SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

Amirani · 05-09-2013 02:32PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

They are, Europe and the US are the biggest contributors, the US has spent over 800 million dollars toward the Syrian refugee crisis in just the last year alone. Russia and China have done virtually nothing.

That's true, and Russia and China are guilty in a lot of hypocrisy in that sense.

However, I think the money that the US is potentially going to be spending on the war effort would be better spent continuing and furthering the direct aid contributions they've been making to the refugee crisis.

Qardaha · 05-09-2013 02:35PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

They are, Europe and the US are the biggest contributors, the US has spent over 800 million dollars toward the Syrian refugee crisis in just the last year alone. Russia and China have done virtually nothing.

Wrong, again.

Russia flies two cargo planes to Lattakia every week, with about 25 tonnes of aid. You can throw around figures of 800m dollars if you want... but that, over time, is 150 dollars for each refugee... over 2 years... and all the money does not even reach them.

donegal_road · 05-09-2013 02:43PM

czx wrote: »

which is all you really care about

I dont follow what you mean.

If you mean that I feel sympathy for people who are in unfortunate circumstances, then yes you are correct.

KindOfIrish · 05-09-2013 02:50PM

Why in the poll Al Qaeda terrorists and Islamic militant fundamentalists from over the world called "rebels"?

The West had to help Assad long time ago to defend civilians from terrorists.

MonaPizza · 05-09-2013 03:19PM

Is Israel taking in any refugees?

dublinbhoy88 · 05-09-2013 03:27PM

KindOfIrish wrote: »

Why in the poll Al Qaeda terrorists and Islamic militant fundamentalists from over the world called "rebels"?

The West had to help Assad long time ago to defend civilians from terrorists.

Yes why indeed are they called rebels,strange one alright

Jonny7 · 05-09-2013 03:35PM

Qardaha wrote: »

Wrong, again.

Russia flies two cargo planes to Lattakia every week, with about 25 tonnes of aid. You can throw around figures of 800m dollars if you want... but that, over time, is 150 dollars for each refugee... over 2 years... and all the money does not even reach them.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013/jul/25/aid-funding-syria-humanitarian-crisis-data

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c26c.html

In 2012 the US commited 793 million dollars, Russia 2.5 million

danniemcq · 05-09-2013 03:40PM

I find it hard to believe that people are saying the US shouldn't do anything and sort out their own financial issues at home first and take care of their civilians.

-In an post above it mentions est 60 million dollars to strike targets.

This is NOTHING

The US military budget in 2011 was 680 BILLION dollars+. 60 million is a drop in a very VERY big ocean over there.

For example one stealth bomber has a cost of $750 million approx. They have at least 20 of them.

The army even recently said "no more tanks please spend the money elsewhere" so they were given more tanks.

Saying they shouldn't get involved to save money is wrong, This is finally a possible "just" war if there was a use of chemical weapons on a civilain population. If nothing is done it will happen again, and again. Yes i know White Phosphurus was used in by the US and Israel and its horrible but not like Sarin gas.

Plus if and when action is taken it will add scrutiny to future use of WP and limit if not stop its use

I am pie · 05-09-2013 03:54PM

Almost 50 people want a full scale war, more hawkish than the hawks in the US.

Amazing.

Amirani · 05-09-2013 03:56PM

danniemcq wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that people are saying the US shouldn't do anything and sort out their own financial issues at home first and take care of their civilians.

-In an post above it mentions est 60 million dollars to strike targets.

This is NOTHING

The US military budget in 2011 was 680 BILLION dollars+. 60 million is a drop in a very VERY big ocean over there.

For example one stealth bomber has a cost of $750 million approx. They have at least 20 of them.

The army even recently said "no more tanks please spend the money elsewhere" so they were given more tanks.

Saying they shouldn't get involved to save money is wrong, This is finally a possible "just" war if there was a use of chemical weapons on a civilain population. If nothing is done it will happen again, and again. Yes i know White Phosphurus was used in by the US and Israel and its horrible but not like Sarin gas.

Plus if and when action is taken it will add scrutiny to future use of WP and limit if not stop its use

I'm sure $60million would be more than welcomed by the number of innocent refugees that that could house and feed for a year.

I don't see how dropping a few missiles on airfields is going to help civilians at all?

dublinbhoy88 · 05-09-2013 04:06PM

I am pie wrote: »

Almost 50 people want a full scale war, more hawkish than the hawks in the US.

Amazing.

would any of these 50 wannabe state sponsored terrorists go over there themselves and fight?

donegal_road · 05-09-2013 04:17PM

donegal_road wrote: »

@Jonny

Considering that Israel was the last country to use chemical weapons in combat, why the double standard?

Considering that the Egyptian army shot dead 980 civilians in cold blood, during protests three weeks ago, why was there a blind eye turned towards this atrocity?

.

you might have missed this post Jonny

Jonny7 · 05-09-2013 04:20PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I don't see how dropping a few missiles on airfields is going to help civilians at all?

Assad uses those planes to bomb his own countrymen - not a murmur

The US threatens to blow up said planes - outrage

gotta love it

Amirani · 05-09-2013 04:21PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Assad uses those planes to bomb his own countrymen - not a murmur

The US threatens to blow up said planes - outrage

gotta love it

The chemical weapons aren't being delivered by planes.

danniemcq · 05-09-2013 04:25PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'm sure $60million would be more than welcomed by the number of innocent refugees that that could house and feed for a year.

I don't see how dropping a few missiles on airfields is going to help civilians at all?

I get where you are coming for but i still think that seeing that someone is on your side and actually doing something to level the playing field is a HUGE bonus for the civilian population.

Its also not just airfields but other targets too, plus even if it was just planes hit and not the chemical weapons at least its a way of making the area safter by not having planes droping bombs.

There isn't going to be much hitting the chemical weapons out of fear of possibly releasing more but military targets in general will help

I know there are lots of people in Syria that probably couldn't care either way who is in charge they just want to live in peace but for others that may have lost friends or family members thats just not enough anymore.

If no action is taken this time Assad has supposedly used chemical weapons whats stopping him from doing it again?

.jacksparrow. · 05-09-2013 04:26PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Assad uses those planes to bomb his own countrymen - not a murmur

The US threatens to blow up said planes - outrage

gotta love it

His country men who have killed thousands and caused hundred thousand deaths all for their own self gain. They started the civil war, they should call it a day now to stop more people loosing their lives.

The Ira constantly get slated in here for been responsible for starting a war where innocents died, what about this rebel crowd?

Seen footage of the capital of Syria and life is normal, people are happy and don't want a war and certainly don't want america coming in and bombing their country back a few decades.

Years ago it was Iraq then it was lybia been the popular thing people around the world loved to say they cared about, once its done the same people forget about the country and move onto the next not realising or caring about the mess that's left behind, which is worst than the way it was before.

Jonny7 · 05-09-2013 04:27PM

donegal_road wrote: »

you might have missed this post Jonny

There's already a good few threads on those situations

Jonny7 · 05-09-2013 04:32PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

His country men who have killed thousands and caused hundred thousand deaths all for their own self gain. They started the civil war, they should call it a day now to stop more people loosing their lives.

The Ira constantly get slated in here for been responsible for starting a war where innocents died, what about this rebel crowd?

Seen footage of the capital of Syria and life is normal, people are happy and don't want a war and certainly don't want america coming in and bombing their country back a few decades.

He and his father before him have been in power for several decades. When the Arab spring started - people in Syria did the same and took to the streets to protest against the employment, corruption, shiatty conditions and the fact they had no choice in leader

Rather than flee like Ben Ali or step down, Assad decided to get all shooty.

You imprison and shoot protesters for several months, eventually those in the army start defecting, or fighting back. Fast forward 2 years and we have the current situation.

Jonny7 · 05-09-2013 04:34PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

The chemical weapons aren't being delivered by planes.

True but choppers and planes are used to spot and have the capability to deliver - it's more of a punitive strike

Targeting the artillery pieces would be much more messy and dangerous altogether

Kinzig · 05-09-2013 04:35PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Assad uses those planes to bomb his own countrymen - not a murmur

Assad is using those planes to defend his country from foreign fighters bankrolled from Qatar and Saudi who want to control the new natural gas pipeline through syria ..these foreign fighters are trained by the British, US and European special forces and elements of the CIA..the guns were ran in through Turkey from Libya and the balkans to arm these mercenaries...if Assad were that bad how come that with all the effort against him he is still in control of the country after 2 years?

Now therein lies the problem..he wasnt as easy shifted as Ghadaffi..so the good old boys employ another well used and tried system of a false flag to get the excuse to go in and shift him ..weve seen it before..and as they say "fool me once shame on you" fool me twice you know the rest..

This attack on syria hasnt got one single iota to do with humanitarian goals..its to do with the natural gas pipeline that will go through syria once assad has been gotten rid off and a puppet takes his place..I dont understand why people fall for this crap every time..trying telling the relatives of the countless thousands dead in Iraq the west done them all a big favour:rolleyes:

brimal · 05-09-2013 04:38PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

Is Israel taking in any refugees?

Is this a genuine question?

Of course they haven't, but they have given medical care to over 100 Syrians so far

Edit: It seems they do have some plans in place to allow Alawites refuge on the Golan Heights should Assad regime fall

"On the day the Assad regime falls, it is expected to harm the Alawite clan. We are preparing to receive Alawite refugees on the Golan Heights," Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz told MPs at the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/201211013426766181.html

.jacksparrow. · 05-09-2013 04:41PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

He and his father before him have been in power for several decades. When the Arab spring started - people in Syria did the same and took to the streets to protest against the employment, corruption, shiatty conditions and the fact they had no choice in leader

Rather than flee like Ben Ali or step down, Assad decided to get all shooty.

You imprison and shoot protesters for several months, eventually those in the army start defecting, or fighting back. Fast forward 2 years and we have the current situation.

Hold on, yes the people did but was this the majority of the country or a minority?

Doesn't give them the right to start a war that is tearing their country apart and one thousand people have died.

bumper234 · 05-09-2013 05:13PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

He and his father before him have been in power for several decades. When the Arab spring started - people in Syria did the same and took to the streets to protest against the employment, corruption, shiatty conditions and the fact they had no choice in leader

Rather than flee like Ben Ali or step down, Assad decided to get all shooty.

You imprison and shoot protesters for several months, eventually those in the army start defecting, or fighting back. Fast forward 2 years and we have the current situation.

So why does America not threaten North Korea seeing as it's a similar if not same situation?

Karl Stein · 05-09-2013 05:24PM

bumper234 wrote: »

So why does America not threaten North Korea seeing as it's a similar if not same situation?

Nukes.

Not really strategically important.

Useful bogeyman.

WakeUp · 05-09-2013 05:25PM

The Americans are talking about carrying out "limited" strikes. There will be nothing limited about them they will go after Assad and his infrastructure hitting him hard. People are perceiving Obama has being somewhat weak for consulting congress before he attacks but I would think its a case of the Americans also taking their time moving things into place. That tells me they are going to hit Assad hard. Syria is four maybe five different wars within the war, one of them being a hot proxy war between the US and Russia. When the US attack that entire region is going to explode and who knows where else.

There is a massive naval build up in the region right now. This map doesnt include Israeli, Chinese and Iranian vessels or their submarines. It doesnt include Russian subs either.

Medi%20fleet%20standoff.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-04/russia-boosts-mediterranean-flotilla-as-u-s-weighs-syria-strike.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-carrier-idUSBRE9800IT20130901

metaoblivia · 05-09-2013 05:32PM

I'd like to see my government stay out of Syria, and from what I'm hearing on the news, that's the opinion the majority of the American public holds as well. Personally, I'm tired of having troops overseas caught up in a quagmire of war zones, putting their lives in danger, putting the lives of local civilians in danger, propping up weak governments that will most likely fail over the next few decades. It's been a mess for our spending and international reputation, and Syria just feels like another excuse to stay involved. We have very little international support - we're not going to get it from the UN or several of our traditionally closest allies, and I think the US should take that as a message that we need to stay out of it.

I get that there are really no good options here. But I'm all war-ed out and I want the US government to listen to its own people and the international community for once, and stay the fcuk out.

bumper234 · 05-09-2013 05:34PM

10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

dublinbhoy88 · 05-09-2013 05:35PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

True but choppers and planes are used to spot and have the capability to deliver - it's more of a punitive strike

Targeting the artillery pieces would be much more messy and dangerous altogether

so Assad orders a chemical attack on the Syrian "jihadists' at the very time U.N. weapons inspectors were in the country, well for that Assad must go for being the worlds most stupid leader Mmm:rolleyes:

bumper234 · 05-09-2013 05:41PM

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

so Assad orders a chemical attack on the Syrian "jihadists' at the very time U.N. weapons inspectors were in the country, well for that Assad must go for being the worlds most stupid leader Mmm:rolleyes:

No no George W Bush still holds that title and i think he will reign supreme for many decades to come.

Jonny7 · 05-09-2013 05:55PM

Kinzig wrote: »

Assad is using those planes to defend his country from foreign fighters bankrolled from Qatar and Saudi who want to control the new natural gas pipeline through syria ..these foreign fighters are trained by the British, US and European special forces and elements of the CIA..the guns were ran in through Turkey from Libya and the balkans to arm these mercenaries...if Assad were that bad how come that with all the effort against him he is still in control of the country after 2 years?

What gas pipeline, the two proposed pipelines go nowhere near Syria, they go through Turkey

and no Assad has been using the many internal security forces military on those who don't "agree" with his rule for quite awhile now

Now therein lies the problem..he wasnt as easy shifted as Ghadaffi..so the good old boys employ another well used and tried system of a false flag to get the excuse to go in and shift him ..weve seen it before..and as they say "fool me once shame on you" fool me twice you know the rest..

So wait, they were friendly with Gadaffi, but suddenly engineered an.. uprising to get rid of him.. and now.. Libya sells them oil at the same price as before.

Their evil dastardly schemes just don't have the edge they used to.

This attack on syria hasnt got one single iota to do with humanitarian goals..its to do with the natural gas pipeline that will go through syria once assad has been gotten rid off and a puppet takes his place..I dont understand why people fall for this crap every time..trying telling the relatives of the countless thousands dead in Iraq the west done them all a big favour:rolleyes:

Back to square one, what pipeline?

SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

Comments