Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria

[Dotini]

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".

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 ?

What's your take on Russia's involvement ?

The Russians already have a small but potent fleet in the Med. Their anti-ship missile is capable of sinking anything in the American fleet.

Like a chess player, they have arrayed forces on the board which the other player will notice and take account of. Russian forces are there to threaten, intimidate and suppress US forces from precipitate actions.

The possibility exists of an accidental or deliberate confrontation between US and Russian forces which could escalate.

Russia is allied with China in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as is Iran albeit in observer status. All three are allies of Syria pledged to maintain the regime.

Should Obama's swaggering solo cowboy act go beyond rhetorical or symbolic gestures - a "shot across the bow" - the rest of the world must know the potential exists for a rapid and uncontrolled escalation across the region.

 

[Lizard]

Then that quickly could become WW3.

Then it would not matter what our MP's voted we would be committed for survival. As an ally of the US we would almost certainly be a target in such a major escalation.

If we went in and Russia did nothing then, like I said I see it being an unwinnable war due to the public turning against it.

If Russia did something major then it is a winnable war but millions may die for it.

 

[Blitz24]

Then that quickly could become WW3.

Then it would not matter what our MP's voted we would be committed for survival. As an ally of the US we would almost certainly be a target in such a major escalation.

If we went in and Russia did nothing then, like I said I see it being an unwinnable war due to the public turning against it.

If Russia did something major then it is a winnable war but millions may die for it.

Cold War hasn't ended. Yeah this won't look good if Russia decides to defend Syria. I just hope that no US action doesn't enable Syria to go all rogue state and attack anyone with anything with impunity.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't think Russia would want to get involved in a direct conflict with the US. They can't win. They have a strong military, but it's still lagging a bit due to the collapse of the USSR and was intended for self defense of the homeland more than anything. If things go nuclear then it's a draw at best.

 

[Bram Turismo]

If Russia would really continue to ally with Syria, they would've reacted long ago at the US saying they might undertake military action. They have not, so I strongly doubt Russia would stand behind Syria if things really do go that far.

 

[Touring Mars]

John Kerry is presenting/discussing US evidence of Assad's culpability in the August 21st attacks...

live coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/30/syria-us-military-britain-live

--

He just said "Our oldest ally, the French..."

I'm sorry, but

 

[Blitz24]

John Kerry is presenting/discussing US evidence of Assad's culpability in the August 21st attacks...

live coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/30/syria-us-military-britain-live

--

He just said "Our oldest ally, the French..."

I'm sorry, but

Well, didn't the French help in the Revolutionary War?

 

[Dennisch]

Is he French kissing the Frenchies butt? Eeew.

 

[Dotini]

I watched Kerry's complete speech live.

Bottom lines:
We have all the proof we need.
We don't need the UN or international allies or congress or even the people of the US behind us.
We will take action.

Most commentators so far think you can expect it sometime over our upcoming 3-day weekend.

What will "it" be? My guess is several hundred cruise missiles on Damascus and elsewhere.

Hot tip: Buy Boeing and Raytheon.

 

[Dennisch]

Oh my.

Iraq. Part Deux.

 

[hawkeye122]

Frankly, the US has to do something. "We'll only go in if Chemical weapons are used." Since we ran our mouths, we've got to do something or it'll turn into a North Korea type situation- endlessly making threats but taking no action.

 

[Blitz24]

Frankly, the US has to do something. "We'll only go in if Chemical weapons are used." Since we ran our mouths, we've got to do something or it'll turn into a North Korea type situation- endlessly making threats but taking no action.

Not to make light of the situation, but I would laugh for hours if the US adopted the same standards as North Korea does.

 

[Ardius]

And so the cycle of madness continues in the Middle-East. What a mess.

If Obama hadn't already committed the US to action...that Kerry speech has sealed the deal. They're going to have a hard time backing down from these words.

 

[Carlos]

Frankly, the US has to do something. "We'll only go in if Chemical weapons are used." Since we ran our mouths, we've got to do something or it'll turn into a North Korea type situation- endlessly making threats but taking no action.

I'd rather have that than the US taking action now. They just have to sit on it and wait, something else will happen there that will give them a better reason to take part of it. This story is already weakened and too many people are against it. Also, what have been mentioned, Russia, Iraq v2, it's not worth it at all.

 

[DK]

The thing is, when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, Iraq wasn't allied with Russia and China. If the US attacks Syria, this will be far more messy than Iraq...and that's before we consider who would replace Assad in the Syria-sized crater.

 

[Rage Racer]

WW3? Wow, wow, easy!

Russia is not going to fight for Assad's regime, I'm 100% sure. Our government has a lot more fun things to do. Like persecuting gay activists.
Seriously, who is Assad for Russia? Just a military hardware buyer, and the host of the Naval supply point in Tartus (we can do easily without which). He's not worth fighting for him, as Gadaffi wasn't.

The situation about that missle ship reminds me of a joke:

The U.S. military has spotted three Russian nuclear submarines patrolling in the U.S. territorial waters near the East Coast. The Defence Ministry of Russia disproves this claim.
First, there are not 3 - there are 8 of them.
Second, they're not patrolling, they're looking for a sunken container full of vodka.

 

[Touring Mars]

I fully agree that something needs to be done, but military action is not appropriate (or even legal) unless it has UN Security Council backing, and that ain't going to happen any time soon. The US have made the mistake of demanding the impossible instead of maintaining the moral high ground and continuing to demand, through the UN, that something is done to protect the Syrian people from the barbarism of both their own government and those who seek to replace them. US interests would be better served by putting the onus where it should be - on demanding that Russia stops preventing a humanitarian intervention by the UN, and making it quite clear that Russia are patently failing in their responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council to uphold a central tenet of the UN Charter that they have agreed to uphold - that the UN (including Russia) has an obligation to protect a civilian population who are being subjected to war crimes by their own government.

Sadly, this approach - albeit legal - doesn't offer much comfort to the Syrian people, since when all is said and done, they will have a long wait if they are waiting on the UN doing anything due to Russian objections. But to launch an intentionally ineffective attack illegally, will not only fail (in all likelihood) to deliver the help the Syrian people desperately need, it could prove to be massively counterproductive in any number of different ways. The international community do not have many legal options - and thanks to the fact that Russia have a veto in the UN Security Council, in this particular instance it would appear that the rest of the world has no better legal option than to appeal to Russia's better nature. The big question is, does Russia have a better nature?

 

[Rage Racer]

"Humanitarian intervention"? Reminds me of the "humanitarian bombing" term.

 

[Dotini]

- putting the onus where it should be -

I love to play the blame game! Before going on to present day miscreants, let us briefly examine the original sin of the British and French in their management of the spoils of WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement
The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]

The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence.[4] The terms were negotiated by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and British Sir Mark Sykes. The Russian Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution of October 1917, the Bolsheviks exposed the agreement, 'the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted.'[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon
During the two years that followed the end of the war in 1918 – and in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement that was signed between Britain and France during the war – the British held control of most Ottoman Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and the southern part of the Ottoman Syria (Palestine and Jordan), while the French controlled the rest of Ottoman Syria (modern Syria, Lebanon, Alexandretta) and other portions of southeastern Turkey. In early 1920s, the British and French control of these territories became formalized by the League of Nations' mandate system, and France was assigned the mandate of Syria on 29 September 1923, which included the territory of present day Lebanon and Alexandretta (Hatay) in addition to Syria proper.

 

[Omnis]

The French gubmint are a bunch of communist bastards.

 

[Liquid]

Whereas Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Operation Ranch Hand shows that the USA hasn't been afraid to use "unsavoury" methods at times.

 

[Müle]

Well, didn't the French help in the Revolutionary War?

France also gave you the Statue of Liberty.

 

[Liquid]

France has the best battle record of any European nation. It's only its recent battles that let it down...

 

[Dotini]

Leaks from the military establishment concerning the ineffectiveness of cruise missile attacks have infuriated Susan Rice and other administration officials most enthusiastic to commence bombing Syrian targets.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/08/white-house-peeved-at-pentagon-leaks-171520.html?hp=f3

 

[BobK]

France has the best battle record of any European nation. It's only its recent battles that let it down...

Actually, wouldn't that be Italy?

Leaks from the military establishment concerning the ineffectiveness of cruise missile attacks have infuriated Susan Rice and other administration officials most enthusiastic to commence bombing Syrian targets.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/08/white-house-peeved-at-pentagon-leaks-171520.html?hp=f3

Imagine that. Obama wants to attack Syria. The US public doesn't support it. The US military, according to the article, doesn't support it. Other countries don't support it for the most part. Obama is unwilling to ask Congress about it, because they won't support it. In fact, candidate Obama, 2007, wouldn't have supported it:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Does anyone, other than Obama, Kerry and their ilk, support it?

 

[Dotini]

Does anyone, other than Obama, Kerry and their ilk, support it?

Among the many interviews of people on the street, you find two basic types.

One who puts the law, particularly the constitution, plus recent hard-won practical experiences, as values which should encourage caution and prudence.

The 2nd typical kind of person places emotional choices of good over evil, and morality over legalisms, as sufficient justification for striking "the other".

 

[eran0004]

Obama speaks in 5 minutes.

Here's a link: http://www.svtplay.se/video/1431183/obama-haller-tal-om-laget-i-syrien

(It's from Swedish television, but link works in all countries and the speech will most likely be in English...)

Actually, wouldn't that be Italy?

Italy, as with most other European countries, has not been a country for very long. It wasn't until the 19th century that the map of Europe started to resemble what we see today.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Oh my.

Iraq. Part Deux.

Democrats are as big of war hawks as republicans so...

 

[Dennisch]

Democrats are as big of war hawks as republicans so...

The US President just loves to use his army. Can't blame any of them, with so much awesomeness at their disposal.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Obama is damned if he did, damned if he didn't anyway.

Just send Seal Team Six. They found Osama, Carmen San Diego, and Waldo. They'd find Assad.