Intervention in Syria probably coming this winter

MandarkMandark Posts: 47,948
Forum Member
Looks like Western forces were waiting for the US election to be over before acting. British special forces are on the ground in numbers, which means US forces and intelligence must be as well. I guess the threat of regional instability is becoming too great so action is needed.
British troops could be deployed to intervene in Syria in the event of a major humanitarian crisis, the head of the armed forces says. General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said contingency plans were being drawn up in case the onset of winter saw a worsening of conditions on the ground.
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-troops-could-help-syria-crisis-16236419.html#ixzz2BvLxCs1h
RAF Top Guns could soon be patrolling the skies over Syria under a new Cameron-Obama plan. The Prime Minister is preparing to use the RAF to enforce no-fly zones across President Assad’s trouble-torn country in a bid to stop mass slaughter.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/281809/RAF-set-for-Syria-no-fly-op/
The developments came within hours of President Barack Obama’s re-election. U.S. allies anticipate a new, bolder approach from the American leader to end the deadlocked civil war that has killed more than 36,000 people since an uprising against Assad began in March 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/uk-to-talk-to-syrias-rebel-fighters-urges-re-elected-obama-to-do-more-to-end-civil-war/2012/11/07/96683b4e-28c0-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html
«1

Comments

  • queseraseraqueserasera Posts: 2,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If they get involved they are mad and will still be there in 10 years time and longer
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So if Obama invades Syria, I guess Obama lovers will cheer him on?:sleep:
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,415
    Forum Member
    If they get involved they are mad and will still be there in 10 years time and longer

    Not necessarily if it's a limited Libya-style intervention that tips the balance in favour of the opposition forces. Whilst that might require special forces on the ground for a limited period, it wouldn't require the use of regular troops.

    Certainly, the Syrian regime has now been caught red-handed using Russian-made cluster bombs on its own citizens and that level of brutality is unforgivable and must be stopped:

    Syrian government forces have dropped Russian-made cluster bombs over civilian areas in the past week as they battle to reverse rebel gains on a strategic highway, according to the watchdog group Human Rights Watch. The bombs were dropped from planes and helicopters, with many of the strikes taking place near the main north-south highway running through the northwestern town of Maarat al-Numa
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/10/20121014103651157108.html
  • queseraseraqueserasera Posts: 2,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not necessarily if it's a limited Libya-style intervention that tips the balance in favour of the opposition forces. Whilst that might require special forces on the ground for a limited period, it wouldn't require the use of regular troops.

    Certainly, the Syrian regime has now been caught red-handed using Russian-made cluster bombs on its own citizens and that level of brutality is unforgivable and must be stopped:

    Syrian government forces have dropped Russian-made cluster bombs over civilian areas in the past week as they battle to reverse rebel gains on a strategic highway, according to the watchdog group Human Rights Watch. The bombs were dropped from planes and helicopters, with many of the strikes taking place near the main north-south highway running through the northwestern town of Maarat al-Numa
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/10/20121014103651157108.html

    Oh and you think Iran is going to sit by and let that happen .............

    There is brutality and war crimes on both sides. Do we really know what we will be getting into ? Libya for all its vaunted isn't an unqualified success either
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,415
    Forum Member
    Oh and you think Iran is going to sit by and let that happen .............

    There is brutality and war crimes on both sides. Do we really know what we will be getting into ? Libya for all its vaunted isn't an unqualified success either

    Libya has the potential to be a much better place with the departure of their despot and the same can apply to Syria too. Neither case demands or requires the use of Iraq-style invasion and occupation but instead much smaller scale and time-limited strategic support so that the opposition forces gain the upper hand so leading to defections, the collapse of the Assad regime and the flight of many top officials.

    The only significant role Iran might play is a last refuge for Assad and his cronies.
  • queseraseraqueserasera Posts: 2,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Libya has the potential to be a much better place with the departure of their despot and the same can apply to Syria too. Neither case demands or requires the use of Iraq-style invasion and occupation but instead much smaller scale and time-limited strategic support so that the opposition forces gain the upper hand so leading to defections, the collapse of the Assad regime and the flight of many top officials.

    The only significant role Iran might play is a last refuge for Assad and his cronies.

    Don't you think its time the west stopped interfering in the Middle East. First Iraq - now a basket case. Then Libya - where the Government's writ is held back by the armed malitias. Now you want to do the same to Syria, a country with many different communities much the same as the old Yugoslavia and could end up going the same way.

    You may like no think that Iran has no significant role and its dangerous assumptions like that that we should all be very afraid of IMO
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,618
    Forum Member
    Mandark wrote: »
    Looks like Western forces were waiting for the US election to be over before acting. British special forces are on the ground in numbers, which means US forces and intelligence must be as well. I guess the threat of regional instability is becoming too great so action is needed.

    Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-troops-could-help-syria-crisis-16236419.html#ixzz2BvLxCs1h


    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/281809/RAF-set-for-Syria-no-fly-op/


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/uk-to-talk-to-syrias-rebel-fighters-urges-re-elected-obama-to-do-more-to-end-civil-war/2012/11/07/96683b4e-28c0-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html

    It would be lunatic to send the RAF over Syria without a massive US air campaign first - which the US shows no interest in mounting. Cameron has destroyed the RAF to the point it would have difficulty mustering 20 aircraft for an operation there. Syria has got the world's 4th thickest airdefences with vastly more surfce to air missiles, fighters and guns than Libya had. Its another sign how desperately poor and ignorant our politicians are if they are even discussing it. I wouldn't fancy the chances of the Royal Marines or Paras with a dozen tanks in support fighting an army that has 3000 tanks either.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Then again - I'd question the authority of the Belfast Telegraph and the Daily Star with respect to high foreign policy....

    One possibility I can however see is a small RAF contingent and other NATO contingents being present in a "showing willing" deployment alongside the Turkish Air Force if there are any further clashes between the Turks and the Syrian government forces.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 16,275
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So if Obama invades Syria, I guess Obama lovers will cheer him on?:sleep:

    If Obama invades Syria I guess you will be cheering him on.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Syria is nothing at all to do with us so we should butt out and leave them alone.
  • GeneralissimoGeneralissimo Posts: 6,289
    Forum Member
    Majlis wrote: »
    Syria is nothing at all to do with us so we should butt out and leave them alone.

    Correct.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Syria is nothing at all to do with us so we should butt out and leave them alone.

    Absolutely but involvement in Syria will be consistent with Western foreign policy in the region since the discovery of oil - i.e. a need to have compliant leaderships/ dictatorships in power who are willing to do our bidding.

    We have knocked off Iraq then Libya soon to be Syria and then we will move against the final non-comformists Iran.

    Of course it doesn't actually matter that we don't want 'democracy' in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, or that lots of brown people are dying....
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's enivitable.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Syria is nothing at all to do with us so we should butt out and leave them alone.

    In an ideal world...
    Daryl Dark wrote: »
    Absolutely but involvement in Syria will be consistent with Western foreign policy in the region since the discovery of oil - i.e. a need to have compliant leaderships/ dictatorships in power who are willing to do our bidding.

    We have knocked off Iraq then Libya soon to be Syria and then we will move against the final non-comformists Iran.

    Of course it doesn't actually matter that we don't want 'democracy' in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, or that lots of brown people are dying....

    In the real world :(
  • JakobjoeJakobjoe Posts: 8,235
    Forum Member
    Why does the UK always have to get involved.Its not our problem.
  • MandarkMandark Posts: 47,948
    Forum Member
    Then again - I'd question the authority of the Belfast Telegraph and the Daily Star with respect to high foreign policy....

    One possibility I can however see is a small RAF contingent and other NATO contingents being present in a "showing willing" deployment alongside the Turkish Air Force if there are any further clashes between the Turks and the Syrian government forces.
    The Belfast Telegraph story was repeated by many other news sites. I just picked their's because it was a longer article..
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9670289/Britain-could-intervene-militarily-in-Syria-in-months-UKs-top-general-suggests.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231390/UK-s-soldier-warns-British-troops-deployed-Syria-warzone.html

    I couldn't find anyone else running with the RAF story but I've heard no denials.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm actually very suprised that NATO hasn't bombed the place like Libya already but this could be down to Russia/ China's involvement on the side of the Syrians.
  • Sophie ~Oohie~Sophie ~Oohie~ Posts: 10,395
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Daryl Dark wrote: »
    I'm actually very suprised that NATO hasn't bombed the place like Libya already but this could be down to Russia/ China's involvement on the side of the Syrians.
    So if we even touch it a bit, Russia and China will obliterate the UK? :eek: :cry:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It would be lunatic to send the RAF over Syria without a massive US air campaign first - which the US shows no interest in mounting. Cameron has destroyed the RAF to the point it would have difficulty mustering 20 aircraft for an operation there. Syria has got the world's 4th thickest airdefences with vastly more surfce to air missiles, fighters and guns than Libya had. Its another sign how desperately poor and ignorant our politicians are if they are even discussing it. I wouldn't fancy the chances of the Royal Marines or Paras with a dozen tanks in support fighting an army that has 3000 tanks either.

    Nothing is going to happen without the war monger Obama's approval. The UK is just there to play a token role and give the semblance there is some kind of a coalition. I remembered during Libya when they fired the first Tomahawk cruise missles salvo, the US fired 110 and the UK...2.
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So if we even touch it a bit, Russia and China will obliterate the UK? :eek: :cry:

    The Russians didn't do anything when Iraq and Libya were invaded. They won't do anything when we intervene in Syria.
  • Sophie ~Oohie~Sophie ~Oohie~ Posts: 10,395
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Russians didn't do anything when Iraq and Libya were invaded. They won't do anything when we intervene in Syria.
    Is it the same situation though, I don't know if the Russians objected to those ones?
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    war monger Obama's approval.

    Pardon?

    Obama only went into one war while in his first term - and that under the auspices of the UN.

    Compare and contrast that with his predecessor George Bush - Both Afghanistan and Iraq - the latter justified by made up intelligence, lies and half - truths.

    Or heaven forbid compare that record with Anthony Blair QC - who took the UK into more wars in his first term than any other previous post war PM - and that includes Anthony Eden who took us into that absurd adventure in Suez.
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Mandark wrote: »
    Looks like Western forces were waiting for the US election to be over before acting. British special forces are on the ground in numbers, which means US forces and intelligence must be as well. I guess the threat of regional instability is becoming too great so action is needed.

    Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/uk-troops-could-help-syria-crisis-16236419.html#ixzz2BvLxCs1h


    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/281809/RAF-set-for-Syria-no-fly-op/

    .rl]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/uk-to-talk-to-syrias-rebel-fighters-urges-re-elected-obama-to-do-more-to-end-civil-war/2012/11/07/96683b4e-28c0-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html[/url]


    So what?

    The US has other priorities and so do we
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,053
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cameron is briliant. First you cut your forces to the size of a militia then you stick your nose into yet :rolleyes:another hotspot where every body will end up shooting at you. Pure genius.
  • MandarkMandark Posts: 47,948
    Forum Member
    Annsyre wrote: »
    So what?

    The US has other priorities and so do we
    Oh, so you're running foreign policy now then? I'm just reporting what the papers are saying.
Sign In or Register to comment.