Syria

[BloodOmen]

Shits (possibly) about to get serious it seems.

"Mr Obama and Mr Cameron will discuss the military options in the next few days.
They include missile strikes, disabling the Syrian air force or enforcing a no-fly zone across the country. A No.10 source said: “The significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response.
“The PM and the President are now looking at all the options.”
But they ruled out sending in British and American ground troops."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/syria-cameron-obama-agree-military-2218347

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-UKs-Cameron-pressing-Obama-for-strike-on-Syria-324251

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Britain-U-S-prepare-missile-strikes-days.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hat-military-action-looms-closer-8783679.html

 

[Hawkwind]

They will end up splitting the country in two. They can't let the fundamentalist take over completely or the Christians there will be annihilated. One thing the bathists did do is keep the peace between the two sides. Not saying they were good just that they managed to keep the peace. Will be another Iraq when its over

 

[Mabs]

bout fucking time, silly thing to do, anything chemicaly/nukey has a big red "if you push this, the big kids will get angry" warning on it

They will end up splitting the country in two. They can't let the fundamentalist take over completely or the Christians there will be annihilated. One thing the bathists did do is keep the peace between the two sides. Not saying they were good just that they managed to keep the peace. Will be another Iraq when its over

you mean like india/pakistan splitting ?

 

[Hawkwind]

Yep

 

[DaGaffer]

Everyone said Iraq should have been split into three. Didn't happen though.

 

[Mabs]

Everyone said Iraq should have been split into three. Didn't happen though.

is that cos it was too costly, or was going to cause paperwork issues with oil extraction ?
/hides

 

[throdgrain]

We are on the wrong side. Hard men leaders in the Middle East are what keep the peace, not softy western democracy. Just ask the Egyptians.

 

[Hawkwind]

Everyone said Iraq should have been split into three. Didn't happen though.

Given 60% of the oil to the Kurdish North was not workable. Money decision outweighing the ethnic one.

 

[DaGaffer]

Given 60% of the oil to the Kurdish North was not workable. Money decision outweighing the ethnic one.

If Haliburton could have done a deal with a new Kurdish homeland why would they care? If anything breaking the country up would have helped the oil interests (it certainly would have stabilised the countr(ies) more quickly. Iraq stayed together because the Americans couldn't countenance the political failure a breakup on their watch would have implied. Former Commie countries falling apart is one thing, US-sponsored "democracies" falling apart is a whole other thing; Americans aren't keen on that at all. Plus they didn't like the idea of a Shia-only rump Iraq falling into Iran's orbit.

 

[Hawkwind]

Turkey was the issue. No way would they allow a Kurdish homeland on their doorstep. Especially one with shit loads of money to spend. Also the French (Total) were upset because they originally signed deals for those oil fields with Saddam and are still pressing a case to get them. Cost them several bn $ for the rights - hahahahahaaaaaa!

 

[chipper]

We are on the wrong side. Hard men leaders in the Middle East are what keep the peace, not softy western democracy. Just ask the Egyptians.

i cant help but agree they get a taste of democracy and cant seem to handle it. but Syria is just going too far now whether its the rebels or the government playing with WMD's its time for the big hitters to step in and take the toys off the kiddies. its not about who's right or wrong any more its about the poor innocents dying every day and for what. even if the rebels win then what? 2 years down the line another Egypt? its OK going in and stopping the fighting but we have to put long term investments into those countries to make sure they dont implode i dont mean full blown occupation but a commitment to offer resources to help them manage a democratic country. how can they possibly run a country democratically when 99% of them have never experienced it?

 

[Job]

Kill them all and start again...I mean everyone.

 

[BloodOmen]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23844643

It's just getting worse and worse

Weapon inspectors are/were being fired upon by snipers now apparently and Russia has "warned" against the west sticking its nose in.

 

[rynnor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23844643

It's just getting worse and worse

Weapon inspectors are/were being fired upon by snipers now apparently and Russia has "warned" against the west sticking its nose in.

What did they expect its a warzone and one side is a motley band of terrorists - think they give a shit about the UN?

 

[TdC]

with due respect to lives lost, unless this is a full UN action Britian and America have fuck all business separately discussing any kind of action re Syria or am I being wierd now?

 

[Gwadien]

Not being funny, but I really hope Russia throws a strop over this - even if they are defending Assad for the wrong reasons, they should assert their selves as a UN country and say to the US/UK - Hang on, 'cos the UN said no, doesn't mean you can go behind their back and do it.

and if we do anything behind the UN's back, it's just proof that the UN is as much as use as the League of Nations.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5ZRE26YWM

 

[BloodOmen]

with due respect to lives lost, unless this is a full UN action Britian and America have fuck all business separately discussing any kind of action re Syria or am I being wierd now?

Agree, likely the UK/USA will wait until they see what the inspectors say I guess, based on that the UN will likely give the all clear because no one likes chemical weapons being used really, its a cowards/monsters thing to do.

 

[Urgat]

with due respect to lives lost, unless this is a full UN action Britian and America have fuck all business separately discussing any kind of action re Syria or am I being wierd now?

I also don't get it.

If the UN said no... what the fuck have the UK and America got to discuss?

I need to do some more reading on this subject I think. I am obviously unclear as to what the UN actually is, or can do.

 

[DaGaffer]

with due respect to lives lost, unless this is a full UN action Britian and America have fuck all business separately discussing any kind of action re Syria or am I being wierd now?

First thing I thought when I read it; why us again? Why do the US and UK seem to think they have some kind of right/duty to get involved in every intervention? Frankly in the case of Syria we have "no dawg in this hunt", as they say in Alabama. Let the fucking French and Russians and Turks have a go (all countries with more of a history with Syria than us).

 

[Aada]

I think we have an obligation is human beings to involved, enough is enough now, remove Assad and it's up to the FSA to keep the jihad scum away.

 

[Job]

Damned if we do...damned if we dont....so dont.

 

[SilverHood]

I think we have an obligation is human beings to involved, enough is enough now, remove Assad and it's up to the FSA to keep the jihad scum away.

Right now, it's Al-Qaeda fighting against Hezbollah and the regime ... The Russians are in the "better the devil you know camp". I'm not sure I disagree.

A split might work for the time being, but it would get messy very quickly from a security standpoint, much like modern Iraq. I'm sure that's preferable to the current situation right now.

 

[BloodOmen]

France is also threatening to launch missile strikes now so its not just the UK and USA, top military advisers are basically telling them all "don't start what you can't finish" - it also comes at a delicate time for the USA, they're going to hit their debt ceiling in October so they simply cannot afford another Iraq or anything remotely large scale.

 

[Hawkwind]

If the French are involved you can be sure its to do with money/oil.

 

[TdC]

they're going to hit their debt ceiling in October so they simply cannot afford another Iraq or anything remotely large scale.

on the other hand having a war on is a perfect excuse to bump it up another half trillion or so? tbh I am unsure if the US people will stomach another war. also apologies for the typo: when I type without glasses it shows

 

[Scouse]

I think we have an obligation is human beings to involved, enough is enough now, remove Assad and it's up to the FSA to keep the jihad scum away.

How did I know that's how you'd think about it? Sucking down the government line.

What proof do we have that Assad fired chemical weapons? Could just have easily have been the "rebels" - that we're arming btw.

It's not like we don't have a vested interest in Assad being ousted...

 

[Raven]

I think we have to step in now regardless of who used what on who. I would rather see talks around the table than anything else though. I think the Russians are right here.

 

[DaGaffer]

If the French are involved you can be sure its to do with money/oil.

Bit harsh. The French have sent peacekeepers to plenty of countries with fuck-all money or oil in the past, e.g. Rwanda. France's interest in Syria is at least partially post-colonial, meaning lots of second and third generation immigrants living in France.

 

[old.Tohtori]

All UN countries take in all refugees, let the factions duke it out and pour the people back in. Basically whenever there's fighting the rest of the world hods on to civilians until the boys are done with their pugilism practises.

Yeah i know it doesn't work, but it would be a different approach

 

[throdgrain]

I think we should get involved, but on Assad's side tbh, then he wouldn't have to use chemical weapons.