REVscene Automotive Forum - Is U.S./Global intervention inevitable in Syria?

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Is U.S./Global intervention inevitable in Syria? (https://www.revscene.net/forums/685199-u-s-global-intervention-inevitable-syria.html)

Is U.S./Global intervention inevitable in Syria?

obama said today he'd increase support and aid to rebels after 150 were killed by sarin gas attacks.

what do you guys think? looks like an eventual military quagmire...followed by potentially way more after the inevitable power struggle after the current reigme is overthrown

Obama said he'd increase support after the rebels have basically lost (due to recent pushes from outside help) as for the Sarin gas no one is saying who did it because it sounds like it may have been the rebels who used it some american politicians are pointing the finger at the establishment though

Anyway its not like the Americans and Brits et al. aren't meddling in there already... what was it a month or two ago? where John McCain was in Syria speaking with rebels with a contingent of spec ops and cia reps that brought him in.

Considering the war crimes that are already certain to have been performed by the rebels It'd be ridiculous to support them further the West should just back off entirely and let Saudi Arabia pursue it if they're still that gung-ho about it the country is ruined already for some stupid unknown aim. If the rebels win they're going to wipe out the Alawites (they've been trying all through this "war") all because they're part of the same religious sect as Assad, just like the Libyan rebels did to Black Africans and people from the same tribe and village as Gaddafi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sid Vicious (Post 8260044)

We're going to balance the budgets after we wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...then bring them on back up after we go into Syria.

Harper was in the UK today calling for no intervention because the rebels are filled fanatical war criminals

there are no winners here

'we' stay out, innocent people die a horrible death, and others are terrorized - ppl will say 'why haven't the west helped us?'

'we' go in to help - an collateral damage will be blown out of proportion, ppl will say 'the west (or more directly the US) aren't the world police'

personally, i'd like to think that the west would go in and help - but it's thankless and we (the west) have our own economic problems to worry about.

real toughie

Thats why if they want to go in they should go in as Peacekeepers like we, Canada, used to be. Now peacekeeping isnt ever on anyones mind its always about going to blow one side or the other up and having governments secretly meddle within also draws on criticisms since they're helping in perpetuating the issue

U.S. warns Russia against sending missiles to Syria - Washington Post

Basically it's okay for America to intervene but no other country can. Because America is the only right and just way :pokerface:

All countries have their own interests and America is no different. Setting up a puppet government didn't work either.

If Syria wants peace the only way to do it is to divide the country in half just like Taiwan and China.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarobbt (Post 8260153)

Have the US sent in any weapons? Especially something as advanced as the Russian missiles? My understanding is the US has only provided food and medical supplies, but no weapons.

Edit: It appears the US is now going to use some form of military assistance (decision literally just made in the last couple hours) because they claim to have high confidence that Assad used the chemical weapons. No details, however, on what that might mean.

BTW, your article was dated May 31st.

Doubt American people and congress will let it happen. Probably covert aid through the CIA, and then we'll watch the Syrian "friends" turn on the US 10 years from now. It's also a very confusing situation.

Let's list who's involved(feel free to correct me if I missed some):

Rebels
- Foreign Fighters/other Mujahideen ( Chechnya, Yemen, etc.)
- Extremists who don't like the US or Al-Qaida
- Extremists Allied to Al Qaida
- Free Syrian Army (good guys?)
- Freedom Fighters (good guys?)
- Kurds(good guys?)

Assad
- Syrian Military
- Alawite Militia
- Other Assad Militia
- Iran: Qud's Force, Hezbollah, Some Palestinian Groups
- Russia(??)

Problem is you can't tell who is with who.

If a civil war lasts two years and 100,000 die, it's all part of the plan

But if 150 people are gassed then everybody loses their minds!

its gonna happen..

syria is west of iraq which is west of iran

giving a straight sea/air passage to iran

On paper, the quickest and most legitimate way of halting the carnage that has plagued Syria for 2 years, is through a meaningful negotiation process involving both sides, based upon the framework of the Geneva Communique from last June. The U.S and U.K are vehemently opposed to such an initiative, declaring that "legitimate" negotiations cannot take place so long as Assad is still in power.
The U.S/U.K won't be sending their own troops into Syria, instead they'll continue supplying material support to the rebels by way of arms and other various military equipment. If anything, since the E.U recently passed legislation that lifts the arms embargo on Syria, they are now in a position to openly provide weapons to the rebels without questions surrounding the legalities of such measures. The west knows that Russia has been and continues to be the major supplier of arms to Assad's regime, therefore, they will attempt to balance the power between the two sides.
Geo-politically, the area is treacherous for any direct Western involvement. It's a known fact that Hezbollah is operating alongside Assad's forces and as someone above mentioned, the sectarian violence is only making matters worse. Lebanon stands to be dragged into this conflict kicking and screaming. Already under extreme duress from the influx of approximately 1 million refugees, Lebanon has but meagre resources available to deal with this calamity. There is also a very fragile sectarian balance at stake within the country. Just next door--Israel--whom is extremely uneasy at the notion of Hezbollah acquiring Iranian arms shipments in Syria, as was alluded to when Israel purportedly engaged in air attacks on targets within Syria.
I digress..the ramifications here are huge!

Reasons why the US will not intervene in Syria:

1. Libya had no allies. Syria has allies in Russia and Iran. Russia can block any UN action and arms Syria reasonably well, and if Iran gets fully involved the result will be a bloodbath and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Even if the US Fifth Fleet stops that, expect oil to hit $250+ a barrel. Then the Iraqi Shi'as and Kurds will get involved, and so on and so forth.

2. Gaddafi deliberately kept the Libyan Army weak, so it was easy for NATO to whoop their asses. The Syrian Army is one of the largest in the world. Not so easy for NATO to engage.

2. Hizbullah and al-Qaeda have infiltrated the rebels. If the rebels kill Assad then there will be a genocide of Shi'as, Kurds and Syrian Christians. There can be no secular Syrian state under rebel control.

4. The Syrian Opposition is in a power struggle unlike Libya's National Transitional Council. They can't decide on a unified voice.

5. The American public is tired of meddling in the Middle East, and soldiers are tired of it too.

Its another ZioAmerican war with 90% of the rebels consisting of poor mercenary Arabs which their own governments arent free. They fight under the flag of U.S. proxy sponsored Al-Quada whom are supposet Muslims... that have killed other Muslim and Arab people (93,000 in Syria alone) but have never, not once, ever targeted anything Isreali."Arch enemy" Isreal has soft targets everywhere in the world, but Al-Quda has never attacked any of its targets because its a tool of the ZioAmericans.

General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran

^^ just realized I'm on his signature/ignore list - yay!

Actually, that post makes more sense then most of the others. Probably more so if I could read it in english.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/wo...agewanted=all&

Spoiler!

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, concluding that the troops of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria have used chemical weapons against rebel forces in his country’s civil war, has decided to begin supplying the rebels for the first time with small arms and ammunition, according to American officials.

The officials held out the possibility that the assistance, coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency, could include antitank weapons, but they said that for now supplying the antiaircraft weapons that rebel commanders have said they sorely need is not under consideration.

Supplying weapons to the rebels has been a long-sought goal of advocates of a more aggressive American response to the Syrian civil war. A proposal made last year by David H. Petraeus, then the director of the C.I.A., and backed by the State Department and the Pentagon to supply weapons was rejected by the White House because of President Obama’s deep reluctance to be drawn into another war in the Middle East.

But even with the decision to supply lethal aid, the Obama administration remains deeply divided about whether to take more forceful action to try to quell the fighting, which has killed more than 90,000 people over more than two years. Many in the American government believe that the military balance has tilted so far against the rebels in recent months that American shipments of arms to select groups may be too little, too late.

Some senior State Department officials have been pushing for a more aggressive military response, including airstrikes to hit the primary landing strips in Syria that the Assad government uses to launch the chemical weapons attacks, ferry troops around the country and receive shipments of arms from Iran.

But White House officials remain wary, and on Thursday Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, all but ruled out the imposition of a no-fly zone and indicated that no decision had been made on other military actions.

Mr. Obama declared last August that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would cross a “red line” that would prompt a more resolute American response. In an April letter to Congress, the White House said that intelligence agencies had “varying degrees of confidence” that Syrian government troops had used chemical weapons. But the conclusion of the latest intelligence review, according to officials, is more definitive.

The White House said on Thursday that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons “on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.” The assessment came after American and European government analysts examined physiological evidence and other intelligence indicating that Syrian troops had used sarin gas against the opposition. The announcement said that American intelligence officials now believed that 100 to 150 people had died from the attacks, but officials cautioned that the number could be higher.

That conclusion is based on evidence that includes intelligence on the Assad government’s plans for the use of chemical weapons, accounts of specific attacks, and descriptions of symptoms experienced by victims of the attacks. Mr. Rhodes said the new assessment had changed the president’s calculus.

But the president’s caution has frayed relations with important American allies in the Middle East that have privately described the White House strategy as feckless. Saudi Arabia and Jordan recently cut the United States out of a new rebel training program, a decision that American officials said came from the belief in Riyadh and Amman that the United States has only a tepid commitment to supporting rebel groups.

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates declined to host a meeting of allied defense officials to discuss Syria, concerned that in the absence of strong American leadership the conference might degenerate into bickering and finger-pointing among various gulf nations with different views on the best ways to support the rebellion.

Adding to those voices was former President Bill Clinton, who earlier this week endorsed a more robust American intervention in Syria to help the rebels, aligning himself with hawks like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who fault Mr. Obama for his reluctance to get entangled in the war.

Speaking on Tuesday at a private session in New York with Mr. McCain, Mr. Clinton said, “Sometimes it’s best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit.”

A flurry of high-level meetings in Washington this week underscored the divisions within the Obama administration about what actions to take in Syria to stop the fighting. The meetings were hastily arranged after Mr. Assad’s troops, joined by thousands of fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, claimed the strategic city of Qusayr and raised fears in Washington that large parts of the rebellion could be on the verge of collapse.

After weeks of efforts to organize a conference at which the Assad government and the opposition were to negotiate a political transition, the administration is now slowing down that effort, fearful that if it were held now, Mr. Assad would be in too strong a position to make any concessions.

The conference has been pushed back repeatedly amid warnings that the main rebel leaders did not plan to attend. But now, an administration official said, the focus will switch from setting a date to fortifying the rebels before they sit across the table from the government.

The timing of the announcement Thursday on the use of chemical weapons, an official said, reflected both the completion of the intelligence assessment and the fact that Mr. Obama leaves on Sunday for a meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized countries in Northern Ireland.

Formally designating the Assad government as a user of chemical weapons, this official said, will make it easier for Mr. Obama to rally support from Britain, France and other allies for further measures.

Until now, the American support to Syrian rebels has been limited to food rations and medical kits, although the Obama administration has quietly encouraged Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to ship weapons into the country. The limited assistance that the Obama administration is now promising is likely to be dwarfed by the help that American officials said Iran provides to Mr. Assad’s government. Many of the weapons and other military assistance that Iran has provided has been flown to Damascus through Iraqi airspace, the officials said.

There was a lull in the flights after Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq during a March visit to Baghdad to order more inspections of Iranian flights. By early May, however, the Iranian flights had started up again.

The flights, and Hezbollah’s decision to enter the fight on the side of the Assad government, have provided such an important boost for the Assad government that some senior State Department officials believe that Mr. Assad’s gains cannot be reversed unless the United States takes steps to curtail the Iranian arms flow, disabling the airfields that the Syrian government uses to receive arms, transport troops around the country and carry out air attacks.

Mr. Rhodes said there was no reason to think that the resistance has access to chemical weapons. “We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons,” he said.

According to a C.I.A. report, which was described by an American official who declined to be identified, the United States has acquired blood, urine and hair samples from two Syrian rebels — one dead and one wounded — who were in a firefight with Syrian government forces in mid-March northeast of Damascus. The samples showed that the rebels were exposed to sarin.

When the White House first disclosed its suspicions about the use of chemical weapons in April, Mr. Obama said he would defer action until an investigation found more conclusive evidence that established a “chain of custody” in the use of the gas.

The United States, working with Britain, France and Israel, was able to compile evidence that Syrian officials had planned and executed a string of chemical weapons attacks in Aleppo, Damascus and two other cities.

Republicans have been clamouring for large-scale military intervention, and Dick Cheney even popped into Syria to meet with rebel leaders--can't believe they didn't use the opportunity to off him. But at the same time they've also been calling for Obama to not ship weapons over, claiming "They'll just be arming our enemies". He's in sort of a no-win situation.

The light arms he'll likely be sending over will be things like Assault Rifles and Machine Guns, simply because the heavier weaponry they could really used (manpack SSM/SAM launchers) would be very easily acquired by the Al'Quaeda portions of the anti-Alawite fighters and would then very easily be turned on American targets in future.

American politicians are very conscious of the first time they intervened in Afghanistan and what it's meant in terms of repercussions over the last forty years.

They have some sophisticated weapons... on top of chemical weapons.

A liveleak video with a single group of soldiers with some random guy with a single launcher, against a rebel group that is consistently painted as being decimated and unable to deal with the Government's air force.

Hmm....yes, I think I'll choose to believe the video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 8260186)

Israel.

Just because the US hasn't supplied Syrian rebels with weapons doesn't mean they don't supply weapons at all.

High confidence? Just like how Iraq harbored WMDs right?

Bet you also didn't know Israel bordered Syria too? Don't be surprised if there was an ulterior motive behind the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarobbt (Post 8260322)

No, I never knew Israel bordered Syria. Forgot to go see when I visited Israel many years ago. Just stayed in my hotel room afraid to go outside for fear of being bombed. :rolleyes:

Your original comment was "Basically it's okay for America to intervene but no other country can." Well, at the time the article you posted was written, America hadn't intervened. And Russia was thinking of expanding their intervention by sending in advanced missile systems (on top of the weapons they've already been supplying to Assad).

If you want to bash the US over Syria, then do it when they've done something, not because you "think" they're going to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme S (Post 8260301)

American politicians are very conscious of the first time they intervened in Afghanistan and what it's meant in terms of repercussions over the last forty years.

Well, maybe someone learned that its not enough to 'win', but you need to stick around and re-build the country you destroyed too.

That is a lesson that was able to be learned in World War I, but they tried again in Afghanistan.

Fuck it, they'll be fine is not going to work, because desperate people make desperate decisions and one guy standing up saying, "you live like this because of the Americans", (or, the british in 1920 germany) leads people down a path that we know too well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 8260476)

/facepalm

It doesn't matter if Russia decides to heavily arm Syria, it's the actions of America that is controversial. You may think it's wrong for Russia to send heavy arms but they are allies. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean anything.

This is no different than America sending help to South Korea.

Russia dismisses US claims of Syrian chemical weapons use | World news | guardian.co.uk

Stop trying to believe the Western media, we don't 100% know if chemical agents were used or not. We just have both sides shooting off claims and America giving reasons why they want to jump in the fray.

Edit:

I like how Syrian Rebels with chemical agents were completely ignored. Either way Syrian rebels consist of Terrorists and I thought it was the exact thing America was fighting against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarobbt (Post 8260486)

We just have both sides shooting off claims and America giving reasons why they want to jump in the fray.

Edit: Apparently these 'Rebels' also consist of Terrorists....

Here's the problem:

If Russia helps the government of Syria, at the end of the day they have stengthened the relationship with a known ally.

Risk to Russia? minimal. They already have a relationship in place with a well located country that keeps Russia involved in the mid-east.

If the US helps the rebels...well, for one, just because they got help from the US, doesn't mean they are going to be allies with the US once the government falls. History shows that happens very little. You have then created a new state with an unknown and unstable government.

Oh, and you piss off Russia. Not usually the best thing to do.

By providing small arms in proxy while Russia arms the other side, you are in fact prolonging a war killing more people.

And this is the thanks you get America for being World Police. You are screwed and you haven't done a thing.

It's regretable that people will continue to be killed, but until you're dealing with a unified opposition, you risk picking the wrong side. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, Assad is on the wrong side of history. His chickens will come to roost, perhaps later than we want, but he'll be forced out eventually.
Posted via RS Mobile

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarobbt (Post 8260486)

It doesn't matter if Russia decides to heavily arm Syria, it's the actions of America that is controversial. You may think it's wrong for Russia to send heavy arms but they are allies. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean anything.

This is no different than America sending help to South Korea.

Russia dismisses US claims of Syrian chemical weapons use | World news | guardian.co.uk

Stop trying to believe the Western media, we don't 100% know if chemical agents were used or not. We just have both sides shooting off claims and America giving reasons why they want to jump in the fray.

I like how Syrian Rebels with chemical agents were completely ignored. Either way Syrian rebels consist of Terrorists and I thought it was the exact thing America was fighting against.

You're trying to twist things around - it won't work. Your original statement was about America "intervening" which is wrong. They haven't "intervened" yet. Now you're off all over the place about whether I know Syria is next to Israel or that I shouldn't listen to Western media.

It doesn't matter if Russia arms Syria - it's the American actions that are controversial? Did you actually make such a stupid remark? It's no different than the US sending help to South Korea? Really? You're comparing Syria with South Korea? Is this CiC with another account?