Will there be American invasion in Syria?

[Deleted member 365]

Anyone else wonder if once our country is in the crapper that all these countries who we have handed out foreign aid to will treat us charitably and give us foreign aid too? I'm sure Afghanistan and Iraq will run shipments of billions to help us out. Just out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[BTP]

Honestly I couldn't care less for terrorist organisations. They're so twisted with their morals. They use them like they want to.
Look at Syria's situation:
Right now they go recruit orphan kids from Assad's followers. Next day the same recruiter go to refugee camps of the rebels and talk to the orphan kids how the Assad regime is acting wrongful.
So if you leave them alone it'll also result in civilian assasinations by terrorists. If you negotiate with them or not won't change how they operate. If you can maintain a stable situation with people respecting each other you can provide a solution. I'm not even sure it's possible.
But if you let them do what's happening right now and tolerate the actions they're going to push the limits even further and the supplier from China and Russia will do the same.
That's why I'd say power play. Russians/Chinese and NATO soliders would never attack each other. There's way too much on the line. And both know that.
It's about finding a way to classify the act as unavoidable under NATO statutes.
Russia has an interest to maintain the Egypt and Syria conflict. It affects the strength of the $ and oil price and at the same time their supplies are not affected. Gas and oil price are connected with each other. And having higher market price while your production isn't going more expensive by risk to cross the Suez or having an international crisis at the door together with burning oil platforms.
Plus Russia has agreements to disarm parts of their Military equipment. And what better way to do this than selling it to countries who also strengthen their economy by doing so?
But I'm sure they wouldn't risk a war by attacking US/European military forces. The same way the US wouldn't touch Russians. That would mean way too many repercussions.
I'm just disappointed they take so long to take a stance for civil rights in Syria's favor.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe you don't really understand how massively dominant the U.S. military is, in pretty much every way.

WE spend something like 45% of all the military spending in the world, more than the next 16 nations combined. We're dominant compared to everyone.

 

[Stoked]

WE spend something like 45% of all the military spending in the world, more than the next 16 nations combined. We're dominant compared to everyone.

1 United States
2 China
3 Russia
4 United Kingdom
5 Japan
6 France
7 Saudi Arabia
8 India
9 Germany
10 Italy
11 Brazil
12 South Korea
13 Australia
14 Canada
15 Turkey


That is the top 15. We are number 1. Nato members account for 7 of 15 and we are formal allies of 9 of 15. Only 2 on that list are turly rivals. Russia and China.

 

[MVP]

I would approach this from a lawyer's perspective:
There's a precedent where an war of aggression against a former CSSR country by the NATO was unresponded by Russia. Kosovo anyone? Ye...
.

What is CSSR? Kosovo was territory of former republic of Yugoslavia, has nothing to do with USSR if that's what you mean.

 

[mellow]

Anyone else wonder if once our country is in the crapper that all these countries who we have handed out foreign aid to will treat us charitably and give us foreign aid too? I'm sure Afghanistan and Iraq will run shipments of billions to help us out. Just out of the goodness of their hearts.

I get the sarcasm, and your right. And I fear that Stoked is right too. When the USA is distracted, hurt or vulnerable all of the world's anger will be directed at it. 30 years of pushing the world around will have made few friends. And even those friends may be so concerned about how to protect themselves that they may be unwilling or unable to help the USA.

The seeds are sown, the harvest could be awful.

 

[BTP]

What is CSSR? Kosovo was territory of former republic of Yugoslavia, has nothing to do with USSR if that's what you mean.

Yugoslavia was a protege of Russia(I shouldn't say USSR, since it happened after 1990 and that's disrespectful towards Russia's inhabitants. I can describe Jelzin/Putin in other ways) and Milosevic a string puppet of Moscow. The C was my mistake. Sorry for that. I was just to lazy to look up the proper abbreviations. The Russian side didn't apply pressure on Milosevic and tried to make negotiations prior to the war fail. Plus there was huge protest back then when KFOR forces started attacking Serbia.

 

[ema]

I would approach this from a lawyer's perspective:
There's a precedent where an war of aggression against a former CSSR country by the NATO was unresponded by Russia. Kosovo anyone? Ye...
I look at this in a similar fashion. As long as the UN has those oligarchic, Stalinist influence named Putin, it'll be a farce. Same counts for Chinese interests.
So NATO should make it their duty to intervene infraction of civil rights in a land at the border to a member(Turkey) thus threatening Turkey's border regions safety. Also there were already missiles landing in Turkey which can be counted as an attack on that country and are a valid reason to defend that country in the limits of the NATO statutes.
It's of course a gamble, but
1) Israel is no member of the NATO, thus it's not responsible for this attack.(This won't mean it won't experience the backlash of Terrorist organisations. But such actions seldom find support with the sane population)
2) Under NATO statutes there's valid reason to intervene.
3) Negotiations have all failed in former cases when discussed at the UN security board(Iraq?).
4) This is a good example to remind other countries how things should run when civil rights are infracted, potentially lowering the willingness for others to act the same.

NATO is a big joke. It never cared about the civil rights nor the Syrian people. Actually it directly funded FSA through Turkey and became one of the primary culpables of the current crappy situation in Syria.

I'm no defending Assad nor his dictatorship nor his regime by any means but it was certainly no business of NATO and Turkey that some of the Syrian people wanted Assad to be taken down. It was obvious from the beginning, they wouldn't be able to bring down Assad because they did not have the majority. It was a weak movement but NATO thought that they could build it up so they provoked it to the utmost degree.

The tragicomic thing is, the FSA did horrible things too during this period(Even maybe they used the chemical weapons). They didn't fight against only Syrian army but they killed thousands of innocent people. Still, despite all the weapon/money and direct warfare(through special ops) aids by NATO they couldn't beat Assad, now that's a true measure of how much this so called revolution was embraced by the Syrian people.

Now we are seeing just the plan B happening. All of a sudden Assad decides to use chemical weapons and the world goes crazy at him. What an original story! Like Assad doesn't know it's one of the few things that can lead the NATO and all the peaceful angelic militaries of the world to invade Syria.

 

[BTP]

NATO is a big joke. It never cared about the civil rights nor the Syrian people. Actually it directly funded FSA through Turkey and became one of the primary culpables of the current crappy situation in Syria.

I'm no defending Assad nor his dictatorship nor his regime by any means but it was certainly no business of NATO and Turkey that some of the Syrian people wanted Assad to be taken down. It was obvious from the beginning, they wouldn't be able to bring down Assad because they did not have the majority. It was a weak movement but NATO thought that they could build it up so they provoked it to the utmost degree.

The tragicomic thing is, the FSA did horrible things too during this period(Even maybe they used the chemical weapons). They didn't fight against only Syrian army but they killed thousands of innocent people. Still, despite all the weapon/money and direct warfare(through special ops) aids by NATO they couldn't beat Assad, now that's a true measure of how much this so called revolution was embraced by the Syrian people.

Now we are seeing just the plan B happening. All of a sudden Assad decides to use chemical weapons and the world goes crazy at him. What an original story! Like Assad doesn't know it's one of the few things that can lead the NATO and all the peaceful angelic militaries of the world to invade Syria.

I'm not saying the situation was handled correctly. I think in these situations they should be way more aggressive with their approach. Even if the NATO is a joke, the UN security board is like 5 times the joke.
Kosovo was called a "military intervention to secure humanitary rights" by the NATO. That's the precendence where Russia backed down. They should have done that day 1 when Assad used his military in the country against the resistance. That's simply not acceptable.
Being patient has never been a sign of strength when civilians suffered historically. Calling Germany WW2 as a prime example. Turkey knows a thing or two about that topic as well...A saying I find very true is: With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[ema]

Even if the NATO is a joke, the UN security board is like 5 times the joke.

That's rep worthy.

I'm not saying the situation was handled correctly. I think in these situations they should be way more aggressive with their approach. Even if the NATO is a joke, the UN security board is like 5 times the joke.
Kosovo was called a "military intervention to secure humanitary rights" by the NATO. That's the precendence where Russia backed down. They should have done that day 1 when Assad used his military in the country against the resistance. That's simply not acceptable.
Being patient has never been a sign of strength when civilians suffered historically. Calling Germany WW2 as a prime example. Turkey knows a thing or two about that topic as well...A saying I find very true is: With great power comes great responsibility.

The problem is that NATO is not sincere with its intentions in the first place. Russia isn't either, USA isn't, Israel isn't, Iran isn't and I know first hand that Turkey isn't. No one really cares about the Syrian people, lol. Look at what we are discussing in this thread, oil, ME, USA-Russia, China, Korea, nukes, money etcetera... Just a power play over capital and interests like Stoked said earlier.

 

[addictionary]

Iraq was phase one to make the Baas regime fall and Syria is two. It's a long term policy. Gonna happen sooner or later.

 

[♪alt13]

Doesn't Syria have a Russian oil pipeline through it. Ultimately I think all these outside powers are only concerned with energy security. America and the west need to show their might without threatening Russian interests. There will come a day when the great powers go to war over the worlds remaining oil, but that day isn't today. For now we just play the opening game and vie for position.