[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Has the point been broached that Obama has a hard on to bomb the chemical weapons because some of them came from us?
If this has already been said, my apologies.[/quote]
No, it wouldn’t matter if they did either. They’d shift blame to previous administrations, do some controlled leaks and try to drag other nations down into the mud.
Regime changes have changed since yesteryear. It has to look home grown so there can’t be any backlash. People want Assad out just like they wanted Gaddafi out, Gaddafi just was so high on so many shit lists there’s no saving him. America and other nations either picked a side when this started out, got it going or both and they’ve been supporting and equipping the opposition.
That hasn’t got Assad out of power. Since the use of chemical weapons was inevitable it’s the line that got drawn in the sand and people just waited it out so they could take direct military action. Destroying them is just a means of being able to weaken the Syrian military and let the rebels gain the upper hand.
There are a few interesting things to happen recently. One is that Assad has said America needs to stop assisting terrorists. I wouldn’t be surprised if that came from Russia. The funny thing is during the Iraq war AQI would cross the border into Syria and escape the fighting, they’ve also inevitably supported them in some way. Assad was pretty mad when America crossed the border illegally and took some AQI guys out.
Now those same AQI guys did a name change and are the most brutal part of the rebel forces. It’s come full circle. AQI probably got some third party assistance from Russia via Syria to have a proxy war with America, now Syria and Russia are pissed that America is using them in a proxy war as a third party via Saudi Arabia.
The other thing is that Al Nusra isn’t going to last as part of the opposition forces. They’re the most brutal AQ affiliate and you either side with them or die. AQI/ISI/Al Nusra brought fighters into Syria and it helped out the Syrians opposing Assad so they accepted it. However they’re pretty brutal, a reason why Iraqis don’t care for them too much[they kill too many civilians in suicide bombings], and the same sentiment is being shared by Syrians.
AQI is doing infighting with other groups for power. One of those groups is Ahrar Al Sham and they aren’t foreign fighters looking for power, it’s Syrians looking to oust Assad. They do a lot of humanitarian work in Syria. Since AQI has assassinated some members of Ahrar Al Sham it’s turning the perception of them from being a necessary evil to just being evil. In the future this is going to turn into AQI vs Syrian rebels vs Assad. If that happens I expect America to put a lot of weight behind the Syrians and it could actually have a long term positive impact. I think it’d be the first regime change to have any real positive impact.
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
… the rebels who were reported to be the ones doing the chemical warfare and then goes around acting like a bastion of morality saying that the Assad regime is unacceptable.[/quote]
You mean Assad’s regime was telling the truth when he said it was the rebels who used chemical weapons? The Arab League said Assad was responsible for the Ghouta chemical attacks. The European Union too. And more than a dozen other countries, most of which are AGAINST military action. I think you need to read something other than the Iranian press releases.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t this a Civil War that is more than 2,000 years old?
[/quote]
Yes you are indeed wrong. Very wrong. 2000 years ago neither Christianity existed(beyond a tiny cult) and Islam didn’t exist either, Syria is one of the oldest civilisations on earth being occupied successively by the Hittites, the Summerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, along with settlements of the mysterious ‘sea people’, the Persians, Alexander the great, and his successors, the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire and during the crusades successively by Europeans and the Muslims.
The current conflict is between Assad’s Allawite faction allied to the Shia against the Sunnis.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t this a Civil War that is more than 2,000 years old?
[/quote]
Yes you are indeed wrong. Very wrong. 2000 years ago neither Christianity existed(beyond a tiny cult) and Islam didn’t exist either, Syria is one of the oldest civilisations on earth being occupied successively by the Hittites, the Summerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, along with settlements of the mysterious ‘sea people’, the Persians, Alexander the great, and his successors, the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire and during the crusades successively by Europeans and the Muslims.
The current conflict is between Assad’s Allawite faction allied to the Shia against the Sunnis. [/quote]
JB corrected me very early in this thread.
The Middle East is, at is most fundamental, the epicenter of a Shia/Sunni Civil War.
It’s been going on about 1382 years using the year 632 C.E. as the starting point.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t this a Civil War that is more than 2,000 years old?
[/quote]
Yes you are indeed wrong. Very wrong. 2000 years ago neither Christianity existed(beyond a tiny cult) and Islam didn’t exist either, Syria is one of the oldest civilisations on earth being occupied successively by the Hittites, the Summerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, along with settlements of the mysterious ‘sea people’, the Persians, Alexander the great, and his successors, the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire and during the crusades successively by Europeans and the Muslims.
The current conflict is between Assad’s Allawite faction allied to the Shia against the Sunnis. [/quote]
JB corrected me very early in this thread.
The Middle East is, at is most fundamental, the epicenter of a Shia/Sunni Civil War.
It’s been going on about 1382 years using the year 632 C.E. as the starting point.
They’ve been doing a lot of posturing lately between Snowden and Syria. I’m not trying to side with one group or the other because I don’t care for either, having a president who’s idea of a strong message being “give up your chemical weapons and chemical weapon program by 2014” isn’t good. Internationally it’ll be viewed as weakness to agree to something that takes military action off of the table, something like “get rid of it or we’ll” would do more to project power. Especially if Syria wasn’t going through Russia to get rid of the chemical weapons.
So here’s a question. Why send a “carrier killer” into the Mediterranean to ensure safe chemical weapon confiscation? Are they planning to do so by water, or does anyone else in this “spat” have carriers aside from the US?
I think its really funny how there’s all these handshakes between Presidents, and meanwhile troops are being lined up to play a game of Risk.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
So here’s a question. Why send a “carrier killer” into the Mediterranean to ensure safe chemical weapon confiscation? Are they planning to do so by water, or does anyone else in this “spat” have carriers aside from the US?
I think its really funny how there’s all these handshakes between Presidents, and meanwhile troops are being lined up to play a game of Risk. [/quote]
If the Chinese discovered that the Japanese had just gassed a bunch of Ainu dissidents, and were threatening a limited bombing of Jieitai installations unless they turned the remainder of the stockpile over to us, don’t you think we’d move a carrier or two a little closer just to make sure there was no funny business?
Oh, and yes, I believe the French and British also have aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean.
In this case, I would say France and Britain are on “US’s side” in this posturing. Sending a ship specifically designed to destroy carriers, into waters holding your “opponents” carriers, tells me its more of placing your piece to counter their piece in the even a game were to start - or to pre-emptively stop any game in the first place.
At some point we could end up at another Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don’t see us getting out of it with our current regime. Or at least, it would be the US backing down, because I’d be willing to bet Putin has more balls than Obama.
I don’t know if that means a whole lot. My brothers (former US Navy) have participated in training exercises throughout the world with the Russian Navy involving anywhere from battle groups to coordinating the majority of the Atlantic or Pacific fleet.
They could be heading over to the Indian ocean to practice some anti-sub warfare with us for all we know.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
In this case, I would say France and Britain are on “US’s side” in this posturing. Sending a ship specifically designed to destroy carriers, into waters holding your “opponents” carriers, tells me its more of placing your piece to counter their piece in the even a game were to start - or to pre-emptively stop any game in the first place.
At some point we could end up at another Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don’t see us getting out of it with our current regime. Or at least, it would be the US backing down, because I’d be willing to bet Putin has more balls than Obama. [/quote]
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
In this case, I would say France and Britain are on “US’s side” in this posturing. Sending a ship specifically designed to destroy carriers, into waters holding your “opponents” carriers, tells me its more of placing your piece to counter their piece in the even a game were to start - or to pre-emptively stop any game in the first place.
At some point we could end up at another Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don’t see us getting out of it with our current regime. Or at least, it would be the US backing down, because I’d be willing to bet Putin has more balls than Obama. [/quote]
Putin won’t even have to untie his shoelaces. [/quote]
Putin is a seasoned politician and is ruthless for his goals. He makes Obama look like a complete inept fool next to him. But what is new there?
I hate to say it, actually no I don’t… but being ruthless for one’s goals drives you to succeed. Sometimes its at all costs, but aren’t the best of the best of similar mindset? Bodybuilders, businessmen, dictators.
What we have right now is an American Idol President, not a world leader.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I hate to say it, actually no I don’t… but being ruthless for one’s goals drives you to succeed. Sometimes its at all costs, but aren’t the best of the best of similar mindset? Bodybuilders, businessmen, dictators.
What we have right now is an American Idol President, not a world leader.[/quote]
I don’t know if that means a whole lot. My brothers (former US Navy) have participated in training exercises throughout the world with the Russian Navy involving anywhere from battle groups to coordinating the majority of the Atlantic or Pacific fleet.
They could be heading over to the Indian ocean to practice some anti-sub warfare with us for all we know.[/quote]
I bet the US has a sub on this boats ass at all times. It flinches and we will blow it out of the water.
I don’t know if that means a whole lot. My brothers (former US Navy) have participated in training exercises throughout the world with the Russian Navy involving anywhere from battle groups to coordinating the majority of the Atlantic or Pacific fleet.
They could be heading over to the Indian ocean to practice some anti-sub warfare with us for all we know.[/quote]
I bet the US has a sub on this boats ass at all times. It flinches and we will blow it out of the water.
[/quote]