Will we invade Syria?

1101113151621

Comments

  • RogerBaileyRogerBailey Posts: 1,959
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    I agree I think it's quite possible the rebels did it, and I think US/UK/France also thinks they may have done, but the thing is I don't think they care now, because if it was the rebels, that means potential extremists have got their hands on very nasty weapons, so whichever way round it was US/UK/France (partly on behalf of Israel) want to go in now to try and get some control over events, and secure & possibly remove chemical weapons stores.

    I just don't buy it. Even if a few chemical weapons were seized, more could later be produced or bought.

    There is simply no reason why Assad would use chemical weapons when he has plenty "conventional" weapons that would achieve the same ends.

    Russia is calling for all countries to meet to discuss the situation, and for more evidence to be gathered. Again, the US are opting for swift military action without deliberation. It's so blindingly obvious what is going on.
  • Terry NTerry N Posts: 5,262
    Forum Member
    Do you all think if we just fire a few patriot missiles in, the Syrian govt will ramp it up? Surely they need troops in there.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Terry N wrote: »
    Do you all think if they just fire a few patriot missiles in, the Syrian govt will ramp it up? Surely they need troops in there.
    I think they won't respond with force, as they'll want to keep Israel on side as far as creating an Alawite state of Latakia is concerned.
  • rjb101rjb101 Posts: 2,689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think we've poked our noses into far to many middle eastern countries of late, and to be honest, whilst the Assad regime is full of murdering scum bags I don't see to many good guys in the rebel camp.

    And if that war criminal A. Blair thinks its its a good idea, then it's not,
  • JunipertJunipert Posts: 1,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    owl61uk wrote: »
    Why does Britain or even America have to get involved in conflicts that have nowt to do with them. You dont hear France, Germany clamouring to send troops in or send in missles. Maybe if America and Britain concentrated on the problems in their countries things would be a lot better

    I see that muppet Blair is saying send in the troops. Why what would it possibly achieve. What has invading Afghanistan achieved, what was the objective when Britain first invaded. Apart from creating more fear and alarm in Britain about terrorist and having terrorist try to destroy Glasgow airport and numerous other bomb attacks in London Birmingham etc

    lets stay well clear
    Not true about France and Germany, they both would be involved. France has been especially vocal.
  • Terry NTerry N Posts: 5,262
    Forum Member
    jzee wrote: »
    I think they won't respond with force, as they'll want to keep Israel on side as far as creating an Alawite state of Latakia is concerned.

    I mean they might ramp it up aganst the FSA.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    more could later be produced or bought.

    How? It needs quite a developed chemical industry actually -and internationally-regulated and monitored precursors.

    As for buying them - from who, exactly? No "former" producers of chemical weapons are going to want to be caught or even seen supplying Assad with them - for not only would the trade be against the CWC, their own possession of them in the fist place would be! :eek:
    There is simply no reason why Assad would use chemical weapons when he has plenty "conventional" weapons that would achieve the same ends

    First of all - he can only mobilise about a third of the Syrian Army! The rest, being "untrustworthy", is being kept under lock and key virtually.

    As for the "plenty" aspect - he's been lobbing round tank and artillery munitions for two years now with impunity :eek: - how much do you think he has left??? Why do you think the Rusians want a longer war? :p Because they're supplying him with munitions for his Soviet Era-manufactured arms!
  • StarryNight1983StarryNight1983 Posts: 4,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Here we go again - poking our noses it shit that doesn't concern us :rolleyes:

    Let me guess - America is ready to go in so their little lapdog is following :rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do you think the Rusians want a longer war? :p Because they're supplying him with munitions for his Soviet Era-manufactured arms!

    I have a feeling a longer war would suit Western interests too. We can't outright support the rebels or fight on their side now they've been infested with Al Qaeda, so it seems to me the objective is a prolonged war of attrition to eventually render both sides ineffectual. Whenever it looks like the rebels are losing, they get an arms shipment, and now the regime has got out its serious weapons they'll get an airstrike.
  • humehume Posts: 2,088
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,044
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wondered when his loathsome face would make an appearance. How he's got the nerve to spout off with his track record is beyond belief.

    He's helping Haigue prepare a dossier as we speak:D:rolleyes:
  • steviexsteviex Posts: 130,226
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Terry N wrote: »
    Do you all think if we just fire a few patriot missiles in, the Syrian govt will ramp it up? Surely they need troops in there.

    The West will never send troops in on the ground, it would be suicidal madness!

    Just a footnote: Patriot missiles are purely for defence purposes. :)
  • Terry NTerry N Posts: 5,262
    Forum Member
    steviex wrote: »
    The West will never send troops in on the ground, it would be suicidal madness!

    Just a footnote: Patriot missiles are purely for defence purposes. :)

    If there's just airstrikes they'll just dust themselves down and carry on as before.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If there's just airstrikes they'll just dust themselves down and carry on as before.

    It's what the airstrikes hit that's important; almost certainly...it's what has been done each time before...Syria's vaunted air defence network will be destroyed in the first hours - allowing the Americans/whoever to fly and enforce a no-fly zone over Rebel-held areas.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 104
    Forum Member
    Russia is doing what the French did over Iraq,

    The french defended Saddam, against the UN security council, for they had a five billion dollar contract with them, building oil refinery rigs. ( which were slashed in half after the Iraq war, ) they still made money out of it.

    The Russians are defending, Syria, for they have a very lucrative, arms deal with them.

    Puttin don't care about Assad, all he see's is dollar signs..
    the longer he can keep this civil war going the better it is for the Russians.

    Then again, Hisballah is pinching these weapons, to take into Lebanon. which Israel is watching very carefully.
    they have all ready destroyed a lot on the roads out of Syria.

    Western Troops will not be used in Syria, it is a good bet the CIA, is there all ready and may be a few special ops teams.

    Only Missiles will be used, The U.S and the UK all ready got naval hard ware in the Mediterranean.

    I can't see this chemical attack, coming from the rebels, they do not have the capabilities.
    But if some how they have been able to, I for one would like to think, we would find barrels of these chemicals, with the wording of Property of Iraq.

    Now wouldn't that be a great twist in the tail....
  • humehume Posts: 2,088
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    General Wesley Clark - Wars were planned. 7 countries in 5 years.

    3 minute video.
  • JunipertJunipert Posts: 1,519
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hume wrote: »

    Assad, is clearly not the most astute. Months before he decided to shoot on his own people for simply coming out in the streets for democracy, he was boasting on CNN that Syria wouldn't go the same way as the other Arab Springs.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,848
    Forum Member
    Arab springs - look at the mess in Egypt.

    I have read that the rebels are Al Qaida supported.

    There are also a lot of non Islamic people, 10% of the population are Christian.

    What would happen if the rebels won?
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What would happen if the rebels won?
    This is a chant apparently being made by rebels:

    "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the sword."
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Has anyone come up with a reason yet as to exactly why we're supporting 'the rebels'? What about thick-as-**** Willie Hague? Has he told us why British money is going towards helping the rebels against Assad?
  • Regis MagnaeRegis Magnae Posts: 6,810
    Forum Member
    I suspect the strikes will happen Thursday night.

    I'm still not sure what the objective is exactly. Sure, they say it is to punish the Syrian state and prevent more chemical attacks, but what does this translate to in practical terms? What military targets are going to be hit? Armouries? Communications? Airbases?

    It feels like we're going to kick them in the nuts and hope for the best.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    I suspect the strikes will happen Thursday night.

    I'm still not sure what the objective is exactly. Sure, they say it is to punish the Syrian state and prevent more chemical attacks, but what does this translate to in practical terms? What military targets are going to be hit? Armouries? Communications? Airbases?

    It feels like we're going to kick them in the nuts and hope for the best.

    The objective is so the Western governments can say to Assad, "you're a very naughty boy, don't do it again" and pretend that they're in charge of events.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Many months ago now the U.S. said they would hit Assad's gas stocks if he tried to send them out of the country; THAT means they've been watching and monitoring their whereabouts ;) To destroy them effectively and safely I.E. without scattering them worse than Assad has!...means BURNING them...

    THAT means regular, repeated access to Syrian airspace for accurate delivery of ordnance - so that means FIRST the destruction of Syria's air defence systems, its command& control facilities...and its air force on the ground.

    Major bunkers and above-ground buildings can be hit by Tomahawk or F117/B2 at night...as can the positions of KNOWN Syrian Anti-aircraft assets - radars, SAMs etc.

    Once the Syrians' ability to provide a cohesive, nationwide air defence is degraded, the U.S. can fly conventional bombing sorties from Israel, or Incherlik in Turkey, or British bases on Cyprus, or by that time they MAY have repositioned their carriers from the Gulf. Then the Americans (and those assisting them) can enforce a no-fly zone over Rebel areas AND mop up any isolated AA assets or gas stocks at will with minimal risk.

    And as in Libya, the Syrian Navy will also be attacked in port to stop it sortie'ing against U.S. naval vessels in the Eastern Med.
  • mountymounty Posts: 19,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    looks like it's tool up and go to war time

    err do we have a few fighter jets left? Might have to borrow summat from the French


    But actually, Assad doesn't seem like the unrepentant moron that Gaddafi was and I fully expect him to flee any day now.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oh I bet he'll be welcomed in Moscow!

    After all, he and his generals have been reading old Soviet training manuals for decades! The ones that begin....

    "Retreat, and wait for the first snows of Winter...!" :p
Sign In or Register to comment.