a jeep have the Brits saying "Um, why don't we dig in and starve them out?"

Are you French, Arfeh?  Voulez vous coucher avec moi, Clyde?


ofc Wesley Clark totally choked, too.  If he'd have started bombing or shelling the Russians they'd have broke out through the British perimeter, thereby resolving the situation of not fighting the Russians cause you don't wanna.  Unless of course, he figured you'd surrender.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

20 Reply by Key (edited by Key 24-May-2013 23:00:22)

  • Key
  • Key
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 990
  • Tag points: 11

Re: Syria

The U.N., as per the state department and the pentagon, has NOT unilaterally found chemical weapons being used in the Syrian conflict.  The chemical solution found is a rocket fired aerosol, which contained Tear Gas.

Either one side, or the other fired Rocket Propelled Tear Gas.  Actually it's nice to know, since tear gas is perfectly legal as crowd control, and even as a use in warfare.

What is not legal, internationally, is to use it in a rocket propelled weapon.  Since it's a rocket.  Which means it can only be used in warfare.    If it was used in crowd control, it violates geneva conventions on the proper dispersal of an aerosol specifically used for crowd control.

All chemical weapons leave chemical markers.  They couldn't even properly identify what chemical was used...but when the report showed CHILE...as part of the chemical mixture...it's one of the main ingrediants for Tear Gas.

And yes, I know they use this crap during armed sieges of holed up criminal elements, by police departments world wide.  Each country kind of SKIRTS international law on that respect.  Including the United States.  Nothing says the aeorsol can not  be fired by Cone Rifle, which is not Rocket propelled.  It's expanding gas propelled. 

Potato, potatoe.
Tomato, tomatoe.

It's amazing how laws are written to circumvent the means in which a weapon is fired from one particular object to another.

=^o.o^= When I'm cute I can be cute.  And when I'm mean, I can be very very mean.  I'm a cat.  Expect me to be fickle.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points