The Syrian Invasion

Post Reply
User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by klr » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:36 pm

Făkünamę wrote:@Coito

Probably they would considering Russia already maintains a naval base there as well as being their main supplier of materiel. It sure is a better option than the U.S. (almost universally hated in those parts of the world) intervening unsuccessfully and interfering with Russian interests (they also trade a lot with Syria). So I'm left with your objection to a Russian peace keeping force. I suppose you think them incompetent or something?
"They" meaning the Assad faction. Most of the rest of the Syria would regard the Russians as invaders. On one level, a force made up of from other Arab countries and from Turkey seems a good bet, except many of those countries also have baggage when it comes to Syria. Iran? No chance. Maybe a force made up from the likes of Indonesia, Brazil, etc.

But Russia and China would probably still veto that. Especially Russia. Apart from regional interests, Russia would be dead set against any precedent that could potentially threaten its own territorial integrity down the the road.
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Jason » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:50 pm

That may be so, but a move against Syria by the U.S. would be a direct move against Russian interests as they've been strengthening their ties with Syria for the past decade and rebuilding their naval base (which is their only remaining foothold in the Mediterranean) to accommodate their larger warships. I don't see them taking a strategic loss like that lightly, to say nothing of the Islamic countries in the region.

A U.S. lead invasion of Syria could only worsen the already tenuous relations Russia has with the western bloc and further destabilize the middle east. Syrian-Russian relations are already quite strong and I don't see how a Russian intervention will change anything on those lines. The benefits include avoiding inciting aggression against the U.S., pacifying the Russians who are already up in arms about the increasing influence of the U.S. in their backyard, resolving the issue to the general satisfaction of the public with an international oversight committee and a cessation of regional hostilities, as well as de-escalating the popular perception of the U.S. as interfering in internal conflicts (i.e. the global police no one voted for). A Russian peace keeping force would be there at the invitation of the government of Syria, which is already predisposed to co-operate with them, and is likely not to make waves. The only reason for the U.S. to invade, as far as I can see, is to further their dreams of empire - which makes them little better than your vision of Russia.

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by klr » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:03 pm

Făkünamę wrote:That may be so, but a move against Syria by the U.S. would be a direct move against Russian interests as they've been strengthening their ties with Syria for the past decade and rebuilding their naval base (which is their only remaining foothold in the Mediterranean) to accommodate their larger warships. I don't see them taking a strategic loss like that lightly, to say nothing of the Islamic countries in the region.

A U.S. lead invasion of Syria could only worsen the already tenuous relations Russia has with the western bloc and further destabilize the middle east. Syrian-Russian relations are already quite strong and I don't see how a Russian intervention will change anything on those lines. The benefits include avoiding inciting aggression against the U.S., pacifying the Russians who are already up in arms about the increasing influence of the U.S. in their backyard, resolving the issue to the general satisfaction of the public with an international oversight committee and a cessation of regional hostilities, as well as de-escalating the popular perception of the U.S. as interfering in internal conflicts (i.e. the global police no one voted for). A Russian peace keeping force would be there at the invitation of the government of Syria, which is already predisposed to co-operate with them, and is likely not to make waves. The only reason for the U.S. to invade, as far as I can see, is to further their dreams of empire - which makes them little better than your vision of Russia.
Other than some of the ex-Soviet republics in central Asia, most Islamic countries would find probably little common ground with Russia in this or in many other matters. Russia's strong relationship with Syria has nothing to do with long-standing cultural ties or suchlike - it's mainly down to the current Syrian regime. Back in the day, the old Soviet Union had a strong relationship with many second/third world countries. Many of those went by the wayside, not just because of the collapse of communism, but also for other geopolitical and even localized reasons.

I don't really know where this "vision of Russia" business comes from. Nor does the USA want to invade send ground troops into Syria, given its recent experience elsewhere. The same would apply to the UK, France, etc. If they didn't put boots on the ground in Libya, then Syria is off-limits.
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Jason » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:07 pm

The 'vision of Russia' bit comes from Cormac's post that I was intending to reply to - dreams of empire etc.

Anyway, what do you think should be done then?

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74306
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by JimC » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 pm

Perhaps the most likely scenario is a few token missile strikes against Syrian military targets, that would slightly weaken Assad without dealing a knock-out blow, and would allow Obama to demonstrate he wasn't bluffing.

It is in the West's interest to have the bloody stalemate drag on, with Al Quaeda and Iran fighting each other - a clear victory to either side would not be in Western interests. Nasty Realpolitik, I know...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Cormac » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:57 pm

Făkünamę wrote:That may be so, but a move against Syria by the U.S. would be a direct move against Russian interests as they've been strengthening their ties with Syria for the past decade and rebuilding their naval base (which is their only remaining foothold in the Mediterranean) to accommodate their larger warships. I don't see them taking a strategic loss like that lightly, to say nothing of the Islamic countries in the region.

A U.S. lead invasion of Syria could only worsen the already tenuous relations Russia has with the western bloc and further destabilize the middle east. Syrian-Russian relations are already quite strong and I don't see how a Russian intervention will change anything on those lines. The benefits include avoiding inciting aggression against the U.S., pacifying the Russians who are already up in arms about the increasing influence of the U.S. in their backyard, resolving the issue to the general satisfaction of the public with an international oversight committee and a cessation of regional hostilities, as well as de-escalating the popular perception of the U.S. as interfering in internal conflicts (i.e. the global police no one voted for). A Russian peace keeping force would be there at the invitation of the government of Syria, which is already predisposed to co-operate with them, and is likely not to make waves. The only reason for the U.S. to invade, as far as I can see, is to further their dreams of empire - which makes them little better than your vision of Russia.
A Russian empire would be a far worse prospect than the US Empire.

Have a look at what Putin is doing inside Russia and in places like Chechnya.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by klr » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:13 pm

Oh yes ... Chechnya. Two wars costing as many as 200,000 lives between them, mostly civilians. More war crimes and crimes against humanity than you could shake a stick at. What the UN do I wonder? :ask:
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
Azathoth
blind idiot god
blind idiot god
Posts: 9418
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:31 pm
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Azathoth » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:19 pm

Cormac wrote:
Făkünamę wrote:That may be so, but a move against Syria by the U.S. would be a direct move against Russian interests as they've been strengthening their ties with Syria for the past decade and rebuilding their naval base (which is their only remaining foothold in the Mediterranean) to accommodate their larger warships. I don't see them taking a strategic loss like that lightly, to say nothing of the Islamic countries in the region.

A U.S. lead invasion of Syria could only worsen the already tenuous relations Russia has with the western bloc and further destabilize the middle east. Syrian-Russian relations are already quite strong and I don't see how a Russian intervention will change anything on those lines. The benefits include avoiding inciting aggression against the U.S., pacifying the Russians who are already up in arms about the increasing influence of the U.S. in their backyard, resolving the issue to the general satisfaction of the public with an international oversight committee and a cessation of regional hostilities, as well as de-escalating the popular perception of the U.S. as interfering in internal conflicts (i.e. the global police no one voted for). A Russian peace keeping force would be there at the invitation of the government of Syria, which is already predisposed to co-operate with them, and is likely not to make waves. The only reason for the U.S. to invade, as far as I can see, is to further their dreams of empire - which makes them little better than your vision of Russia.
A Russian empire would be a far worse prospect than the US Empire.

Have a look at what Putin is doing inside Russia and in places like Chechnya.
Merkins are only one election where the fox preferred candidate wins away from it.
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Code: Select all

// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis 
   $str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Ian » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:35 pm

It's good that the discussion is focusing a lot on Russia, with other emphasis on Iran. The US and others may want to strike in order to play a moral superiority/obligations card, just to show the world that chemical weapons use will not go unanswered, but its strategic thinking is really about Russia and Iran (among some others). And as for Russia, I don't mind assessing that American interests aren't merely limited to the realpolitik move of removing Russian military influence in Syria and the eastern Med; Washington is fucking livid at Russia at the moment - much more, I think, than is largely perceptible to the public, and an opportunity to screw them over will be enticing.

User avatar
DaveDodo007
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:35 am
About me: When ever I behave as a man I am called sexist, It seems being a male is now illegal and nobody sent me the memo. Good job as I would have told them to fuck off.
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by DaveDodo007 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:16 am

ronmcd wrote:
DaveDodo007 wrote:I have never heard of the EUTimes so I hope I shouldn't be worried.
They're batshit insane. I wouldn't trust EUTimes as far as I could throw them.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/European_Union_Times
You may well be right but you would have to give me a better source than rationwiki who are a batshit insane left wing nutters and this is coming from someone who is mostly left wing.
We should be MOST skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas that we don't like. Penn Jillette.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41186
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Svartalf » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:18 am

Ian wrote:It's good that the discussion is focusing a lot on Russia, with other emphasis on Iran. The US and others may want to strike in order to play a moral superiority/obligations card, just to show the world that chemical weapons use will not go unanswered, but its strategic thinking is really about Russia and Iran (among some others). And as for Russia, I don't mind assessing that American interests aren't merely limited to the realpolitik move of removing Russian military influence in Syria and the eastern Med; Washington is fucking livid at Russia at the moment - much more, I think, than is largely perceptible to the public, and an opportunity to screw them over will be enticing.
So you mean nothing has really changed since before Reagan had Alz?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
cronus
Black Market Analyst
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by cronus » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:03 am

Ultimately the issues do not revolve around politics or oil or even religion. It is all about over-population. The Middle East is undergoing a youth uprising in essence brought about by the demographics there. Underneath though is the realization that their regional population has peaked and must soon collapse. Maybe the chaos of a high mortality pandemic would produce a prettier outcome but the next few decades are unlikely to be pretty for any. Malthus anyone?
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Cormac » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:08 am

Scrumple wrote:Ultimately the issues do not revolve around politics or oil or even religion. It is all about over-population. The Middle East is undergoing a youth uprising in essence brought about by the demographics there. Underneath though is the realization that their regional population has peaked and must soon collapse. Maybe the chaos of a high mortality pandemic would produce a prettier outcome but the next few decades are unlikely to be pretty for any. Malthus anyone?

The world is not overpopulated, although, due to insufficient economic development we have some localised overpopulation.

The global population may continue to grow. However, equally likely are the predictions that the global poulation will peak and drop back as economic development in the "third world" begins to reduce the number their children born to families.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
cronus
Black Market Analyst
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by cronus » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:29 am

Cormac wrote:
Scrumple wrote:Ultimately the issues do not revolve around politics or oil or even religion. It is all about over-population. The Middle East is undergoing a youth uprising in essence brought about by the demographics there. Underneath though is the realization that their regional population has peaked and must soon collapse. Maybe the chaos of a high mortality pandemic would produce a prettier outcome but the next few decades are unlikely to be pretty for any. Malthus anyone?

The world is not overpopulated, although, due to insufficient economic development we have some localised overpopulation.

The global population may continue to grow. However, equally likely are the predictions that the global poulation will peak and drop back as economic development in the "third world" begins to reduce the number their children born to families.
All a matter of perspective. Overlooked diminishing feedbacks within the biosphere may say it is? :coffee:

http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?

Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 19010
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Syrian Invasion

Post by Sean Hayden » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:33 am

I'm interested in absurd reductions about things like this. It seems like you should be able to get from them some set of rules -or conditions, or whatever- that explain what's driving behavior in situations like these, and that would avoid many of the problems of higher level analysis which is fraught with all of our natural observation/thinking flaws.

Your population comment seems to be like that. -meh, another thread

Concerning Syria, I guess Assad thought our involvement was inevitable. :dunno:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests