|
Nobody was dropping barrel bombs or half ton dumb bombs from helicopters and airplanes on the green zone.
Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Dec 23, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
As long as we're arguing historical counterfactuals let's go back in time and have Britain and France honor their promises to the Arabs. Blamo, Syria is a Hashemite kingdom similar to Jordan and everyone lives happily ever after* *lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
OK now Kaiserreich Universe: drat those poor Alawites and their Arab brethren being oppressed by the Ottoman Turks. It must suck to be religiously persecuted as the peaceful Alawites are. I bet they would totally be magnanimous and graceful rulers of a country if given the chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Complete, Somalia-style state collapse and anarchy would literally be better than the present conflict Liberals and Libertarians, united in their stoic appreciation for Somalian anarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f94b_story.html It's hosed up that so many Serious People (including Cameron and Hollande, apparently) want the US to start bombing civilians. Not that the US government isn't already complicit in Saudi Arabia's bombing of civilians in Yemen, but still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f94b_story.html If France and the UK would like to dictate how a military campaign unfolds, then perhaps they should build one that doesn't require the US to hold their hands every time they deploy equipment more than 100 miles outside of their border.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f94b_story.html "Start"? You're being rather generous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:"Start"? You're being rather generous. Point taken. "Start bombing civilians more deliberately," perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Liberals and Libertarians, united in their stoic appreciation for Somalian anarchy. Have a gif comparing January 2015 to December 2015: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You wrote a lot here, but I'm just going to address this. We couldn't stop the Green Zone from being bombed daily, in a country we occupied with 100,000+ troops. Why would you think that we would have been able to achieve something like that, spanning cities and dozens of miles, in a civil war split by a bewildering set of participants, in a country that would see it as an act of war? A no fly zone would have de facto created a safe zone, so it's not a matter of how on earth you're going to create something stable in the middle of chaos. Assad used his air power to project his influence in areas that otherwise he wouldn't be able to touch. The opposition was able to take over vast stretches of the country, which made areas in northern and southern Syria invulnerable to ground operations. But they still faced a brutal bombing campaign as punishment for the existence of the revolution. And these regions were typically where the IDP's fled to seeking some form of safety, on the fringes of the battlefield, and there was only one reason they couldn't find it. Assad's air force. The situation in those regions isn't even close to comparable with Baghdad on any metric. A more comparable instance would be debating whether a NFZ could have prevented a second al-Anfal campaign when Saddam was on the march to Kurdistan in '91. (It did.) And Syrians overwhelmingly supported a no fly zone at the time. Not long ago, these people were praising Israel for bombing Hezbollah. Furthermore, the majority of Libyans supported the US intervention after it happened. There's no reason whatsoever to assume a NFZ would have been seen as anything other what it what it was, the good and right thing to do. And on the other side of the table, ISIS cited US inaction while Syrians were being blown to pieces, as evidence that the US didn't give a poo poo about Muslims. And the propaganda that is 100% rooted in truth is always the most damaging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Because ISIS didn't exist in Syria until this unimaginable bullshit had been swept under the carpet for 2 years. Ah yes, the annual "if we would have waved our fairy wand at just the right second this could have all been avoided" volkpost. I thought you gave up on this nonsense- there's no evidence at all to support your claims and your ideas are based purely on supposition you pulled from your butt. Like not even being a dick here, you have no evidence whatsoever for how a US invasion would have turned out. It can always be worse. You sound like a neocon in the leadup to Iraq, "tell me liebrals, how can removing a maniac dictator make things worse  . This time is different! Ardennes posted:In 2014, Obama didn't want to get dragged into another war, especially one without a clear exit strategy (and there wasn't one for him). As for 2012, it really wasn't workable either unless we wanted to take out Assad/SAA out while at the same time trying to withdrawal from Afghanistan. This is also true, there was absolutely no political will at the time regardless. Sergg posted:As long as we're arguing historical counterfactuals let's go back in time and have Britain and France honor their promises to the Arabs. Blamo, Syria is a Hashemite kingdom similar to Jordan and everyone lives happily ever after* Or what if we intervened in Ukraine, can't appease Putin because Hitler after all. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:44
|
|
Kind of using your post as a launching pad here Anos, so not saying this all applies to you.
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Ah yes, the annual "if we would have waved our fairy wand at just the right second this could have all been avoided" volkpost. I thought you gave up on this nonsense- there's no evidence at all to support your claims and your ideas are based purely on supposition you pulled from your butt. Like not even being a dick here, you have no evidence whatsoever for how a US invasion would have turned out. It can always be worse. You sound like a neocon in the leadup to Iraq, "tell me liebrals, how can removing a maniac dictator make things worse I rest my case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
I'm not saying that a No Fly Zone would have turned out worse but it IS really ridiculous to try and treat it as some self-evident truth. All of our recent near-east adventures have ended really horribly for one reason or another and I'm not going to begrudge anyone for assuming that Syria 2012 would as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
I'd rather have Syria be in the state Lybia is now in than in it the state it is now. That seems the most likely outcome from a no-fly zone, and still better than the current one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:I'd rather have Syria be in the state Lybia is now in than in it the state it is now. That seems the most likely outcome from a no-fly zone, and still better than the current one. I think I'd rather have Vilerat back tbh. VV its a grim calculus but you're not exactly talking me out of it VV DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Without the no fly zone the Libyan civil war would almost certainly have been longer and bloodier and many more SA forums moderators would have died
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Yes libya is in such a great state you know with the slow burning fuse to an even bloodier civil war and all
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Yes libya is in such a great state you know with the slow burning fuse to an even bloodier civil war and all Libya has been and is currently, by any metric you choose to throw out, a much lower intensity of a conflict than Syria. I think that's the point being made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I think I'd rather have Vilerat back tbh. Yeah I for one miss his great insights into African culture
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Has everyone forgotten that the Obama administration sought congressional authorization for military action in Syria, which was wildly unpopular and went nowhere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autho...hemical_Weapons Yes I know the president of the US has pretty wide ranging military powers. But even in wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. the President rarely goes in without at least some sort of authorization from Congress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah I for one miss his great insights into African culture Africa would have been subjected to a bloodbath of proportions unseen in history if the white man hadn't destroyed their culture first. Example: The Libyan Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Has everyone forgotten that the Obama administration sought congressional authorization for military action in Syria, which was wildly unpopular and went nowhere? Obama could have easily gone into an air dominance and bombing campaign over Syria easily while still following the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which would pretty much give him a 2 month leeway of conducting combat operations, plus an additional 30 days for withdrawal, without having a Congressional authorization. gently caress, the US air campaign in Libya lasted 7 months and Congress refused to give Obama authorization at the 90-day mark, which Obama ignored and continued devoting military assets until Qaddafi was overthrown. Where was that Obama in 2013? The story I remember hearing is that Assad called his bluff, knowing that if Barack did follow through, it would end up as an Iraq-style "regime change" intervention and the American public wasn't ready for that poo poo again, and Obama needed a way out while saving face, so he threw that bone to his rivals in Congress to bury the issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
The battle for Ramadi is going again. The Iraqi army is pushing north along the east side of the Euphrates to secure bridges. This will probably take weeks but it looks like they are making steady progress. Apparently the locals are stoked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tzGJ8EdQs
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I rest my case. I do not understand this post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Africa would have been subjected to a bloodbath of proportions unseen in history if the white man hadn't destroyed their culture first. Muammar Ghaddafi was Africa's culture personified. Imagine I posted a portrait of Ghaddafi, done in the style of the portrait of Che Guevara, crying a single tear at this post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Obama could have easily gone into an air dominance and bombing campaign over Syria easily while still following the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which would pretty much give him a 2 month leeway of conducting combat operations, plus an additional 30 days for withdrawal, without having a Congressional authorization. gently caress, the US air campaign in Libya lasted 7 months and Congress refused to give Obama authorization at the 90-day mark, which Obama ignored and continued devoting military assets until Qaddafi was overthrown. Where was that Obama in 2013? I recall Russia also being a factor, especially given their close relationship with Assad and their naval base. Provoking confrontation with them over Syria, which the American people didn't have the stomach for after the other ME conflicts, wasn't really in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:I recall Russia also being a factor, especially given their close relationship with Assad and their naval base. Provoking confrontation with them over Syria, which the American people didn't have the stomach for after the other ME conflicts, wasn't really in the cards. I do too but I can't for the life of me remember why, especially considering how close America came to bombing Assad anyway. There were a lot of vague threats but on the whole I don't think Russia was in a great position to react to a bombing campaign, at least inside Syria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Another reason Obama did everything he could to avoid bombing Assad was so it didn't scuttle the nuclear deal talks with Iran, which Obama wanted to succeed as part of his ~*L E G A C Y*~
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Radio Prune posted:Another reason Obama did everything he could to avoid bombing Assad was so it didn't scuttle the nuclear deal talks with Iran, which Obama wanted to succeed as part of his ~*L E G A C Y*~ When did the talks begin? Because the Syrian civil war has been going on since 2011 and there's been pressure on the west to do some kind of bombing campaign or no fly zone ever since the war began. Especially after the chemical attack in 2013. I can't imagine Obama avoided military intervention in Syria so as not to screw up and Iranian nuclear talks that hadnt even taken place yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:When did the talks begin? Because the Syrian civil war has been going on since 2011 and there's been pressure on the west to do some kind of bombing campaign or no fly zone ever since the war began. Especially after the chemical attack in 2013. I can't imagine Obama avoided military intervention in Syria so as not to screw up and Iranian nuclear talks that hadnt even taken place yet. The pressure to start a bombing campaign came to a head after the Ghouta attacks. Obama declined to act, and a few weeks later it was revealed that the US had been conducting secret talks with Iran for some time. I do think this played a role. My opinion is that Obama would have reluctantly gone ahead, but the British parliament's surprise refusal threw a spanner in the works. Unpopular internationally and at home, Obama could lob the issue to congress, confident it wouldn't go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Looks like the Syrian government has struck a deal with ISIS fighters in South Damascus via the UN, and loyalists are reporting that they and their families will be given safe passage to Raqqa starting this weekend. BBC seems to confirm some of the details: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35175479
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:My opinion is that Obama would have reluctantly gone ahead, but the British parliament's surprise refusal threw a spanner in the works. Unpopular internationally and at home, Obama could lob the issue to congress, confident it wouldn't go anywhere. Yup, boom. Nailed it. I was literally right about to post this. UK's Prime Minister was super embarrassed by his parliament's surprise refusal and Obama would have been going in alone. In Libya we had NATO and a UNSC resolution due to Ghaddafi's diplomatic isolation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Very rapid advance on Tishrin Dam happening: https://twitter.com/4rj1n/status/679737495676960768 quote:Coalition warplanes providing airsupport to SDF op south of Sarrin. SDF advance but has to take care of mines and booby traps along the way.     https://twitter.com/4rj1n/status/679925417332109312 quote:ANHA interviews SDF commander Dijwar Xebat (member of YPG) regarding latest op south of Kobane. The most important part of the above is this: quote:ANHA: What is the aim of the operation? 
fade5 fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Yup, boom. Nailed it. I was literally right about to post this. UK's Prime Minister was super embarrassed by his parliament's surprise refusal and Obama would have been going in alone. In Libya we had NATO and a UNSC resolution due to Ghaddafi's diplomatic isolation. Can someone elaborate a little more on this? Why would the British Parliament be opposed to an intervention (besides the obvious Iraq memories)? Sorry if that sounds a bit ignorant but I know even less about British politics than I do about American politics so I'm kind of flying blind here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Nobody was dropping barrel bombs or half ton dumb bombs from helicopters and airplanes on the green zone. Its not about the type of ordinance dropped, but the ability of the US to effectively control the ground in Syria and Iraq enough to cease violence by opposing armies, whose strength and power is only made stronger by the presence of foreign ground troops (which would be necessary , in my mind, to effect a NFZ).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:A no fly zone would have de facto created a safe zone, so it's not a matter of how on earth you're going to create something stable in the middle of chaos. Assad used his air power to project his influence in areas that otherwise he wouldn't be able to touch. The opposition was able to take over vast stretches of the country, which made areas in northern and southern Syria invulnerable to ground operations. But they still faced a brutal bombing campaign as punishment for the existence of the revolution. And these regions were typically where the IDP's fled to seeking some form of safety, on the fringes of the battlefield, and there was only one reason they couldn't find it. Assad's air force. The situation in those regions isn't even close to comparable with Baghdad on any metric. A more comparable instance would be debating whether a NFZ could have prevented a second al-Anfal campaign when Saddam was on the march to Kurdistan in '91. (It did.) So where is the Assad government in all this? Attempting a NFZ would amount to a declaration of war on Assad, as destroying his AA related military machine would require an effort abd intensity that dwarfed anything we have ever in thr ME outside of the second Gulf War (and would even be greater than that, since Syrian military assets circa 2012 were much more impressive than the ones under Saddam's in 2003). So the US would entering the Syrian war with the aim of toppling the Assad govt, considering the likely rolling stone of consequences from the first time an F-16 takes out an Assad SAM network. How can you say that this would, positively and absolutely, not just add more chaos to the situation in Syria and abroad? Edit: okay, you have the argument that Assad did not have effective control over areas that would have been under the NFZ, and taking that at its value (and discounting that air strikes would still have to occur in the heart of Assad's military machine, as history shows that air campaigns are incredibly expansive affairs by necessity), what about the ostensibly anti US jihadi forces? You constantly talk about 2012 being the point being the point before their domination of rebel forces, but if recent history screams anything, the greatest recruitment tool for increasingly radicalized terrorism are US military campaigns. This alone throws the idea of imposing a NFZ being easily done out of wack. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:Can someone elaborate a little more on this? Why would the British Parliament be opposed to an intervention (besides the obvious Iraq memories)? Sorry if that sounds a bit ignorant but I know even less about British politics than I do about American politics so I'm kind of flying blind here. The obvious explanation fits well. Blair's decision to go to Iraq is viewed as at least a mistake, if not an utter disaster. The debate in parliament constantly referenced Iraq, and it was specially cited by many those who voted against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:The obvious explanation fits well. Blair's decision to go to Iraq is viewed as at least a mistake, if not an utter disaster. The debate in parliament constantly referenced Iraq, and it was specially cited by many those who voted against. Yes the anti-intervention mood was strong and is still strong in the British psyche (thank gently caress) but that particular vote was counter posed with a motion by the opposition to only approve action after an investigation rather than to start immediately. The number of MPs that voting to bomb Syria was a majority but neither side was so eager to bomb Assad that they'd cross party lines to make it happen, meaning both motions failed and we stayed out of it for another few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
I think its important to remember that the northern safe haven in Iraq was not created purely by the declaration of an NFZ but through the deployment of actual troops on the ground during Provide Comfort I which established the safe zone before Provide Comfort II kicked in with humanitarian responsibilities on the ground transferring to the UN after the UN and Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The ground deployments forced the Iraqi withdrawal and established the borders of the safe haven which could then be policed purely from the air, and even then Saddam proved himself more than capable of penetrating into the safe zones on the ground with little active opposition - the successful government assault on Erbil in '96 for example provoked a reaction from the US after the fact based on Resolution 688 which actively protected Iraqi civilians from "repression". I'm not sure you could have got a resolution as robust as 688 for Syria and the idea of deploying ground troops to establish the boundaries of a safe zone as in Iraq hardly seems likely, I really don't think the relative success of the northern safe zone in Iraq is comparable to anything that could have/could be established in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
namesake posted:Yes the anti-intervention mood was strong and is still strong in the British psyche (thank gently caress) but that particular vote was counter posed with a motion by the opposition to only approve action after an investigation rather than to start immediately. The number of MPs that voting to bomb Syria was a majority but neither side was so eager to bomb Assad that they'd cross party lines to make it happen, meaning both motions failed and we stayed out of it for another few years. So was it the Paris attacks that lit a fire up their asses this last time that they went to approve bombing sorties and now even want to throw caution to the wind and bomb with high chance of civilian casualties?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 03:09
|
|