The Coming War With Syria

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've never heard of a cowardly hero.

listen then.....

gurramok wrote: »

Israel managed to bomb a few Syrian sites in 2007 with no resistance, not much air defences there.http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/12/us-israel-syria-idUSN1228366420070912

True but there was a certain element of surprise. Additionally any meaningful campaign would have to consist of sustained air strikes.

charlemont wrote: »

I'm so sick of hearing about this bull**** that I hope the world does ****en end so I won't hear any more of it.

Typical lies, confusion and hype from the media about thing's they are too thick to understand.

In my defence I wasn't actually being serious

What I always find so hypocritical is that we hear the age old shout from the armchair holier than thou-types "Something must be done" but not anything that involves force or anything that can be construed as Western Imperialism. It does leave very little room for manoeuvre to get concrete results. Sanctions, whether economic or otherwise, tend to harm the general population more than the senior political and military leadership and freezing their assets won't do too much. Perhaps bringing China and Russia on board may exert pressure on Assad but anyone who thinks Assad is in complete control of this situation in Syria doesn't really understand it all too well.

Imagine, if you will, that you're walking down the street and you see a man attacking another man. What are you options? You can shout at the man (diplomatic pressure), you can threaten to call the Guards (ICC warrant), you can give a weapon to the man being attacked (arm the rebels) or you can disable the man yourself (military intervention) which you don't want to do as it could be dangerous and you don't know these two men but it will certainly end the fight. Now perhaps some of these things will work but if people in Syria really want to kill each other than a bunch of people sitting around a table in New York or The Hague issuing statements isn't going to stop them. I'm not sure if I'm all too comfortable at present with the idea of arming the rebels. Who are the rebels really? What ethnic/religious groups are they made up of? What are their aims? Plans for a post regime change Syria if it happens? Would they even have the expertise within their ranks to govern? I honestly don't think we can answer all those questions and more satisfactorily at the moment which makes me wary of the idea of throwing a load of training and weapons their way.

For what it's worth I don't think that military intervention is the way forward in Syria now for two reasons. Firstly, as I alluded to above, the situation in Syria is just too complicated at the moment. It's not as simple as Assad is the bad guy (though he most certainly bears a huge responsibility for what's happening) and the rebels are the heroic freedom fighters who have nothing but good intentions. The second is purely the logistics of it; Syria is not Libya. Fighting is mainly in built up urban areas rather than expanses of desert and the Syrian military is better meaning that a purely air campaign might be out of the question. If you were to send in ground troops you'd damn well want to know what and who for so it returns to the the first point.

Of course all of this may change. Maybe diplomatic means will resolve the issue. Maybe we'll learn enough about the situation and the rebels to give them the support they would need to overthrow Assad. Heck, maybe we'll find out we've got it wrong and that the rebels don't command majority support among the general population. Again we just don't know at the minute. Military force, especially by a foreign nation or coalition, should always always be a last resort but it should be presented as a credible option as part of the diplomatic and resolution process. Assad and the various other parties host to this conflict have to believe that if things get so out of hand the world will deploy armed force to stop it. That may then be enough to deter them regardless of whether or not said force is used. Because if they don't believe the rest of the world has the resolve to stop them then things will get far uglier indeed.

golden lane wrote: »

listen then.....

<listens>






<still listening>















Nah, still haven't heard of a cowardly hero.

The economy is shagged, A good ol' war will sort it out...

Spread wrote: »

Syria is well armed

US elections ......... no candidate will risk talking war

The powers that be would rather a weak Syria than a strong one under a new ruler

And the devil you know etc


Soooo, no Arab Spring there

Not to mention backed by the Russians and Chinese

Unless they implement the draft, we aren't going into war anytime soon. Why? Because Syria is still protected by Russia and Iran, so if we took a more aggressive stance in that direction, Russia will get its back up and Iran will be threatening total and complete war.