serious trouble in the middle east

Postby Chris12 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:16 am

I don't think a global war will come over Syria, neither America nor Russia and certainly Iran have nothing to gain from it.

Actually I don't believe Iran is all that powerfull. I thought their military budget was about the same size as that of Greece and they don't have equipment that's even close to on par with western forces.

America and Russia won't go to war. They will keep increasing pressure on each other and in the worse case scenario compromise at the last possible moment.

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby Chris12 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:48 am

Against aggression from its neighbors? maybe but America is the most powerfull military force on the planet with Israel Britain and France probably willing to help, all of which have forces and bases not far from Iran. I can't see Iran standing up to that. The best they can hope for is lose and receive humiliating terms of surrender, at worst it could be another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Russian equipment isn't outdated but I don't think its as good as American ones.

The last pope prophesy.... I think there was a topic on here about it. The prelude to Armageddon correct?

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby drawscore » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:29 pm

Obama will send troops to Syria, and then screw them. He takes vacations, while Marines in Afghanistan have their hot midnight meal replaced with MRE's. He goes off on fund raisers, while veterans wait for 1-2 years for the VA to approve their claims. Disgusting.

Drawscore

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby Chris12 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:26 pm

And if Romney had won he would just be a chill dude, fly to Syria using the angel wings on his back to fix everything while having a coffee with his good pall Jesus. Then he would fly to the troops and distribute all his wealth amongst them for a job well done. Right?

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby kkoomm » Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:28 pm

Chemical weapons used by the Syrian Government?
Hmmmmm Im not convinced.

If the government used them they know they have cut their own throats. Their allies on the UN security council Russia and China will have no option
but to allow the west to attack them. I don't believe that they are stupid. Assad hasn't stayed in power for that long by being stupid.

Did the rebels use them? I don't know, but they would be the ones to gain if the west attacked. They have the biggest motive.

Then there is the elephant in the room. Im old enough to remember the USA going to the UN security council with their undeniable evidence of Iraq's chemical weapons programe. I even remember the flip chats with the "Mobile Anthrax Factories" on the back of trucks.
And the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998. The UN was show unequivocal evidence by the USA that later turned out to be really shakey.
Well , why should the world believe them now? Their record speaks for itself.
Unfortunately it will be a long long time and take a lot of work before the USA's credibility is restored.
It certainly does not help that all the whistle blowing NSA scandals are now out and about. It turns out the USA is spying both on its allies and the UN diplomats too.
A quick little war would certainly take the focus of that ... and that could be seen as a motive for an attack too.

Americas closest ally has said that they will not take part, not because the government didn't want to. Cameron tried really hard to get approval.
Parliament didn't allow him to, even his own parliamentarians voted against him. Various reasons were given but the common thread was that Brittan doesn't want another war. The people are sick and tired of war. Brittan has been at war for 12 years now. Non stop.

For my part I don't know the truth, but I certainly take what each side says with a hefty pinch of salt because each side has an agenda. In this case I will agree mostly with the Russians.
Lets see the evidence. And lets have that evidence analyzed, compiled and presented independently.

Make no mistake, if the west does attack the Syrians, the bombs are going to hit civilians too. We saw in the Iraq war that some of these smart bombs are not really that smart at all. Civilians will die as a result of the intervention.

***Sigh*** Well that's my two cents. I know that people are really passionate about these things on either side of the fence. I just hope that whatever happens the civilians of Syria will make it out of this alive. Screw Assad, screw the Rebels, they should sit down and talk!

k

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby Chris12 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:54 am

If the government used them they know they have cut their own throats. Their allies on the UN security council Russia and China will have no option
but to allow the west to attack them. I don't believe that they are stupid. Assad hasn't stayed in power for that long by being stupid.

Did the rebels use them? I don't know, but they would be the ones to gain if the west attacked. They have the biggest motive.


Agreed so much.

Assad probably isn't a very good human being but from what I've seen he's at least a competent one. There's no way he wouldn't have realised chemical weapons would be suicide. (Though its possible they where used by his army but without his permission)
The rebels on the other hand are in a desperate situation, i'd say hopeless without outside aid.

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby kkoomm » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:06 am

Hi there Chris12

Yes indeed. That is certainly a possibility.
This is why I say there needs to be an independent investigation.
Lets say for argument sake that a rogue element of the Syrian military did in fact use chemical weapons. Would that justify a Western response?
That's a good question considering all the potential consequences that may come about because of it.
Hezbollah has indicated rocket attacks on Israel as a response. And if that happens Israel will not do nothing. They have already mobilized their army reserves, as reported by CNN RT Al Jezeera and BBC.
Iran may or may not take action but will certainly defend itself against as Israeli attack. Which is a possibility, considering Netanyahu's last address to the UN general assembly ( September 27, 2012 )

One things for sure there are a lot of people in the Islamic world that will see this as yet another strike by the USA as against a Muslim country. It will not make any friends. It would harden the hard liners further, and may go so far as to turn some moderates into extremists.
And the rest of the international community? We simply look on as the USA makes another horrible blunder and think again about wanting to be under their sphere of influence. To the rest of the smaller independent countries, like most African and South American states. We begin to look to Russia and China for leadership. They are the ones over the last few decades that seem to have cool, calm and reasoned responses to any crisis that pop up
It seems that the UK has also indicated that they are not a lapdog anymore and have fallen in step with global opinion.

That's my opinion in any case

:)

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby Chris12 » Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:16 pm

Seems like Obama hit the emergency breaks, wanting to ask permission from Congress first. Ouch, that's kinda humiliating from mister red line.

This sigh of weakness will do little to stop the criticism that Obama lacks leadership but I suppose sitting down, realise your support is crumbling and discuss this mess before committing something you cannot undo is wiser then going is guns blazing while screaming ''MURICA TO THE RESCUE ***** YEAH!'' and making a complicated situation worse.

Obama will lose regardless of what he does. If he does not act he's a spineless coward who doesn't doesn't have the guts to carry out his promise's to the Syrian people. If Obama does decide to act he will be an evil mastermind organising American aggression. No matter what he decide it will be held against him. I'd say he has mostly himself to blame on that one though.

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby drawscore » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:35 pm

If Obama makes an "armed response" against Syria, with or without congressional approval, he's a bigger idiot than I ever imagined him to be.

Drawscore

Re: serious trouble in the middle east

Postby Kyle » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:39 pm

drawscore wrote:Obama will send troops to Syria, and then screw them. He takes vacations, while Marines in Afghanistan have their hot midnight meal replaced with MRE's. He goes off on fund raisers, while veterans wait for 1-2 years for the VA to approve their claims. Disgusting.

Drawscore


I'm not an Obama supporter, but how in the hell is this any different from any other president?