Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Options
12467…30

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    12.45 More details via Interfax and Reuters of the two Russian warships dispatched to the east Mediterranean in the "coming days": a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet.

    Syria Conflict: Live Blog


  • Options
    #93
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    UN inspectors leaving Syria on Saturday and report then too. Could be an 'interesting' weekend in Damascus.
    Edit: MP's apparently being told to be prepared to attend Parliament on Saturday or Sunday to vote on motion for action.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Cameron and Obama have backed themselves into a corner. That is what we get when countries with big toys have poor leaders.

    Watched the five on Fox news last night, funny it was the Democrats supporter who supported an attack, while the Republican supporters on the panel were against it. One saying if we (the US) attack we will be on the same side as Al Qaeda and look what happened in Benghazi, Also said it was not clear who carried out the chemical attack.
    I turned it on expecting a bloodthirst but no, 4 out of the 5 were against it due to the reasons above, while arguing a token strike against Syria could do more harm than good.

    I'm surprised the Republicans were against taking action when they, led by McCain, have been calling for an attack on Assad for a couple of years.


  • Options
    #94
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Syria Conflict: Live Blog

    Russians starting to play hardball now. This could get hairy.


  • Options
    #95
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    I also had a wry chuckle at this one:
    12.40 In a comment piece for the Telegraph, Robert Halfon the Conservative MP for Harlow, accuses Ed Miliband, the Labour leader of playing political games with the lifes of Syrian people.

    We really have entered 1984, War is Peace, Doublespeak territory nowadays.


  • Options
    #96
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    karma_ wrote: »
    Russians starting to play hardball now. This could get hairy.

    Interestingly, the Egyptian Foreign Minister has come out today and said that his country 'strongly opposes' any military intervention in the conflict.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    karma_ wrote: »
    Russians starting to play hardball now. This could get hairy.

    It's posturing and maintaining an image. Putin needs to look strong. He must be seen as standing up to the West and also being close to his allies in the region. At the end of the day, economic trade and partnership with the US is a thousand times more important than being allied to a regional pariah on a sinking ship.

    I expect the Russians to push, as far as they can, without affecting economic ties with the US/UK/France and Germany.


  • Options
    #98
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    It's posturing and maintaining an image. Putin needs to look strong. He must be seen as standing up to the West and also being close to his allies in the region. At the end of the day, economic trade and partnership with the US is a thousand times more important than being allied to a regional pariah on a sinking ship.

    I expect the Russians to push, as far as they can, without affecting economic ties with the US/UK/France and Germany.

    But Russia is as important to the EU as the other way about for energy demands. Also, there comes a point where allies of Russia must think to themselves, what is the point of being partnered to an ally who is one in name only.


  • Options
    #99
    323
    Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭323


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Assad allows in UN weapons inspectors and then caries out a chemical attack.
    The man is not stupid, he has been winning the ground war, so it makes absolutely no sense.

    Remember Iraq had all these WMD to destroy. The same warmongers want this military intervention.

    Pretty much the same, the United States and Britain will bomb Syria and kill people because the government in Syria is (maybe) killing people in a way that they don't like.

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Options
    #100
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    It's posturing and maintaining an image. Putin needs to look strong. He must be seen as standing up to the West and also being close to his allies in the region. At the end of the day, economic trade and partnership with the US is a thousand times more important than being allied to a regional pariah on a sinking ship.

    I expect the Russians to push, as far as they can, without affecting economic ties with the US/UK/France and Germany.

    The EU relies on Russia far more than Russia relies on the EU.

    If push comes to shove Russia just turns off he gas pipelines and the EU instantly ****ed.


  • Options
    #101
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Seaneh wrote: »
    The EU relies on Russia far more than Russia relies on the EU.

    If push comes to shove Russia just turns off he gas pipelines and the EU instantly ****ed.

    Why would Russia want to pick a fight with the EU?

    Russia will posture, object at the UN and that will be it. No intervention, no closing the valves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Seaneh wrote: »
    The EU relies on Russia far more than Russia relies on the EU.

    If push comes to shove Russia just turns off he gas pipelines and the EU instantly ****ed.

    But so would Russia. Its economy is based on selling fossil fuels to Europe.


  • Options
    #103
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,663 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Historically speaking and taking liberties somewhat the scenario, this could be the Crimean War II. In the original, the Western powers and Russia stumbled in a small but nasty war over an obscure Middle eastern issue - in spite of the trade links between them. Never rule out the force of circumstances forcing actions where none was foreseen.


  • Options
    #104
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,472 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Western military action will be limited to airstrikes, a blockade, and maybe training/equipment/intelligence to the best of a bad bunch in the resistance. The weakness of the secular resistance is actually a boon to the West in that it provides a dependent proxy army.

    As for Russia - its mostly showboating. The worst thing the Russians could do is suspend whatever assistance or tolerance they offer for NATO/western forces in Afghanistan (a lot of the supply lines for western troops in Afghanistan go through Russian territory or Russian vassal states). It's also the best thing that could happen for a certain Mr Snowden as the chances of the Russians delivering him to the US in the near future recede into improbability. The Russians are admirably cynical when it comes to their foreign policy - they will do whatever is best for Russia alone. When it stops being of benefit to showboat, they will stop showboating. They are not going to enter into a new cold war for the benefit of Syria or Assad.


  • Options
    #105
    Steve012
    Registered Users Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Steve012


    Enjoyed reading this thread, some very intelligent well informed points made,that seem (to me) quite accurate of what will happen, but like previous peeps have said here.I think the outcome will depend on Syria's retaliation (if at all) or if Iran strikes Israel or bomb the jesus out of Saudi's oil fields.. the later of which I have no idea if they have the capability off..


  • Options
    #106
    McD14
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭McD14


    Curious what you're opinions on this guy's comments are?



  • Options
    #107
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 7,739 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    It is hard to know what will happen or why. However, here goes with my 2cents worth.. The 'West' will launch a missile strike followed by a limited air strike immediately after. This will destroy Syria's air defences and chemical weapons sites. Who gains? The 'West' and Israel, as the capacity to launch a devastating attack on Israel will be removed and a major ally of Iran will be neutralised clearing the way for undisputed 'Western' control of the middle east and energy resources.


  • Options
    #108
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Seaneh wrote: »
    The EU relies on Russia far more than Russia relies on the EU.

    If push comes to shove Russia just turns off he gas pipelines and the EU instantly ****ed.

    The likelihood that Russia will somehow magically "turn off" the gas supplies to Europe is absurd. Why would they refuse to sell to their biggest buyers? They could handle the economic fallout, though, with their huge foreign reserves, but only for a small amount of time.

    But assuming that Russia will turn the gas off in reaction to any heat at all is simply "Russian Bear"/"Soviet Union Reborn" scaremongering that was obsolete ten years ago.
    (a lot of the supply lines for western troops in Afghanistan go through Russian territory or Russian vassal states)

    Excuse me but what the hell exactly are Russian "vassal states"? Do you mean the countries that are allied to Russia through the SCO, or what?
    The Russians are admirably cynical when it comes to their foreign policy - they will do whatever is best for Russia alone. When it stops being of benefit to showboat, they will stop showboating. They are not going to enter into a new cold war for the benefit of Syria or Assad.

    In bold: All sides in this conflict are "admirably cynical". If you think the FSA or Assad or the USA are fighting for peace, gummy bears and candy floss then you are mistaken. And there is nothing admirable about being cynical.

    In italics: Well that's the objective of foreign policy, I guess. They also attempt to aid their allies because it indirectly helps them, so they don't technically help just themselves.

    Generally, the west has much to gain from befriending Russia. The relations between Russia and the west are far, far better than portrayed in the media and discounting disagreements such as over gay rights or Syria.


  • Options
    #109
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    McD14 wrote: »
    Curious what you're opinions on this guy's comments are?

    Political opinion from a guy looks like he is preparing for the apocalypse.. might not be the most informed source. Probably better to read about it and make up your own mind
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

    Not as exciting as secret chemical weapon plots to fund pipelines and all that, but typically a lot closer to the truth.


  • Options
    #110
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,059 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Motion to intervene has just been defeated in the House of Commons


  • Options
    #111
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Brits are out...

    Expect some serious rancour between Cameron and Miliband over this

    Yanks might have to do this unilaterally.. or not at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Not as exciting as secret chemical weapon plots to fund pipelines and all that, but typically a lot closer to the truth.

    And how do you know that there was no such thing as secret chemical weapons plots to fund pipelines? It's all very uncertain at the moment.
    Motion to intervene has just been defeated in the House of Commons

    Thanks be to jesus.


  • Options
    #113
    RobitTV
    Registered Users Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭RobitTV


    Breaking: Huge Blow for David Cameron as he loses vote to go to war in Syria in British Parliament, rejection of vote has shocked many.

    British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

    David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

    The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783


  • Options
    #114
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    A huge setback for the British government, and a major blow to Cameron.

    Wouldn't be surprised if military intervention didn't occur now and the western states instead pursue other sanctions, or pursue the matter through the courts.


  • Options
    #115
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    RobitTV wrote: »
    Breaking: Huge Blow for David Cameron as he loses vote to go to war in Syria in British Parliament, rejection of vote has shocked many.

    British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

    David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

    The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783


    Bye bye William Hague.


  • Options
    #116
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,472 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Excuse me but what the hell exactly are Russian "vassal states"? Do you mean the countries that are allied to Russia through the SCO, or what?

    Vassalage is a commonly understood term. I'm not sure Russia has ever had an ally in the modern era - traditional Russian stances to external forces has either been fear/hatred (their suspicion of NATO is ludicrous as demonstrated by NATO's adventures in Afghanistan) or dominance/suppression. The Kremlin has never really understood the concept of "allies".

    In bold: All sides in this conflict are "admirably cynical". If you think the FSA or Assad or the USA are fighting for peace, gummy bears and candy floss then you are mistaken. And there is nothing admirable about being cynical.

    Russia is different. Western states like the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK have a public sense of themselves as having a moral responsibility to "do the right thing". Of being democratic, liberal and free in a way Russia (for example) is not. And like the ancient Athenians that gives them a certain moral mission. They do realpolitik of course, but they still have a moralistic tone to their policymaking. When something bad happens in the world people publicly wonder when the US will do something to save the human rights of the victims.

    Russians on the other hand must be utterly bemused by why the West are getting so exercised by Syrian civillians being gassed - from the Russian perspective it is utterly irrelevant if chemical weapons were used. There is no moral pressure on the Russian government to "do the right thing".
    Generally, the west has much to gain from befriending Russia.

    Russia has more to gain from befriending the west, but the Kremlin crew like to have a bogeyman to play up against I suppose.


  • Options
    #117
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Wouldn't be surprised if military intervention didn't occur now and the western states instead pursue other sanctions, or pursue the matter through the courts.

    It'll still happen. The NYT has had an article up well before the vote saying Obama is prepared to act regardless of other countries, Congress etc. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?from=global.home

    With the BBC witnessing a napalm style attack on Aleppo that left many school children with serious burns, I don't blame him. With any luck they take out as many runways and aircraft as possible to limit Assad's ability to do that sort of thing. (horrific video on BBC website)


  • Options
    #118
    RobitTV
    Registered Users Posts: 4,517 ✭✭✭RobitTV


    Well i can safely say this is the biggest blow and embarrassment to a British Government since the Suez crisis war in 1956.

    The huge scale of the miscalculation by David cameron is a major blow to Him and his senior minsters who came out saying for everyone to support this war.

    This is probably the first time in many decades this has happened and Britain's reliability as a trustworthy ally to the USA has dropped tonight into the unknown.

    I Think the USA will be shocked to say the least this could change how they act hugely. It's very possible they may not intervene now because they don't want to be alone in this.

    I'm actually shocked over this it's mind blowing to be quite honest. The consequences either be good or bad will be game changing for Britain and it's future role in International war's. Even it's "special" relationship with America has fallen into the unknown tonight.

    I think the government is in crisis tonight there is no other way to describe this huge defeat.

    I also heard there was a small scuffle between a senior Tory minster and and a few other MP's. (it was off camera though) :P


  • Options
    #119
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Russians on the other hand must be utterly bemused by why the West are getting so exercised by Syrian civillians being gassed - from the Russian perspective it is utterly irrelevant if chemical weapons were used. There is no moral pressure on the Russian government to "do the right thing".

    Yes the morally inferior Russians are too unenlightened to understand that chemical weapons are bad when used against civilians.
    Vassalage is a commonly understood term. I'm not sure Russia has ever had an ally in the modern era

    I know what vassalage means.

    Russian allies:

    Belarus
    Ukraine
    Kazakhstan
    China
    India
    Nicaragua
    Venezuela
    Armenia
    Azerbaijan

    There are more, of course.
    (their suspicion of NATO is ludicrous as demonstrated by NATO's adventures in Afghanistan)

    It's not ludicrous. Gorbachev was promised that NATO would be disbanded upon the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. It wasn't. Now all it does it attempt to surround and isolate Russia. It is also suspicious of NATO because of it's power plays and doublespeak in Libya and potentially Syria. It's right to be suspicious of NATO. And how does the Afghan war negate these suspicions?
    When something bad happens in the world people publicly wonder when the US will do something to save the human rights of the victims.

    That's because it is the most prominent country in the world. Not because it is regarded as a special, country-size human rights-warrior by everyone.
    In fact, I'd say it's the opposite at this stage. Most people these days see the USA as the self-serving malicious belligerent force that it really is.
    traditional Russian stances to external forces has either been fear/hatred....or dominance/suppression.

    That truly is some extraordinary stereotyping. You don't really believe this crap do you? Of the "Russian Bear"/"Soviet Union Reborn"/"Belligerent Reds" cold war myths? Do you think that the Russia today is in any way "traditionally Russian", as you call it? (I understand now that by "traditional" you mean "conventional" or "stereotypical", no?) It's super-capitalist, not a horrid dictatorship, is hostile towards gays, is technologically forward, it's not insular and it is very open to the outside world. There is nothing "traditionally Russian" about Russia today.

    It's a modern, open country in a modern, open world. You are judging Russia by standards that were relevant maybe fifty years ago, like so, so many others are.
    I also heard there was a small scuffle between a senior Tory minster and and a few other MP's. (it was off camera though)

    David Cameron gagging to give someone a slap, I'm guessing.


  • Options
    #120
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    And the US/UK are not showboating? The nonsense on this topic is breathtaking.
    Sand wrote: »
    Western military action will be limited to airstrikes, a blockade, and maybe training/equipment/intelligence to the best of a bad bunch in the resistance. The weakness of the secular resistance is actually a boon to the West in that it provides a dependent proxy army.

    As for Russia - its mostly showboating. The worst thing the Russians could do is suspend whatever assistance or tolerance they offer for NATO/western forces in Afghanistan (a lot of the supply lines for western troops in Afghanistan go through Russian territory or Russian vassal states). It's also the best thing that could happen for a certain Mr Snowden as the chances of the Russians delivering him to the US in the near future recede into improbability. The Russians are admirably cynical when it comes to their foreign policy - they will do whatever is best for Russia alone. When it stops being of benefit to showboat, they will stop showboating. They are not going to enter into a new cold war for the benefit of Syria or Assad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Sand wrote: »
    Western states like the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK have a public sense of themselves as having a moral responsibility to "do the right thing".

    And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.


Advertisement