Things are getting serious in Syria | Page 9 | INFJ Forum

Things are getting serious in Syria

First of all, and frankly, the chemical weapons only differ in how they're doing their wide-spread indiscriminate killing that's been going on almost since the beginning, until(unless) he deploys them en masse. If it is Assad, I'm guessing it's to create fear and blunt the attack's of the rebels (thinking that he won't do it because it would be his end of power is of little consolation to the people who would be on the receiving end, thus still motivating). Desperate people do desperate things.

So, what is it that Russia wants? Anti-missile tech or to keep their regional power? It doesn't seem to me that weapons sales would be motivation enough to bring warships into the area. Putin is a wiley one, but far from crazy or stupid (the expert plays of Georgia and Snowden come to mind). It could be a springboard to further nuclear disarmament/tightened security of places currently without it, depending on how well negotiations go (seriously whose brilliant idea was it to make 5k nukes in the first place, easily more than 4k more than anyone could ever need unless they were planning on putting them underground and literally blowing the earth up). Negotiations might also be a way to involve Iran in de-escalation (and as a way of acting against Iranian propaganda/extremism by coming to a cool-headed resolution [if it can happen]). U.N. peacekeepers, or perhaps some 'Arabian' coalition? (Maybe not such a great idea with Israel next door, at this point in time) Would Egypt get involved (and would they use it to gain popularity and stay in power)? Egypt is on track to mess with Hezbollah/Iran already. Turkey?

I think at this point a two-state solution is the only thing that's going to keep it from getting worse (if it even can because of demographics [free movement of people -- in small doses at first anyway -- is something that would go a long way towards peace in general]). Or if either side would accept such a solution, or if decent leadership can be found in the rebels' geo/political area. There's going to be a lot of violence for years to come in Syria, I'm guessing, regardless of what anybody does.

Whatever else can be said, it would be a serious strategic/tactical mistake to think you have Putin boxed in, or know within what bounds he will act. He plays it well too.

Why the crack can't people just take their chill pills and stop being such giant jerks to each other? ... things that require no action seem pretty easy to me.

/ramble
 
Vladimir Putin does not like America playing in his backyard. He likes having arms sales to Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah with new fighting experience. Busting up Syria would place the file of the threesome in jeopardy.

Putin understands what forces are trying to destabilize Syria and their reasons. He, and I for that matter, have all along been against removal of Assad. Now, if attacks into Israel come from their northern neighbors en masse and all of a sudden, there will be a quick change in America's stance(as Israel is our ally). Syria is Putin's ally.

I cannot really say it was Putin's idea to destroy the CBWs by international community, though at least part of that was his signature. What really matters is it stopped/averted a possible war from outside forces who have no call to be there at this point. Unseating Assad and trying to turn Syria into something it is clearly not meant to be actually further destabilizes the world, in a sense. Syria should go all out avoiding an Israeli conflict. Israel has been blamed for dropping a few bombs during the war, but does anyone really know Israel's intent? Does anyone actually believe Israel would want Al Qaeda and other extremists running things in Syria? Israel has enough troubles already. I see what Israel might have done as helping to keep the arena as calm as it can.

What if MB, sponsors of Hamas, were in charge to the south of Israel and extremists in charge of the north and Golan near Israel? Corroboration between their south and Gaza was already taking form. Israel wants to live in peace if they can, but they have more outside pressure telling them what to do than Syria ever thought of having. Would airstrikes by Obama really help aid their ally Israel, or would Obama's moves over the last two years paint the ugly picture I see? I think Putin is the man with the answers. People should stop thinking of him as anything other than the understanding man he is due to his vast experience.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
I cannot really say it was Putin's idea to destroy the CBWs by international community, though at least part of that was his signature.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was an offhand comment by John Kerry that started the whole 'just give us your chemical weapons' deal... he said that the only way a strike could be averted was if Syria gave up all of its chemical weapons and surrendered to inspections, BUT it didn't look like that was ever going to happen, therefore strike. So Putin took that comment and ran with it.

As much as I don't think a strike is a good thing, I don't really know what the answer is here either. Seriously, if someone broke into your house and murdered your family, you wouldn't say 'just give us the murder weapon and we're even'... I think that's the US reasoning here. NOT going in actually does set a precedent and make the UN seem like it's suddenly tolerating chemical weapons use now.

There's also the fact that Assad offering to surrender his chemical weapons amounts to an admission of guilt-- also the fact that he ordered a bombing on the same area just a few days after the gas attack. There is now essentially no doubt that he was responsible... and the notion that getting him to surrender his WMDs is a 'peaceful' solution isn't really going to sit well with the people who oppose the regime and are desperately hoping for assad's removal, or the people who were gassed (and their relatives and friends) and have little to no protection or security.

Obviously in any situation like this there is going to be support for BOTH sides... and there's no telling what the exact effects of a strike would be. I suppose the Americans tend to always be confident in their ability to handle any situation-- even though they've basically lost or stalemated every single war they've been involved in since WWII... so yeah, this could easily turn into another shitstorm and create more terrorists and just overall end up being bad for everyone. Still, it's not like the area has been particularly stable as of late-- the mass-revolutions that everyone was so excited about earlier tend to have that effect... for some reason, most governments don't want to just step aside and let the rebels have their way.

But portraying Putin as some sort of great peace-loving humanitarian is utterly ridiculous-- he's a politician first and foremost-- and the 'mafia state' accusations are probably true. People have been making small fortunes in arms deals ever since the USSR collapsed... it wouldn't surprise me if Putin was covering his own ass or if there were weapons sold to Syria that he didn't want the Americans to find.

Interestingly enough, the Russians have been accusing NATO of going after Iran through Syria since at least 2011:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110805/165570384.html

On the other hand, the US hasn't exactly been denying this or keeping it a secret that they're not happy with Iran or Syria, for that matter... and it doesn't change the fact that Assad's regime has an extremely poor human rights record. The idea that this is some sort of top secret plot or deception isn't something that anyone should take seriously-- the Americans don't need to lie about these things and there are legitimate reasons for intervention. There are ALWAYS legitimate reasons for intervention... unless you're talking about Finland or Canada or another developed, stable, peaceful, relatively non-aggressive nation, you're always going to be able to find a reason. The only real 'deception' here is people who weren't paying attention suddenly taking an active interest and assuming that America hasn't been forthcoming about who it does and doesn't like.

Basically, it looks like Assad knew that he was giving the Americans the excuse that they were looking for, and was relying on Russia to protect him... and it looks like his little gamble paid off.
 
Last edited:
Good thoughts. " People should stop thinking of him as anything other than the understanding man he is due to his vast experience. " That just means what it says.
 
[MENTION=8720]Gul Dukat[/MENTION]

Unfortunately precedence is not absolute as blindly following principle can get you in trouble. Might doesn't make right, but being right also doesn't save you from an asskicking.

Basically, if enforcing your precedent causes you more trouble than negotiating or leaving it alone, what exactly is the point, pragmatically? Does it make you better off? If it touches off a war and blows up a lot more shit than would have been blown up otherwise, is that just fine so long as you enforced your principle and were 'right'?

Edit:
And to give some examples, principle is what made the Prohibition era so bloody, and is what made Waco a lot more tragic than it should have been.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
Basically, if enforcing your precedent causes you more trouble than negotiating or leaving it alone, what exactly is the point, pragmatically? Does it make you better off? If it touches off a war and blows up a lot more shit than would have been blown up otherwise, is that just fine so long as you enforced your principle and were 'right'?
Click to expand...

Sometimes NOT enforcing precedent means other countries are going to start testing your boundaries to see how much slack you're willing to give them... I'm not saying I support a strike, but I can understand the thinking behind one.
 
Gul Dukat said:
Sometimes NOT enforcing precedent means other countries are going to start testing your boundaries to see how much slack you're willing to give them... I'm not saying I support a strike, but I can understand the thinking behind one.
Click to expand...

Sure but they test for slack anyway. I also understand the thinking though.

Unfaltering rule can make the other side feel oppressed and backed into a corner. It will make extremists be even more extreme, clearly evidenced by the Branch Davidians after the ATF screwed things up so badly. The ATF made an ill advised raid which failed and convinced the Branch Davidians that it was time to make a last stand - things could not have possibly gone well after that.
The FBI also did some stupid things, trying to use pressure tactics and negotiation at the same time - pressure tactics such as gas and sleep deprivation, things which can not make cornered people be more sensible and negotiate, it can only make them more unpredictable.
 
The KGB counter-intelligence op-ed writer isn't done yet... decisive forking or a crawling advance, probably the crawl considering his mind and domestic situation, even if he doesn't share the nostalgia of his countrymen. I worry for the growing democratically minded groups in Iran and Russia. As with the rest of the west, they would be our best chance of resolving political issues w/o blood and mayhem, and we should turn our eyes to our own hands.

And I will take this chance to harp on cold fusion. Europe wouldn't be beholden to Russian gas or oil.
 
On the news they said that the US suspects that Assad will hide his chemical weapons on Russian ships to dodge the UN inspection teams... meanwhile Russia still doesn't want military intervention even if Syria doesn't surrender all of its weapons.

Putin probably sold them the weapons and doesn't want them traced.
 
The Syrian situation seems to be another excuse for the powers that be to invade and attack the middle east. There are so many games being played and attacks blamed on people who didn't carry them out, the false flag routine.

I don't really know what's going on in Syria, I don't see how anyone can know for sure unless they have access to all of the information from all of the sides which no one does, as far as I am aware.

The most sensible (if you can call it that) reason for it all is to continually destabilise the region, keep the warring factions fighting, make money from it and pave the way for a 'democracy' to be installed. Where all of the citizens can be controlled, monitored and exploited.
 
[h=1]Whose sarin?[/h] [h=2]Seymour M. Hersh[/h]
Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad....
Click to expand...
for the rest of the article http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back