|
Just The Facts posted:Agreed for the most part, but I just don't see any reason to help anyone who is affiliated with AQ in any way. Make AQ absolute poison to anyone and anything that comes in contact with it. Area of denial. If there's strong attacks or defense from a particular point, dump a few chemical rounds in the area. They are terror weapons in this instance, a few people go down in convulsions and the opposition takes off for awhile. With conventional weapons, hardened fighters will stick it out.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:50 |
|
It's actually kind of interesting the way that Arab Islamist types are describing Iran as the "Safavid Project." I guess its a step above calling them Magi dog-worshippers...
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Oh good for a second there I was worried that the U.S. might eventually not be involved in a war during my adult life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why Russia cares about Syria? Is it because of Russia's naval base in Syria? If that's the case, why do they have one there and why is it still being used today?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
keevo posted:Can someone explain to me why Russia cares about Syria? Is it because of Russia's naval base in Syria? If that's the case, why do they have one there and why is it still being used today? Syria was/is basically the Soviet Union's only reliable ally in the Middle East after Sadat's Egypt turned on them. They've invested a lot of money in the Ba'ath regime over the decades, and they don't want it to go waste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:It's actually kind of interesting the way that Arab Islamist types are describing Iran as the "Safavid Project." I guess its a step above calling them Magi dog-worshippers... Thats the surface, you check any of those crazy saudi funded channels? they do go down there, equating the shia with zoroastrians, and using the term Majus. Edit: VVV They recognise the zoroastrians though, i mean Iran is alot of bad things, but Islamists are loving nuts. Stealth edit: I'm a sunni arab, been accused as Iranian "Istitla'at" (i think it means intelligence) everytime i try to debunk popular myths about Iran. Fizzil fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Which is ironic given that Iran already goes out of its way to specifically poo poo upon the Zoroastrians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Agreed for the most part, but I just don't see any reason to help anyone who is affiliated with AQ in any way. Make AQ absolute poison to anyone and anything that comes in contact with it. They haven't been used by the Government. Think of the simple question of who benefits from chemical weapons use, it's 100% rebels, because of Obama's comments. And with the discovery of terrorist gangs in both Turkey and Iraq cooking Sarin and other chemical weapons, the Qatar leaked emails, all the real evidence is that any chemical attack has been by the rebels. Don't believe the hype, this is yellowcake WMDS all over again. As for the proxy war talk, Russia and Iran only stepped up to help the Syrian government after it was attacked by Turkey/Qatar/Saudi/American sponsored forces. So it's not really a proxy war in the classic sense. http://musaalgharbi.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-reply-to-george-abu-ahmad.html Here's a blog post that covers most of the basics
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
keevo posted:Can someone explain to me why Russia cares about Syria? Is it because of Russia's naval base in Syria? If that's the case, why do they have one there and why is it still being used today? Russia maintains a black sea fleet with... complicated relationships with it's former satellite states. Beyond that for many good and historical reasons, the militarization of the Black Sea/Bosporus are a complicated issue and to maintain any sort of Naval presence beyond the straights a fleet base is required on the Mediterranean side. You may or may not recall there was talk of Russia bailing out Cyprus in return for a a long term lease on a Naval base there. It did not happen, but rest assured for the projection of any sort of fleet action, as any self respecting world power must be able to do, naval bases on foreign shores are mandatory. Since Russia sees itself as a great power, it is only natural it should have the accouterments of a great power. One of the great disservices growing up in a mono-polar world has done us is it retards our understanding that the US's ability to project power on a world scale is not due to our uniqueness but through the establishment of relationships, friendly and coercive, throughout the world. Take a moment to consider the logic of why the US should have a Fleet in the Indian Ocean, much less two if you count the Arabian Gulf, and then consider again the question of why Russia could want a port for their ships in the Mediterranean. That being said, while the military base is a major concern, Russia also has geopolitical concerns that extend beyond fleet positioning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
^^ Is there anything I can read on the Internet that explains the geopolitical concerns? I don't want to ruin John McCain's pursuit of WW3. Phlegmish posted:Syria was/is basically the Soviet Union's only reliable ally in the Middle East after Sadat's Egypt turned on them. They've invested a lot of money in the Ba'ath regime over the decades, and they don't want it to go waste. Gotcha, thanks. Wouldn't it not matter at this point since the entire country has fallen apart? Is there anything to invest in at this point, aside from weapons? keevo fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
farraday posted:Russia maintains a black sea fleet with... complicated relationships with it's former satellite states. Beyond that for many good and historical reasons, the militarization of the Black Sea/Bosporus are a complicated issue and to maintain any sort of Naval presence beyond the straights a fleet base is required on the Mediterranean side. You may or may not recall there was talk of Russia bailing out Cyprus in return for a a long term lease on a Naval base there. It did not happen, but rest assured for the projection of any sort of fleet action, as any self respecting world power must be able to do, naval bases on foreign shores are mandatory. One thing that has traditionally been over-stressed is the utility of the actual Russian military base in Syria, which is tiny and useful for little more than re-supplying a corvette sized vessel. It isn't a strategic base in any real sense. It does give Russian ships a friendly home in the Mediterranean, but it isn't the type of base that the US covers the world with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
keevo posted:Gotcha, thanks. Wouldn't it not matter at this point since the entire country has fallen apart? Is there anything to invest in at this point, aside from weapons? They have a warm water "port" there, their only one in the Mediterranean I believe. I put Port in quotes because apparently its barely considered a base at all, very run down. Not what you'd imagine in your head a Russian Naval Base to look like from what I understand. E-Oops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Is there any chance of Mir-Hossein Mousavi winning/is he any good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Is there any chance of Mir-Hossein Mousavi winning/is he any good? Very little since he isn't running, the two choices are Rouhani (centrist-reformer) and Ghalibad (conservative). There is a decent chance Rouhani might win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:One thing that has traditionally been over-stressed is the utility of the actual Russian military base in Syria, which is tiny and useful for little more than re-supplying a corvette sized vessel. It isn't a strategic base in any real sense. It does give Russian ships a friendly home in the Mediterranean, but it isn't the type of base that the US covers the world with. First that's inaccurate. There are numerous reports of Russian fleets stopping at Tartus on maneuvers, not simply Corvettes. If the largest ships can't actually berth at the Naval base itself that says nothing about the ability of the base to serve as a resupply point outside the Bosporus. Second, there were pre existing negotiations to revamp and improve the base clearly indicating a desire to increase ti's usefulness in this regard. Your desire to discount it as a permanent presence in another country as part of Russia's strategic aims because it isn't the size of Ramstien Air base is pretty silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Don't forget a big Cold War thing was  Russia can't have a warm water port!Unable to go through AfPak to the Indian Ocean or through Europe, Russia influences The Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Not that it will matter much with the Arctic opening up. I don't know about protests in Iran - with last election's opponents still under house arrest and the culling of the candidate pool it seems like there has been substantial effort to crush the public will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
farraday posted:First that's inaccurate. There are numerous reports of Russian fleets stopping at Tartus on maneuvers, not simply Corvettes. If the largest ships can't actually berth at the Naval base itself that says nothing about the ability of the base to serve as a resupply point outside the Bosporus. Second, there were pre existing negotiations to revamp and improve the base clearly indicating a desire to increase ti's usefulness in this regard. Have looked at the place in google maps? It is a couple ramshackle buildings and a few docks, and the ability to berth actual capital ships is a big requite for a true strategic military base. It matters to the Russians, but we have to be clear about exactly what we are talking about here. Also, based on how the base is positioned between the seawall and the civilian port, expansion in any serious sense will be difficult. Yes they can ferry some supplies to ships off shore, but that makes it a supply base at best. If you are going to compare their aims to the United States, it is only fair you compare the actual facilities. It isn't silly at all if you want to be intellectually honest about it. That base most likely will never be much more than it is now, which is a small resupply base. It was never a true "warm water port" which is why the West let it linger. Also, Russian intentions in the Arctic will be limited by the number of advanced subs they have...which still small. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
So with the US announcing today that Syria really did use chemical weapons, and that they are going to now increase their assistance to the rebels (whatever that means) I wonder what implications this will have for the Geneva peace talks? I mean, they already seemed like a joke as it is but I wonder if the regime will even show up if the US starts to possibly send arms to the rebels. Also, I wonder who will wave a vial of fake WMDs at the UN this time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Have looked at the place in google maps? It is a couple ramshackle buildings and a few docks, and the ability to berth actual capital ships is a big requite for a true strategic military base. It matters to the Russians, but we have to be clear about exactly what we are talking about here. Also, based on how the base is positioned between the seawall and the civilian port, expansion in any serious sense will be difficult. It was never my intention to use Tartus to excuse the presence of US military bases over seas so much as to draw the question of "why does Russia need a base in the Mediterranean" to the unquestioned acceptance of US military presence in the Indian Ocean. As for dismissing it as a supply base, well yes exactly. a supply base is what they need to prevent having to traverse the Bosporus with the attendant diplomatic requirements vis a vis Turkey. Considering you even had to qualify your definition of what counts as a "true strategic base" with the fact it does, indeed, matter tot he Russians which was the entire loving point turning this into "it's small so it doesn't really count' is moronic. It matters to the Russians. It matters to the Russians as a logistical resupply point in the Med. It matters to the Russians as the last remnant of their Soviet over-seas basing structure. It matters to the Russians as a military commitment to a client state. It matters to the Russians as a building point for their probably overly optimistic plans of a resurgent strong military. It matters to the Russians as a sign of opposition to western dominance over a strategic region. It matters to the Russians as local entree point for shipment of weapons. The point is it matters to the Russians. It could be a loving lemonade stand offering cheap drinks to thirsty sailors and a well worn map to the closest brothels. It doesn't matter how big it is, the point is it matters to the Russians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I hear rumors Russia is moving their only carrier to the waters near Syria to discourage Western support Russia for once, is doing the right thing. The faster the conflict in Syria is resolved, the lesser the spillover effect will be. "Western support" (likely arms and supplies) likely to only serve to prolong to conflict regardless of the original intention and as a method to dump old stocks for free to the people of Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Sethmaster posted:Russia for once, is doing the right thing. The faster the conflict in Syria is resolved, the lesser the spillover effect will be. "Western support" (likely arms and supplies) likely to only serve to prolong to conflict regardless of the original intention and as a method to dump old stocks for free to the people of Syria. The conflict would've been resolved already if Russia hadn't propped up the regime for the last two years with the exact same level of support that the US has proposed. So no. Definitely not the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
farraday posted:It was never my intention to use Tartus to excuse the presence of US military bases over seas so much as to draw the question of "why does Russia need a base in the Mediterranean" to the unquestioned acceptance of US military presence in the Indian Ocean. As for dismissing it as a supply base, well yes exactly. a supply base is what they need to prevent having to traverse the Bosporus with the attendant diplomatic requirements vis a vis Turkey. The issue is that the Russians will never be able to have a fleet ported there over the long term, that is the crucial difference. They are still going to have to sail their fleet through the Bosporus because their major port is Sevastopol. Yes, they have strategic interests in the regions and that base (sort of figures) into it but proper examination of what that base can actually offer needs to be done. You can saw what you want about Russian intentions, but that base at the end of the day will only matter so much, even in symbolic terms. No they wouldn't be happy if they lost that base, especially the face they would lose but framing their intervention around that base I don't think squares with reality or really the capability of Russian strategic abilities at this point. Granted, I don't know if you think that the Russians are going to actually aggressively expand or you just think they would want to. We know their actual abilities are quite limited and I don't think they are that irrational all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Agreed for the most part, but I just don't see any reason to help anyone who is affiliated with AQ in any way. Make AQ absolute poison to anyone and anything that comes in contact with it. I thought Brown Moses show in his blog that those "chemical weapons" used by the "regime" are most likely staged by the rebels forces? Since the ground evidence and victim symptoms do not match a real chemical attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I hear rumors Russia is moving their only carrier to the waters near Syria to discourage Western support Isn't there a rumor like this almost every week? Also do you have a source for this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The conflict would've been resolved already if Russia hadn't propped up the regime for the last two years with the exact same level of support that the US has proposed. So no. Definitely not the right thing. Nope it wouldn't. Most of Russian support are to handle foreign intervention from foreign fighters to western intervention. Even without this, Assad forces are not a pushover. Iran, not Russia could be argued as the main foreign supporter of the Assad regime. If we based US-proposed support based on Libya conflict, then Russia can be said had never approach that level of support to Assad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Sethmaster posted:I thought Brown Moses show in his blog that those "chemical weapons" used by the "regime" are most likely staged by the rebels forces? Since the ground evidence and victim symptoms do not match a real chemical attack. I was under a similar impression but I admit I've been out of the loop for a few weeks. Has any credible evidence of chemical weapon attacks in Syria emerged?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Very little since he isn't running, the two choices are Rouhani (centrist-reformer) and Ghalibad (conservative). There is a decent chance Rouhani might win. Interesting that Rouhani keeps employing rhetoric that would lead one to believe he'd release political prisoners aka Mousavi on house arrest. Mousavi has said that, because he is not privy to all communication or information about the candidates, that he won't back any single one. As long as Jalili doesn't win, I think it's a positive outcome. Anecdotally, my roommate is Persian and was at Sharif when Aref was there teaching. He had hoped that Khatami would support him over Rouhani. The politics of Iran are incredibly interesting and fascinating. Rafsanjani particularly is an enigma to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:That's cool bro, but it's not true. Sorry about your ethnicity It absolutely is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:It's not delusion, it's just a way of doing it without being criticized until much later. They know full well the way the rebel groups coordinate and freely exchange materiel. They're probably fine with a few European airliners being destroyed if it means they can help destabilize an enemy of Israel. Oh no its the  ZOG Barack Obama moar like Baruch Obamastein.Shes Not Impressed posted:Interesting that Rouhani keeps employing rhetoric that would lead one to believe he'd release political prisoners aka Mousavi on house arrest. Mousavi has said that, because he is not privy to all communication or information about the candidates, that he won't back any single one. What sort of ramifications for Syria could the Iranian elections have? Would Rouhani have any real incentives to reduce support to Assad, or the ability to get the IRG to do so even if he did?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
It kinda feels like America as a country when given a choice between "Damned if we do" and "Damned if we don't" we generally go with "Damned if we do".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:It kinda feels like America as a country when given a choice between "Damned if we do" and "Damned if we don't" we generally go with "Damned if we do". "Damned if we do... and expensive."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Cirofren posted:I was under a similar impression but I admit I've been out of the loop for a few weeks. Has any credible evidence of chemical weapon attacks in Syria emerged? I also want to know this, so far I've only seen vague reports and no real concrete evidence*. However, could arming the rebels be a blessing in disguise? It could end a lot better than we're all expecting. Maybe genocide against Syrian Shias won't actually happen, and maybe the Islamists will pack up and gently caress off. Maybe Syrian civilians will actually be able to decide the fate of their country? gently caress who am I kidding this is going to end horribly  *not like the US actually needs it Hefty Leftist fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:
Long story short, none no and no. The Iranian president change won't affect Syria. There simply no way that any of them will be following in Mahmoud's foot steps in terms of going against the clerics. Rowhani isn't really anything worth writing home about and I'm pretty sure he's pro-Assad, but I suppose I hope he wins so we don't have the 09 protests all over again. Pay no mind to the western media coverage of the Iranian elections, the players in it don't fit in the same roles as western elections. Social conservatives are economically liberal, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:It kinda feels like America as a country when given a choice between "Damned if we do" and "Damned if we don't" we generally go with "Damned if we do". That way no one can call us pussies. America is exactly like the kid that would lick the frozen flag pole in a heartbeat if other people were watching.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Cirofren posted:Has any credible evidence of chemical weapon attacks in Syria emerged? From my understanding, chemical weapons were found in the area around Damascus, to the east, west, south and north somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes on a conference call with reporters is saying that the White House is going to build a case about the use of chemical weapons to present to the UN to urge action. The US doesn't exactly have the best track record at doing that. Still, as with Libya, it is doubtful the administration will act unilaterally. But the UN already reported both sides have used chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
A Large Dinger posted:Long story short, none no and no. The Iranian president change won't affect Syria. There simply no way that any of them will be following in Mahmoud's foot steps in terms of going against the clerics. Rowhani isn't really anything worth writing home about and I'm pretty sure he's pro-Assad, but I suppose I hope he wins so we don't have the 09 protests all over again. During the debates, it was said that supporting Syria has damaged Iran's reputation internationally. Of course, being aware of the implications doesn't correlate to actually altering their stance on it. The economic burden is quite fierce and a contention with the populace (especially with Mahmoud's economic legacy in hand), but I agree with you on everything. I just don't want to see Jalili in power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
So in the end the opposition didn't have to unite, commit publicly to secular democratic values or work against al-qaeda to gain US weapons deliveries, they only had to start losing. What a great precedent! I wonder what they'll get if they keep losing? No fly zone? Close air support? Ground advisors? US troops?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 09:17
|
|
|
So Russia is propping up the one side and the US is supporting religious rebels in their quest for freedom? Sounds somewhat familiar. But I guess it was somewhat predictable that the US would start to support the rebels after the announcement of Power as UN Ambassador and Rice as NSA.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:So Russia is propping up the one side and the US is supporting religious rebels in their quest for freedom? Well in Afghanstan the country was occupied by Soviets and the US was paying people to kill bona-fide Soviet troops. This war is only going to end up with dead Syrians no matter how much the US and Russia prop up both sides unless someone is dumb enough to send in the ground troops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 09:59
|
|