|
Miltank posted:I literally cannot believe that there are posters here pissed off at the US for failing to involve ourselves in a middle eastern civil war. How loving stupid could you possibly be? I'm sorry but you seem to be forgetting that #1USA#1 won not just 1 war but 2 wars in the middle east, we can do anything. You can never be free until the US gives you freedom, and its not free you gotta pay somehow.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 25, 2025 03:16 |
|
|
Here's a better question: How many people who support bombing Syria were cheering as the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi, or were insisting that everything was going to be just hunky-dory in Libya?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Here's a better question: How many people who support bombing Syria were cheering as the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi? If I remember this thread correctly, about zero. Or did you mean in the real world? Depressingly many, I would guess. Holy poo poo there actually was one? Teaches me to give the benefit of the doubt, I guess. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Libluini fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Here's a better question: How many people who support bombing Syria were cheering as the Egyptian military overthrew Morsi, or were insisting that everything was going to be just hunky-dory in Libya? In the thread the one guy who defended the coup and the army massacre in the aftermath opposed the intervention the Libya.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:A quick run down of what (I think) happened with the FSA/Islamic Front thing: So what I'm getting out of this is that the Islamic Front are the new 'good guys', at least in that they only want normal (for the Middle East) levels of religious oppression instead of 'kill literally anyone who isn't on the Taliban's Christmas list'-style religious oppression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
Libluini posted:
Yeah Jut. He made about a hundred posts about how the sixty Muslim Brotherhood members the army shot totally had it coming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I am failing to see how the FSA was going to be a potent force in the civil war, especially within the last 4 months. A lot of the opposition against intervention in August was because there was no side to support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Source? While it obviously happened, they haven't confirmed a ransom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y5Ht30f6QA http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1013/Buitenland/article/detail/3560517/2013/12/11/Filmpje-Berendsen-en-Spiegel-in-Jemen-was-toneelspel.dhtml That's what they said during a press conference. They were actually in a happy mood but their kidnappers told them they needed to cry. Only she succeeded in doing so. They were treated extremely well and because they were familiar with kidnappings in Yemen they knew it would most likely end well. I think abductions in Yemen happen not just for money but also for tribal negotiations with the government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:How were Western governments supposed to get involved without Russia increasing their backing of Assad and making the shitshow even worse? Especially after the chemical weapons agreement. Intervention with any positive effect for all intents and purposes was removed from the table the day that agreement got done. It had gradually gotten gloomier and gloomier as a prospect over the couple years before that. There were escalations when Assad began full scale military operations against the protesters instead of just placing popshot snipers around them, when people in Syria begrudgingly allowed the jihadists from Iraq to take deep root in the country because they had no one else to turn to, when Russia supplied Assad with advanced air defense equipment to deter intervention, when Hezbollah, Iranian soldiers, and Russian mercenaries began operations in the country, and with the introduction and increasing use of chemical weapons up until the Ghouta attack. After each escalation, the outcomes of both intervention and isolation looked bleaker, but that's the glory of the "we'll just make the shitshow worse" argument. It doesn't require context. You can just reset it every two weeks and always be right. The chemical weapons attack is what really confirmed that this is Assad's world and we're all just living in it. Before then, the US had leverage in diplomatic relations with the opposition. It was largely implied leverage, though. The US "couldn't" act based on the crimes the regime was currently committing, but there was a red line that could not be crossed. People in Syria at that time still had hope. You could see it in the videos. They demanded to know where the UN was. Where the world was. Every time someone got in front of camera, they used it as an opportunity to plead their case to the world, because they thought action could come at any time. They were desperate for someone to listen, and youtube was their pulpit. There were already tensions brewing between the soldiers on the ground and the hotel rebels taking refugee outside the country, so there were other internal conflicts that played a role, but the crucial nail in the coffin was the chemical weapons attack. Nothing made it more clear to the opposition that there was no reason to maintain diplomatic relations with the world than the despicable conduct of the international community after the attack. Obama gave a speech right after detailing the scale of the atrocities committed by the regime, and plead the case for intervention. Americans responded with conspiracy theories in the face of video evidence, news from sources openly owned by the government providing the knives for the shabiha to slit childrens throats with, complaints about spending tax dollars over there when we got problems here, kneejerk anti-war talking points, and my personal favorite, attempts to frame the opposition as responsible for the attacks so that we could pretend the war was senseless black on black violence that there was nothing that could be done about but let nature take its course. It would have been the most unpopular intervention in the last 20 years.  http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-syria-military-intervention-civil-war-chemical-weapons-2013-9 So what did the people of Syria get when the truth finally came out about how far Assad was willing to go to punish dissenters? The people who claimed they would not stand idly by in that hypothetical time of need didn't just stand idly by, they got into bed with the people providing the bombs. The chemical weapons deal provided no benefit for the people suffering in the streets of Homs beyond the vain hope that perhaps if a convoy of OPCW guys rolled through, maybe the ceasefire would be honored for a bit. Maybe they would be so lucky as to be crushed under rubble quickly instead of suffering through sarin exposure. Put yourselves in the shoes of a man who's child was killed in Ghouta. What would you think of the chemical weapons agreement that effectively saved 0 lives? Would you be satisfied? Or would you want to grab those mother fuckers, shake the gently caress out of them, and demand to know how they could be so cold? My guess is the latter, and that was certainly the initial reaction of those who actually had to live with the consequences of the decision instead of those who took 10 seconds to relish in the glory of diplomacy before going back to work and padding up the 401k for their future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C_6CA8Nn3w The point with this is that by utilizing a large scale chemical attack on a civilian populace, Assad got rewarded with everything he wanted. Before the war, his repression was limited to shuffling people off to jail and torturing them in the name of fighting terrorism. Now, he's got the green light to continue full scale military operations specifically segregated against areas that oppose him in the name of fighting terrorism, and he knows for a fact he doesn't have a drat thing to worry about as a consequence. He can show those terrorists how terrifying the Lion can be to his hearts content. Now that the FSA/SNC is gone and replaced with the  Islamic Front, it'll be even easier to portray those who are dying as savages. People will be lining up to poo poo on the opposition as a bunch of lung-eating terrorists now, and I'm sure many of you will take advantage of that opportunity. Putin knows that Assad is safe as a bank, as now both opposition groups are limited to support from Saudi Arabia and rich jihadists around the world, which hasn't been enough to maintain gains over the last 2 years. Plus he can continue to sell surplus military equipment to the regime with fair confidence that it will be put to good use killing al-Qaeda, Just to clarify this, because it bears repeating, a man, in the year of our lord two thousand and thirteen, launched an incomprehensibly despicable attack on innocent people, and got rewarded for it. That's not anyone's fault but those who fought so desperately against intervention because reasons. You guys got handed the reigns to the country, as Obama wasn't willing to act individually in the face of such opposition, and you made Bush blush with how piss poor your foreign policy was. So great work all, really. Now we've got an unresponsive opposition force fighting a brutal jihadist force fighting a genocidal warlord that are all going to be evenly matched for the forseeable future, and 10 million people who don't have a country to live in. But hey, there's no point in doing anything now. You guys are finally right. At this point, we would just make things worse. TL;DR Go donate all your money because we all suck and should be ashamed. http://donate.unhcr.org/international/syria Ardennes posted:Yeah, I am failing to see how the FSA was going to be a potent force in the civil war, especially within the last 4 months. A lot of the opposition against intervention in August was because there was no side to support. This claim is still just as dumb as it was in August when you were shown the composition of opposition forces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:This claim is still just as dumb as it was in August when you were shown the composition of opposition forces. What a selective memory you have, I seem to remember I made the point that the composition of forces was already heavily dominated by Islamists that the Western public had little inclination to support. The American public wasn't going to be interested in supporting "moderate Salafists" even if they were affiliated with the FSA. At that time there were further articles elaborating this that moderates were the smallest and weakest faction overall, and by that point were already failing. If you made the point intervention should have have happened in 2011/2012, that is a different discussion but August 2013 was already chewed over at the time. Honestly, it sounds like you are blaming anti-interventionists and the American public for not wanting a war to happen that how very undefined goals and most likely would have led to an even bigger mess. The fact that the FSA at least as a moderate faction collapsed, sorry to say, most likely shows they haven't been doing very well for a while, longer than 4 months. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:What a selective memory you have, I seem to remember I made the point that the composition of forces was already heavily dominated by Islamists that the Western public had little inclination to support. The American public wasn't going to be interested in supporting "moderate Salafists" even if they were affiliated with the FSA. How does this support the claim that a fighting force of 30,000+ fighters was barely a side? quote:At that time there were further articles elaborating this that moderates were the smallest and weakest faction overall, and by that point were already failing. If you made the point intervention should have have happened in 2011/2012, that is a different discussion but August 2013 was already chewed over at the time. I can find articles that say a lot of things. You can argue that there were Islamists within the FSA who's disagreements with ISIS and JaN were based on things other than religion, but the fact of the matter is that there were over 30,000 fighters that were fighting for the one force that had open diplomatic relations with the west, and allowed western diplomats in every one of their key meetings. They engaged the West and we turned them away. They didn't just vanish. quote:The fact that the FSA at least as a moderate faction collapsed, sorry to say, most likely shows they haven't been doing very well for a while, longer than 4 months. Wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:What a selective memory you have, I seem to remember I made the point that the composition of forces was already heavily dominated by Islamists that the Western public had little inclination to support. The American public wasn't going to be interested in supporting "moderate Salafists" even if they were affiliated with the FSA. Looking back, it seems as if the "not-wanting-war-people" have actually done their best to make things worse. At this point, even carpet-bombing the entire place couldn't be worse: Granting a mercy killing would still be preferable to living (or better, starving) in Syria right now. Well expect for Assad, I can only assume he is living the high life right now. Volkerball posted:Wonder why. Yeah, the one side who didn't get weapons from Russia, or money and soldiers from Saudi Arabia or Quatar, finally collapses. I guess all that fancy "non-lethal" aid didn't help squat. Who could have foreseen that? 
Libluini fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Oh look, more getting angry at people who ask questions about bombing. But look at this:SedanChair posted:You're the one proposing action, so the burden of proof is on you. I want to see an awareness of the many factors affecting violence. How will strikes affect the sectarian balance? How will it lead to a mitigation of the violent and exploitative activity by regime elements, rebels and the many foreign fighters and criminals now plying their trade in Syria and its border regions? The only answers I ever got to this were 1) you're personally Assad for wanting this level of detail sheesh it's just bombing and 2) Obama must have a secret plan, it'll work but only if he doesn't tell us what it is. How about you Volksie? Got anything new for me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:What a selective memory you have, I seem to remember I made the point that the composition of forces was already heavily dominated by Islamists that the Western public had little inclination to support. The American public wasn't going to be interested in supporting "moderate Salafists" even if they were affiliated with the FSA. The narrative was being formed as early as summer 2012 - regular broadcast TV actually had news stories when the FSA successfully planted a bomb in a top Regime meeting. That was when the whole freedom fighter/terrorist division began to erode in the public mind, and hopefully no politician will try to use it again without being laughed at as a Reaganist dinosaur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:How does this support the claim that a fighting force of 30,000+ fighters was barely a side? The issue being it was unclear how loyal those fighters, how many of them joined the Islamic front shortly after? I quote:I can find articles that say a lot of things. You can argue that there were Islamists within the FSA who's disagreements with ISIS and JaN were based on things other than religion, but the fact of the matter is that there were over 30,000 fighters that were fighting for the one force that had open diplomatic relations with the west, and allowed western diplomats in every one of their key meetings. They engaged the West and we turned them away. They didn't just vanish. They continued to dwindle in size and strength, now 4 months later they seem to have ended as a moderate force. I think the case clearly can be made that they were already a greatly weakened faction back then and the West would have likely had to apply its will directly or work with the Islamist/Salafist factions to get what it wanted done, neither option the American public especially was interested in There was no exit strategy for Syria even if there was a faction we were in diplomatic contact with. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about you Volksie? Got anything new for me? I'm not spending the morning on effort posts. You lurk the thread. I'll get to it this week, though as I said, the scenarios look a lot prettier the later back you start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If I remember this thread correctly, about zero. Or did you mean in the real world? Depressingly many, I would guess. Volkerball did as well. In case you didn't notice him dropping in right after you asked that question. Volkerball posted:I'm not spending the morning on effort posts. You lurk the thread. I'll get to it this week, though as I said, the scenarios look a lot prettier the later back you start. I'm really curious whether you support overthrowing the junta in Egypt. You know, before things get ugly and people start getting massacred by the regime. Oh wait, that already happened and you were Al-Sisi Cheerleader #1 the whole time. Funny that. Gotta love the consistent stance of "force should be used on people I disagree with", at least it's practical. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Volkerball did as well. In case you didn't notice him dropping in right after you asked that question. I didn't really interpret his opinion as "cheering". Just slightly different than mine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'm not spending the morning on effort posts. You lurk the thread. I'll get to it this week, though as I said, the scenarios look a lot prettier the later back you start. You could have spent the effort you did on this post giving us a little précis. Sounds like you don't have a lot, understandable given that the leaders of the West don't either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I literally cannot believe that there are posters here pissed off at the US for failing to involve ourselves in a middle eastern civil war. How loving stupid could you possibly be? It's also worth noting that many posters (myself included) believed that a military intervention should happen, but wouldn't support the US going off and unilaterally bombing/invading yet another country. From what I remember there was a fair bit of support here for a Uniting For Peace-type resolution or other international intervention. So no, not really just "liberals cheering that they stopped a war" or whatever dumb strawman people were knocking down a page ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
I'd really love if this conversation of who is Hitler went on for another 2 pages. Thanks everyone for making my dream come true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You could have spent the effort you did on this post giving us a little précis. Sounds like you don't have a lot, understandable given that the leaders of the West don't either. How can I give you that when you asked several complicated questions and wanted several points addressed specifically because you didn't want fuzziness? Prior to Russia sending those missile defense systems, we could have enacted a Libya style fly zone, unfortunately still with risk to American lives, but it would have severely degraded the ability of the regime to use artillery at will on residential areas, and ended the bombing runs. Russia ships all their stuff in to Syria, so it would have taken a while for them to respond to a quick strike. The immediate impact would have stunted the regime from carrying out attacks on residential areas on the side, while giving the FSA an opportunity to strengthen hold on territory and provide a safe area for internally displaced. The damage would have been significantly less than what it's been with 3 years of nonstop bombing. Jihadists weren't there yet, but god knows they were watching. I'm not sure how they would respond to an intervention with no boots on the ground beyond acts of terror wherever they could. Instead of having 3 even strength forces, we'd have one crippled/dead one, one with solid control working with the international community and providing aid to refugees, and a sectarian element rather than a caliphate that has been carved out and will be defended viciously. Acceptable to the US public at the time? No. Better for Syria and the world? I definitely think so. That's the ceiling. It's all downhill from there. Paul MaudDib posted:Volkerball did as well. In case you didn't notice him dropping in right after you asked that question. You are the only one who keeps at this strawman, and it's getting ridiculous. 2 days after the coup. Volkerball posted:^^^I'm not claiming that the military won't renege on the word at a later date, just stating that it would fly in the face of everything they've said and done thus far. It could be 7th dimensional chess, but every statement out of the military is that they are acting alongside the court, executing the will of the people, fixing the democratic framework to improve the electoral and legislative process, etc. gently caress yeah al-Sisi best Sisi!  
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's also worth noting that many posters (myself included) believed that a military intervention should happen, but wouldn't support the US going off and unilaterally bombing/invading yet another country. From what I remember there was a fair bit of support here for a Uniting For Peace-type resolution or other international intervention. A UN resolution or the like wasn't really an option. After Libya, Russia was determined to block any and all attempts to launch a similar intervention in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:A UN resolution or the like wasn't really an option. After Libya, Russia was determined to block any and all attempts to launch a similar intervention in Syria. You obviously don't know what the Uniting For Peace resolution was, because otherwise this post is totally nonsensical. I'll do the google for you: quote:United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A,[1] the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity amongst its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time the General Assembly may meet using the mechanism of the emergency special session. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
I wonder if Volkie thinks the US could have won Vietnam but for the media and the goddamn hippies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I wonder if Volkie thinks the US could have won Vietnam but for the media and the goddamn hippies. I'm sure I fit nice and perfectly into your pre-held misconceptions about what people advocating intervention in Syria are like, otherwise you wouldn't hold them. This is the ME thread, not the Volkerball thread. Why don't you try addressing my points?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
So has the current outcome in Syria been worth keeping the US from taking a more active role in the conflict?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Scoops posted:So has the current outcome in Syria been worth keeping the US from taking a more active role in the conflict? What do you mean by "the current outcome"? There wasn't really any path forward that didn't lead to a meatgrinder for the Syrian people, which is why attacking was opposed by a pretty broad coalition in the US. It's not enough to just roll into Baghdad, overthrow the dictator, pull down some statues with a tank, and wave goodbye to a bunch of people standing in the wreckage of their infrastructure. The US "intervening" in that situation (be realistic, it would eventually have become an invasion) would have been a massive escalation and there was no realistic plan for any sort of endgame. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'm sure I fit nice and perfectly into your pre-held misconceptions about what people advocating intervention in Syria are like, otherwise you wouldn't hold them. This is the ME thread, not the Volkerball thread. Why don't you try addressing my points? You just got done trying to crucify anti-interventions as monsters, what do you think would happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
I'm going to make a few points here, based on certain language being used and how the debate is moving about. 1) Talk of Assad vs "the People" of Syria -Syria is a place of many people, and the civil war has turned into a very sectarian conflict. Sunnis, who form the majority, have gotten the worst of the war and were not well treated before the conflict anyway. However Alawite (read Shia) and Christian minorities still back Assad, or at won't oppose him. These people are rather terrified of the rebels winning, because it means the brutal fate of their Sunni countrymen would befall them. We can't just talk about "the people" of Syria if you're going to talk about their views or goals. As one can expect in a civil or indeed any war, there is more than one side. 2) The US/West has stood by and just watched the disaster unfold. -The US and other countries like France, Saudi Arabia etc have backed the rebels openly for some time. With arms, money, "non-lethal aid" and training in Jordan. There were also several big attempts to get the rebels to actually work together. International conferences with nations keen on backing the rebels got them all together, and promised to shower them with help if they could only unify so they knew who they were backing. It didn't happen. But support was provided anyway, including who knows what sort of secret support. Really quite a lot has been done to back the rebels, but it wasn't enough to overthrow Assad. Just because there wasn't a happy ending, didn't mean that the US wasn't helping the rebels. 3) US intervention = peace. -I'm not really sure what to say about this one. Airstrikes and backing former-regime generals doesn't sound terribly peaceful to me, in the short or long runs. Backing one side in a war means helping to kill the other side. Occupation would be a huge gently caress-up, UN intervention was never a possibility. Would it save lives? Maybe? Pretty hard to know how such a chaotic situation will turn out when you throw some bombs in to it, especially when there are other nations backing different sides. 4) Knee-jerk non-interventionalist. - Have you looked at Iraq lately? Seriously. Syria is so hosed partially because what already happened to Iraq. Count Roland fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
All in all, how many guns did we end up sending to the Syrian rebels anyways?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Final UN Report on CW in Syria has been published.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You just got done trying to crucify anti-interventions as monsters, what do you think would happen? After some sleep looking back on it, a lot of that was emotionally charged and unfair in the heat of the moment, but of course I stand by the underlying points. I know nobody here wants to see bad things happen to Syria. I hope Muffiner is right, and the introduction of the Islamic Front stands up to his high praise. Just not too sure how they can end the stalemate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Just read the Khan al-Assal part of the UN report, just Tweeted my first impressionsquote:Some Khan al-Assal witnesses claimed a plane dropped a "Sarin" bomb according to the UN report..... I'm off to bed, so you can read my Tweeted thoughts on the report here for the time being. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/missing-american-iran-was-working-cia Morons... quote:At its core, the CIA is made up of two groups: operatives and analysts. Operatives collect intelligence and recruit spies. Analysts receive strands of information and weave them together, making sense of the world for Washington decision-makers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Having watched way too many spy movies, and going by the man's pedigree, isn't this the quintessential NOC story? At the same time, having read how the CIA is filled with boy scouts who quash any real creativity, incompetence can't be ruled out either. Still, like the NSA story, conspiracy nuts will have a field day. I imagine this man will never see home now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
point of return posted:All in all, how many guns did we end up sending to the Syrian rebels anyways? The US was dangling $250 million as a prize for the rebels if they met long term conditions. That was the big score. For context, that would buy just two of the s-300 systems that Russia is selling to Syria, and is 1/16 the annual contribution to the Israeli military. I think their aid was inconsequential at best, and they had the FSA bent over a barrel at worst. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran provided much more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The US was dangling $250 million as a prize for the rebels if they met long term conditions. That was the big score. For context, that would buy just two of the s-300 systems that Russia is selling to Syria, and is 1/16 the annual contribution to the Israeli military. I think their aid was inconsequential at best, and they had the FSA bent over a barrel at worst. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran provided much more. Didn't the US (help) fund the Croatian weapons shipment? I was under the impression that was all-but-officially confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The US was dangling $250 million as a prize for the rebels if they met long term conditions. That was the big score. For context, that would buy just two of the s-300 systems that Russia is selling to Syria, and is 1/16 the annual contribution to the Israeli military. I think their aid was inconsequential at best, and they had the FSA bent over a barrel at worst. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran provided much more. Say that the U.S. had gone all-in with aid and began giving the FSA small arms, artillery, tanks, etc. That scenario sounds to me like the perfect situation for an escalating proxy war. Wouldn't the Saudis, Russians, and Iranians respond by increasing aid or offering more direct support? We could still have ended up with a three-way civil war, just with even more heavily armed sides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 25, 2025 03:16 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:The US was dangling $250 million as a prize for the rebels if they met long term conditions. That was the big score. For context, that would buy just two of the s-300 systems that Russia is selling to Syria, and is 1/16 the annual contribution to the Israeli military. I think their aid was inconsequential at best, and they had the FSA bent over a barrel at worst. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran provided much more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 04:31
|
|
