Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,726
- 93,481
We did a lot of the heavy lifting recently for that little skirmish in Mali. Even in Europe's own backyard they cant do anything without significant support from the US.
War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
Does Obama know he?s fighting on al-Qa?ida?s side?
?All for one and one for all? should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad?s Syrian regime
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.
This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House ? nor, I suppose, by al-Qa?ida ? though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa?ida?s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.
Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa?ida for intelligence help ? after all, this is the group with ?boots on the ground?, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa?ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa?ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.
There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa?ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan ? along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians ? they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa?ida?s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa?ida or the Nusra front.
?All for one and one for all? should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad?s Syrian regime
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.
This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House ? nor, I suppose, by al-Qa?ida ? though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa?ida?s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.
Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa?ida for intelligence help ? after all, this is the group with ?boots on the ground?, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa?ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa?ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.
There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa?ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan ? along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians ? they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa?ida?s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa?ida or the Nusra front.
Falstaff
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,312
- 3,166
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Oh nobody's claiming parallels. We're saying that there was a risk involved in that decision, and there was. Worst case could have been Jimmy Carter bad -- just like deciding to forgo the opportunity would have been Jimmy Carter bad. So no, it wasn't a heroic decision, it seems to have been a fairly obvious one. Still doesn't mean it was a safe one. There was a risk in Libya as well. Obama is not adverse to this kind of risk. That's the similarity but it's not a parallel. He's willing to use the military in ways that might not work out so well. Which all Presidents are. I'm not even attacking him with that observation. They've gone better for him than they've gone badly. That sort of thing probably isn't blind luck.
The problem is, there's no potential upside this time. Absolutely none that I can see. The goal is not regime change, the goal is punitive military action for a breach of international law. Even the best case is worse than non-involvement. But Obama has painted himself into a corner. It seems to me that the best he can do is use the U.N. to save face.
Lleauaric
Sparkletot Monger
- 4,058
- 1,823
If AQ is fighting the Syrians, wouldn't Otto Von Bismarck do everything he could to EXTEND the war? "Our enemies are killing each other.. How lovely.. Pass the weinerschnitzel"
Obviously we want to protect Jordan and Iraq from becoming unstable from refugees... But fuck.. Maybe we bomb just enough to allow stalemate to reaffirm itself.
It obviously extremely immoral and even evil to do so... But if there was a pure best interest choice...
Obviously we want to protect Jordan and Iraq from becoming unstable from refugees... But fuck.. Maybe we bomb just enough to allow stalemate to reaffirm itself.
It obviously extremely immoral and even evil to do so... But if there was a pure best interest choice...
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,446
- 73,527
Depending on how the hand is played that seems very possible. But I feel like once the west releases the dogs of war and starts showing the difference in level it changes it even if the actual attacks aren't devastating. It's like if a level 20 warrior is beating on a level 15rogue and then a level 60 shaman shows up and torpors the warrior and starts to /dance.
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,128
- 17,999
Some interesting developments according to Debka File (for those who don't know, Debka File is an Isreali "news" source highly linked with Israeli Intelligence. They often have pretty good inside news stories, and also often some planted propaganda. It can be hard to tell the difference sometimes!).
Obama says no decision yet on strike on Syria. DEBKA: He stalls for deal with Putin on softened strike
This may well be the 21st century version of the Cuban Missile Crisis we're living in now.
Obama says no decision yet on strike on Syria. DEBKA: He stalls for deal with Putin on softened strike
If true then it would seem that Obama has realised that Syria's allies are not going to let the US & co. bomb Syria back to the stone age while they sit back and twiddle their thumbs. However, as Obama has talked himself into a corner with regards to airstrikes he can't really back away, whereas he probably doesn't want to get into a shooting war with Russia. Russia, meanwhile, will not allow Obama to destroy Syria's defensive capability. What may happen is that Obama and Putin will try and find a "face saving" way out of this for both sides. Obama will get to blow up some unmanned army posts of little significance while the others do nothing but hurl diplomatic insults, then they'll get together in a back room at the G20 meeting and hammer something out. Probably Assad will remain in power but will have to relinquish some powers to an elected parliament or somesuch.
This may well be the 21st century version of the Cuban Missile Crisis we're living in now.
"It is without modern precedent for a prime minister to lose control of his foreign policy, let alone decisions about peace and war. That, though, is what has happened in the past 24 hours.
David Cameron summoned MPs to return early from their summer break in order to vote for British involvement in military strikes against Syria within days. The timetable was not his. It was President Obama's. Obama is said to have wanted to act before leaving the US for a foreign trip next Tuesday.
If he still wants to stick to that timetable, Britain will no longer be with him.
The government simply could not guarantee that its own MPs would give it a majority in the vote tonight. They needed Labour's support...
[Labour] are tabling an amendment which sets out what they call a "road map" to a decision - in effect a series of hurdles that have to be crossed before action can be taken.
The one that could prove trickiest is the one that may seem the easiest. It is the call for "compelling evidence" that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime.
The UN weapons inspectors in Damascus will not produce that evidence."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23879744
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Seems like that would follow in Russia's supposed main goals of appearing to be a major world power broker. That would place them on the world stage as a negotiating power that isn't to be ignored.
You left off the most important bit:
"The one that could prove trickiest is the one that may seem the easiest. It is the call for "compelling evidence" that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime.
The UN weapons inspectors in Damascus will not produce that evidence.
Their mandate is not to discover who used chemical weapons. It is to confirm whether they were used. "
Scary shit, right there.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
O'Reilly arguing with military analyst guests who say; what is the strategic goal? the rebels would be worse than Assad. don't interrupt your enemies when they are killing each other. How can we be sure who actually used chemical weapons?
debate starts at 2:52
debate starts at 2:52
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,128
- 17,999
I never thought I'd see the day where paid FOX military analysts argued together against O'Reilly's warmongering. There is hope for humanity after all. And talking about O'Reilly, the fact that this clown is still taken seriously enough to be on one of the US's largest "news" networks is beyond belief!
The Pope and the King of Jordan urge diplomacy for a solution in Syria.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97S0HY20130829
There's a right political shitstorm brewing over this in the UK. The government has dug itself into a hole and is desperately trying to legally justify a strike against Syria, but the numbers may be against it when the votes are called. MPs got burned badly over justifications for the Iraq war and they aren't about to make the same mistake twice.