Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria

[VolkswagenX]

 

[DustDriver]

What will likely happen will be a large-scale war against Israel, because killing Jews is apparently the only thing anyone in the middle east can agree on.

A lot easier for them to attack an enemy at their doorstep than an (much more powerfull) enemy half way around the globe.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Looks like a big party is coming.
Fortunately, Russians have evacuated all their staff from the base in Tartus. Which means, we're already prepared to stand by and watch the show while eating popcorn.
http://cs6300.vk.me/u6602343/doc/b90645ee384b/taxidermia-lisa-popkorn-gifki-474106.gif

"Sorry, Bashar, there's nothing more we can do for you."

I don't think the Russians will abandon Assad.

08:15 GMT: Russia is to send an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean in the next few days, Interfax news agency cited military sources as saying. The move is a planned rotation of vessels and there are no plans to boost the Russian Navy’s presence in the area, the source said. Russia’s Defense Ministry has not confirmed the move, however.

http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

 

[Dotini]

I wonder why he says international norms instead of international law. Maybe has something to do with Syria not signing the agreement to ban chemical weapons?

I think Syria is a signatory to the agreement. But it is not a law.

The ONLY laws that sanction international war are (#1) in self defense and (#2) with a UN sanction.

Obama also frequently used the term "a shot across the bows" in lieu of anything more deadly. A shot across the bows is also known as a warning shot. He also specifically stated he had no intention of taking down Assad or the regime. It seemed to me he is caught in the act of climbing down just a little. A warning shot may only embolden Assad and many other American adversaries around the world, convincing them America is reduced to toothless bluffing. It may also enrage and infuriate the rebels, convincing them that America was only fecklessly kidding about supporting them in their life and death struggle. They may now be inspired to take revenge against Americans as they did at Benghazi, and to commence attacks against American allies Britain and Israel.

Another fly in the war ointment is the dilatory tactics playing out in the British parliament. Turns out a lot of MPs in both parties actually remember Iraq, Blair's hysterical stampede to war on false evidence and the disastrous aftermaths. Until Obama gets gung-ho missile-firing support from Cameron, he will sit on his hands without a viable "coalition of the willing" (willing to violate international law on dodgy ad hoc principles, that is).

 

[Omnis]

"The Defense Ministry has not confirmed the move"

So you're telling me that governments are inept on purpose?

 

[VolkswagenX]

I think Syria is a signatory to the agreement. But it is not a law.

The ONLY laws that sanction international war are (#1) in self defense and (#2) with a UN sanction.

Obama also frequently used the term "a shot across the bows" in lieu of anything more deadly. A shot across the bows is also known as a warning shot. He also specifically stated he had no intention of taking down Assad or the regime. It seemed to me he is caught in the act of climbing down just a little. A warning shot may only embolden Assad and many other American adversaries around the world, convincing them America is reduced to toothless bluffing. It may also enrage and infuriate the rebels, convincing them that America was only fecklessly kidding about supporting them in their life and death struggle. They may now be inspired to take revenge against Americans as they did at Benghazi, and to commence attacks against American allies Britain and Israel.

Another fly in the war ointment is the dilatory tactics playing out in the British parliament. Turns out a lot of MPs in both parties actually remember Iraq, Blair's hysterical stampede to war on false evidence and the disastrous aftermaths. Until Obama gets gung-ho missile-firing support from Cameron, he will sit on his hands without a viable "coalition of the willing" (willing to violate international law on dodgy ad hoc principles, that is).

Thanks for clearing that up and good post:tup:

 

[DK]

Personally, I think they should send a UN peacekeeping force, but that's impossible with Russia and China on the Security Council.

 

[Touring Mars]

The US and her allies are arguing that the UN's 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine (or R2P) gives them legal justification to intervene where another member state is not living up to its responsibility to protect its own citizens. It was used before in Kosovo, but it remains highly controversial, not least because it calls into question the very concept of sovereignty, but also conveniently side-steps the need for a UN security council resolution. But a critical issue with R2P is that it is only applicable when all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted, and that can't rightly be said to be the case here.

On a different topic, I've been reading up on various aspects of the Syrian situation this evening and although it has already been said, it is worth repeating that the nature of the rebellion has changed since the beginning of the conflict - when Assad could rightly be described as being the bad guy - to a situation (not unlike Egypt, but arguably much, much worse) where the legitimate uprising of the people has been hijacked by extremists who pose a grave threat and who Assad's regime should be fighting. It is a tragic outcome for the people of Syria that this has happened, and it is barely comprehensible that we find ourselves on the same side as barbaric maniacs who will stop at nothing to wrest power from Assad.

 

[Rage Racer]

On a different topic, I've been reading up on various aspects of the Syrian situation this evening and although it has already been said, it is worth repeating that the nature of the rebellion has changed since the beginning of the conflict - when Assad could rightly be described as being the bad guy - to a situation (not unlike Egypt, but arguably much, much worse) where the legitimate uprising of the people has been hijacked by extremists who pose a grave threat and who Assad's regime should be fighting.

Agree that.
Assad is not an innocent sheep, too, but the so-called "opposition" today is definetly not better. They don't hesitate to attack civilians, but Assad is the scapegoat. Sad but true.

08:15 GMT: Russia is to send an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean in the next few days, Interfax news agency cited military sources as saying. The move is a planned rotation of vessels and there are no plans to boost the Russian Navy’s presence in the area, the source said. Russia’s Defense Ministry has not confirmed the move, however.

The General Staff (Genshtab) have told they're watching the situation in Syria to gather information "which is going to be used in the interests of national security of Russia", and not going to get involved in the conflict.

This is a normal situation for us. Times when we were fighting for someone have gone. Now we are going to get out of this difficult situation as much information as possible in the interests of national security of Russia, carefully analyze the tactics of the participants in the possible conflict, to draw conclusions for the future perspective ", - the General Staff.

 

[Blitz24]

100% true TM. I actually would prefer Assad in power just like I didn't mind Mubarak in power because they knew how to control their country and at least kept it somewhat stable.

 

[High-Test]

100% true TM. I actually would prefer Assad in power just like I didn't mind Mubarak in power because they knew how to control their country and at least kept it somewhat stable.

Agreed. Look at what happened to Iraq when we took out Saddam. He was the perfect counterbalance to Iran, which has seen a meteoric rise in its influence since Saddam's downfall. Saudi Arabia might be a backwards looking state that beheads people for blasphemy, but at least they're stable.

 

[ExigeEvan]

100% true TM. I actually would prefer Assad in power just like I didn't mind Mubarak in power because they knew how to control their country and at least kept it somewhat stable.

Agreed. Look at what happened to Iraq when we took out Saddam. He was the perfect counterbalance to Iran, which has seen a meteoric rise in its influence since Saddam's downfall. Saudi Arabia might be a backwards looking state that beheads people for blasphemy, but at least they're stable.

Stability isn't freedom. These people could continue to live like this and know that they're children will too. Or they can try and change it, and make a better life for their children.

Yes there is that risk of civil war, yes there's the horror of seeing your home blown apart, but where would we be, where would the world be if there weren't those brave enough to fight for better?

 

[Blitz24]

Stability isn't freedom. These people could continue to live like this and know that they're children will too. Or they can try and change it, and make a better life for their children.

Yes there is that risk of civil war, yes there's the horror of seeing your home blown apart, but where would we be, where would the world be if there weren't those brave enough to fight for better?

If you haven't noticed at this point, their choice of freedom is to elect people that tell them who to hate and who not to talk to. Look at what happened in Iraq, look at what happened in Libya, look what is happening in Egypt and what could happen in Syria. They want to be free but they elect leaders who choose to divert problems towards hatred as opposed to progress.

 

[Touring Mars]

The House of Commons have been debating all day, and will vote shortly, on 'agreeing in principle' to the use of military force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The government motion is being opposed by Labour who have tabled a number of amendments - pretty big ones too, like the inclusion of a caveat that no military action be taken before UN inspectors have reported their findings, for example - and so it will be very interesting to see what happens in the vote, which I've been waiting on all flippin' day... it's been a fascinating debate, but right now the deputy PM is at pains to point out that voting for the government will not constitute a mandate for military action, and that any military action would need a separate vote to take place. However, there is considerable opposition to that - with many saying that while they might agree 'in principle' that military action can be taken, it depends on being able to make a clear cut and legal case, as well as also having a clear plan for what happens next etc.. The government, however, seem more concerned about leaving their options open at this stage.

Nick Clegg has just said that this vote is about sending a clear message that the UK is prepared to take action against those who use chemical weapons - but the debate today has largely been dominated by the wisdom of taking military action, as opposed to limiting any response to diplomatic or political action.

If the government loses the vote (which I think is unlikely), however, then I assume that it means game over for any UK involvement in Syria.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If you haven't noticed at this point, their choice of freedom is to elect people that tell them who to hate and who not to talk to. Look at what happened in Iraq, look at what happened in Libya, look what is happening in Egypt and what could happen in Syria. They want to be free but they elect leaders who choose to divert problems towards hatred as opposed to progress.

And as witnessed in Egypt, that isn't what they originally voted for. But sadly, like in all countries including America and the UK, politicians don't always keep to their word.

Previous dictatorships existed largely through foreign support, a complete affront to the democracy they often tout at home.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wow... the UK's coalition government's motion has been defeated...

 

[Spagetti69]

Wow... the UK's coalition government's motion has been defeated...

First vote. "In principle"

Cameron will work around that no probs.

 

[Touring Mars]

First vote. "In principle"

Cameron will work around that no probs.

I doubt it very much. Having just watched the debate for several hours, it was obvious that even those who agreed 'in principle' (to military intervention in Syria) would not agree in practice unless very specific conditions were met - so having lost the 'in principle' vote, there's practically no way that the government will win a vote on actually authorising the use of the UK military in Syria under the present circumstances - indeed, there will probably not even be a second vote.

edit: David Cameron has just said "It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

 

[Blitz24]

US probably should hold off since I still think that no actual red line has been crossed, since its only a "theoretical" red line.

 

[High-Test]

US probably should hold off since I still think that no actual red line has been crossed, since its only a "theoretical" red line.

Agreed.

 

[Spagetti69]

I doubt it very much. Having just watched the debate for several hours, it was obvious that even those who agreed 'in principle' (to military intervention in Syria) would not agree in practice unless very specific conditions were met - so having lost the 'in principle' vote, there's practically no way that the government will win a vote on actually authorising the use of the UK military in Syria under the present circumstances - indeed, there will probably not even be a second vote.

edit: David Cameron has just said "It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

I sincerely hope that is what happens.

The fact this is even in debate before UN has even examined all the evidence, lead me to believe they wasn't interested in the evidence.

 

[Touring Mars]

US probably should hold off since I still think that no actual red line has been crossed, since its only a "theoretical" red line.

It's a blow for Cameron to lose tonight's vote, but it's not a humiliation - for Obama, on the other hand, a U-turn now would be a monumental humiliation and an embarrasment.

There are doubtless many who voted against the UK government tonight who do not wish to endorse the view that Assad should get off scot-free if indeed he is responsible for sarin gas attacks in Syria, but the message was loud and clear tonight that bombing Assad's military is not the appropriate way for the UK to deal with the situation.

I sincerely hope that is what happens.

The fact this is even in debate before UN has even examined all the evidence, lead me to believe they wasn't interested in the evidence.

Waiting for UN inspectors to file their report was one of the stipulations that Labour's amendment added to the motion - and had those amendments been voted for, then I reckon the government's motion would have passed.

 

[Lizard]

If we went in then it would have had to be done quickly or I would see the public turning against it. Doesn't matter how much force you have if you want to win a war your people need to be on your side. You only need to look at Vietnam for that.


So I am glad about this defeat for Cameron to be honest.

 

[Dennisch]

US probably should hold off since I still think that no actual red line has been crossed, since its only a "theoretical" red line.

The red line is a load of crap. It should not matter that chemicals have been used. A lot of people already died and it should have been prevented with a UN or NATO intervention a long time ago.

This situation just shows, again, that our so called world leaders are completely powerless because they all have different interests in everything they discuss.

The whole middle East is a turning into a warzone where Muslims fight Muslims, Muslims oppressing Muslims and no one knows who the enemy is anymore.

Either the world leaders step up and take full charge over the region, or they should just back off. The times of half ass measures is long gone.

 

[arora]

Brits are defo out for now and I don't see that changing anytime soon, so now we shall see what the u.s. does.

I don't have a solid read so either way would not surprise me. I don't think boots or shock and awe, but something might be in the works, might already be happening tbh.

 

[Dotini]

edit: David Cameron has just said "It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly."

Hats off to the British people and the British parliament. 👍
Maybe there actually are people who have come to their senses and changed the course history would have otherwise taken?

 

[Nicksfix]

Until Obama gets gung-ho missile-firing support from Cameron, he will sit on his hands without a viable "coalition of the willing" (willing to violate international law on dodgy ad hoc principles, that is).

The Obama administration said Wednesday it would take action against the Syrian government even without the backing of allies or the United Nations because diplomatic paralysis must not prevent a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack outside the Syrian capital last week.

Full article

Go it alone ... this is a poor move on behalf of the US, if it proves to be so.

Cameron ...

He's promised British lawmakers he would not go to war until chemical weapons inspectors had a chance to report back to the world body about their findings. That means British involvement in any potential strike wouldn't occur until next week at the earliest.

So, with this announcement from the UK, I think it would be wise for the U.S. to lay low until the UN has done their job. Better yet, the US should just stay out of this in it's entirety.

Meanwhile, Russia will be deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days".

Article

Is this just a show of power and or support for it's ally ? Did Russia really mean what it said when it warned the US about an attack on Syria ?

Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers. It opposes any military intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus against further sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.
Defense experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches, particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems although they might never be used for this.

President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation. Russia cooperates with NATO navies against piracy and its ships call at Western ports.

What's your take on Russia's involvement ?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Agreed. Look at what happened to Iraq when we took out Saddam. He was the perfect counterbalance to Iran, which has seen a meteoric rise in its influence since Saddam's downfall. Saudi Arabia might be a backwards looking state that beheads people for blasphemy, but at least they're stable.

It's funny how you guys call it stability, peaceful protests turning into killing zones for international broadcasting looks like a master of control. It even look like a greater ability of control when the country falls apart into a civil war without any big industrial nations helping cause it.

Yeah Syria was a model of control

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[BobK]

The fact this is even in debate before UN has even examined all the evidence, lead me to believe they wasn't interested in the evidence.

Not that I have a whole lot of trust in the UN or its integrity, but I certainly agree with this statement.

It's a blow for Cameron to lose tonight's vote, but it's not a humiliation - for Obama, on the other hand, a U-turn now would be a monumental humiliation and an embarrasment.

And of course far better that we go in bombing and killing people than Obama be embarrassed. Even if it's the wrong people.

(Yes that's sarcasm).