OT - Heating things up in Syria

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

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.

[LBraden]

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.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

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...

Originally Posted by LBraden

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...?

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Targan

Your job can't be worth as much as your life.

Depends. This guy disagrees...

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[Medic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Medic

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.

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.

[Sanjuro]

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!

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

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 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.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

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.

[Medic]

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.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

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.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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...

[TicToc]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

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.

Originally Posted by Medic

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.

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"

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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.

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.