OT - Heating things up in Syria
 

..Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria
By KIRIT RADIA and RYM MOMTAZ
..
Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria

....A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.

Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.

Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency.

The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evaluation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.

RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the US and to the UN had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.

Moscow has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Assad regime, to which it sells billions of dollars of weapons. In return Russia has maintained a Navy base at Tartus, which gives it access to the Mediterranean.

Sounds like the Russians are simply reinforcing their presence in the country in case things get ugly and they have to get their people out in a hurry. I suspect it won't be long before somebody else starts telling their people it's time to get out of the pool, France maybe? The rebels know about Russia's links to the Assad family and some of those rebels would not be above pulling a hostage crisis with Russian citizens....

I see it as more of a Chess move. Putin is showing his support of an friendly nation while flexing Russia's muscles to the international community. In addition the presence of Russian troops makes it very difficult for the west to intervene in its typical fashion (that being the infiltration of special operations and the dropping of lots of destruction from the sky). If the west infiltrated troops there is the chance no matter how small that the Russian molecules may run into the western molecule with a very poor reaction and a major international incident. In addition if the west drops bombs as we are want to do in these situations the Russians can claim (accurately or inaccurately) that those bombs killed Russian military forces with a get negative effect being the end outcome for western parties.

Given that I also read that Turkey has formally acknowledged that it is planning to set up refugee safe zones on the Syrian side of their border, that's an interesting (read: scary) development.

The Russians would like to hold onto one of the few pieces remaining to them in the region.

The whole reason Russia cut Gadaffi loose was so that the west would back off over Syria. We have not kept our end of the bargain in Russian eyes so they are seeking to protect their investment.

Wish my employer would take the hint from the Foreign Office (their advice is: do not travel to Syria for any reason) and stop sending me there...

For real? When are you next due to visit Syria? Seriously man, Your job can't be worth as much as your life.

That to me means that Sanjuro is either a reporter of some kind, or Military, as I can see us easily moving some forces there as a "are you sure" sort soon enough.

Based on previous posts I'd guess Airline pilot...?

Depends. This guy disagrees...

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/208/4868.jpg

I feel like we should pull a Libya on Syria. And possibly cripple Hizbollah and and Hamas in then process.

Though it might be a good thing for the Syrian civilians, I don't think, an intervention on the part of U.S. troops is an option, because that would be another arab nation on the list of the most recent U.S. operations.

Yes, I think, the situation in Syria should be stopped. I understand the Chinese and Russians have their own agendas in stopping the intervention by the U.N. security council, but I still can not "understand" them running their own agendas while innocent people are dying - then again, one might argue, it's not their citizens getting killed.

And as for Hamas and Hizbollah, they are not always the bad guys, though their actions are generally seen as terrorism. I know, the U.S. have good relations with Israel, which leads to the fact, the Israeli get away with a lot of things they would not get otherwise. I mean, there's hardly any other people riding on their past grievances like the Israelis, albeit their past grievances were a real issue - one would only think, they'd have a more sympathetic approach to people as a result.

Good luck with your third world war.

Russia will NOT allow NATO airstrikes over Syria, if they try without a UN resolution (which is impossible because Russia will just use it's veto) then anyting we do will be an ilegal act of war agaianst a sovereighn nation and Russia (aswell as China who are also against UN action) will have every legal right to respond.

You can bet good money Europe will not get involved, hell not even the UK will back America up on this one.

I just hope, the U.S. government has enough sense not to go there, really. I mean, another Cold War -type situation isn't really what the world needs - and even less a World War, that might result. The Russians and the U.S. are still comparing their virtual penises in the form of missile defences, even though the Cold War ended over a decade ago - I just wish, they'd give it a rest, not only for the sake of the world, but because I just happen to live next door to the other one of them and wouldn't necessarily wish to go in to active service any time soon...

I agree completely. I've said as much before on this forum, and was basically accused of being antisemitic. For some reason some people don't seem to be able to see the difference between someone being anti-Israeli government policy and someone being anti-Jewish.

Now that Turkey has talked about setting up safe zones for refugees within Syria, I wouldn't bet against them being drawn in to protect those zones against attack- from there it's a small step to outright war. Turkey alone should be able to take on Syria and win- the big uncertainty then is what Iran does when its only ally is losing badly.
BTW, Rainbow 6 has it right... and I'm not too worried about my Damascus trip yet, I've got a return trip to Tehran to do first!

I've run into similar responses to criticism of Israeli policy.

This is a realy delicate situation with Syria being Iran's main ally in the middle east and also being next door to Israel. The Israelis have a habit of ignoring the UN and international law and relying on the American UN veto to keep them out of trouble. They also have an annoying habit of making sneak attacks and first strikes against any perceived threat regardless of the geo-political situation.

So far they have got away with it and even pulled off some pretty amazing military triumpths, but sooner or later they will run out of luck and kick off someting they can't deal with. Syria or iran could be that moment.

How about we don't all jump Paul for his statement. Instead lets think it out. First off I am sure by "we" Paul meant the international community, more than likely referring to the very same international western conglomerate that intervened in Libya. In addition everyone jumped to the conclusion that Paul meant that the US should invade. He specifically cited Libya as the example. The US did not invade in Libya and only helped on a relatively small scale in the direct use of force. The main players were European powers. Even if those very same powers were being supplied by the US it was the regional powers that dealt with the hot spot and not the big bad United States.

I respect what you are getting at and believe me I am not a fan of America's support of Israel. However Id venture to say that having your ass kicked through the course of history with the climax being a regionally effective attempt at genocide can be accurately described as more than a "past grievance"

UN approval is not a prerequisite of one nation to make war upon another nation, nor does it necessarily make it an illegal act. Acts of war in self defense, defense of allies, and of assets that are of vital interest are authorized under the UN charter to include preemptive acts to perceived threats.

Luckily for the restof the world, Israelis don't necessarily have a reason to meddle with the Syrian situation as I doubt their leaders could not probably care less about a dead arab or two, unless they pose some sort of a percieved threat at their national security, which the Syrian genocide (and yes, I think it is just that) does not. Instead I'm more worried about Israeli reactions about the potential Irani nuclear weapons - the most recent indications, the Israelis might act on them soon was during the Israeli prime minister's most recent visit to United States.

And for the record, I'm not anti-semite nor anti-Israeli in my opinions. I respect their military prowess and the fact, they have survived as a nation in the middle of hostile nations. However, I dislike their habit of disregarding international laws and rules, and running behind the U.S. back whenever someone challenges them for it.

I seem to recall you made a post where you mentioned landing on the beach at Barra - that was when the penny dropped for me (my current job is in offshore logistics so my background is in the travel business).

Oddly enough when I made that post yesterday I was sitting at Terminal Three at Manchester waiting for the 2020 BMI flight to Aberdeen.

1. Moderator, can we yank this thread? It's starting to veer into hot button land.

2. I am a Jew, I have family in Israel through my in-laws. Sometimes, it's tough to be objective. Let's also not forget with regards to Hizbullah, we (the US) have some unfinished buisness of our own. They assumed control of the IJO around 1992. Therfore, they're the people to adress about the fact we still owe somebody for 241 dead US Marines in 1983. Helping the people of Syria free themselves ala Libya would be a nice, low footprint way to do it. As for Hamas? Had that argument before, people know my views. Ask yourselves one thing, if Canada or Mexico were shelling the US day in-day out, would you expect us to not do a damn thing? Sure, there's underlying issues, no doubt, and they should be adressed. But as Golda Meir put it, "Perhaps the killing will stop when the Arabs love their kids more than they hate us." One could argue that runs both ways. I suspect it does.

3. I shan't be responding anymore to this thread. Lest my own biases get out of control.

No disrespect intended, but I think that's what the little X at the top right of the browser should be for. Instead of calling for people to be silenced, I think it is better to just use some reasoned judgement and avoid the conversations that one might not like to enjoy reading. Your #3 point suggests to me that you are already willing to take the first step as to not put yourself further into something you already don't want to be.

Again, this isn't a shot at you, but rather I just feel strongly opposed to silencing people's voices when it isn't being forced upon anyone or is anything malicious. Especially seeing how this isn't a mandatory reading thread on a forum full of other topics worth reading. I hope you understand my point and don't get offended.

I agree with Jason.

The thread is not on topic and honestly not productive for the long term utility of the forum for its primary use. Providing information about a game with a diminishing fanbase without alienating any of those users.

Politics is expressly discouraged here. I have run forums for longer than some of our members have been alive and have always struggled to maximize the number of participants. Politics is a poison to forums where civility is the norm and the user base is small, I have seen it time and again.

There are maybe 300 people who might have a desire to talk about T2k. If any thread drives 10 away if that really worth it. I am not saying it is the case with this thread, but people (including myself) remember far more clearly when someone post something political that makes them upset. If it happens enough times they leave. Their voices are then silenced as well. It might be by choice, but when so few people can have deep discussions about a subject (T2k) each loss is tragic.

There are thousands of sites where politics is the focus and tens of thousands of users jump in and out of discussions. In general I thinks discussions of the validity of a UN position or how to classify Israel's reactions/provocations might be better suited there.

I am on my way out the door so my opinion does not matter much, but there you have it.

As in out the door for good, or as in just out the door to work for the day? Sorry if I missed news by being new or not catching the post where this was already discussed.

My administration and the forum home (including domain name) are eventually being transferred. We had few things that got out of hand a few years ago, which literally killed my interest in posting here (I think some of the sticky threads cover the basics). My loyalty to the people here kept me from simply shutting it down (though I was tempted at times).

Welcome by the way.

Muchly appreciated. I am sorry to see you go. I hope that the community can find a new home.

Disappointing, but understandable I guess.

Perhaps if censorship is the way to go, then like it has been suggested before, all OT discussions ought to be censored and banned. That would certainly put disagreement and potential problems to rest before they could happen.

I'm sorry to hear that, Kato and I am also apologizing to anyone, who might have been offended by my opinions. And while OT conversations can be compared to poorly built IEDs, they can sometimes start a discussion about on-topic things. But yes, I'm shutting my yap about politics.

Getting back to topic.

Libya is looking like a failure to be honest. Many of the ex-rebels have gone back to the pre-dictatorship habit of tribal infighting. All that held the rebel factions together was a mutual hatred of the regime and Gaddafi, without that unifying goal the factions are looking to tear each other apart.

The Arab spring in general is not looking good, Egypt for instance is a far cry from the democratic ideal the protestors where gunning for.

Military action in Syria is a very bad idea, as I said the Russians wold not allow it. Even if NATO went in without a UN resolution itwouldn't be too long before NATO aircraft found themselves being on the recieving end of Russian AAA and SAM systems. The possible ramifications of escalation are horrific to say the least.

Also there isn't the political will for action over Syria, western nations are making a big show of gnashing teeth and wailing but nobody seems willing to be the one to step up.