|
Willie Tomg posted:Well for starters assuming Assad Must Go, then doing the needful means Damascus is definitely, 100% getting the Aleppo/Mosul/Raqqa treatment What? Russia will bomb damascus?
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:We have interests outside of Syria, so pretending nothing outside of Syria matters doesn't make any sense. You don't get to wall off one part of the world and say nothing we do here has consequences outside of it. We'd be breaking the rules in a big way, in a country another major power reasonably considers to be under its protection. I didn't say it didn't have consequences. I said. Consequences. In. Syria. As for breaking the rules, I think we're long past the point of any of those mattering. Like, decades past. If you're afraid of Russian retaliation, you do you. I don't much care for threats myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:A world war once started when someone assassinated an heir apparent to the throne. The assignation wasn't the causative effect, it's dubious to call it a contributory factor even. Not even WWI could adequately solve the underlying crisis which led to it, which is why after a brief ceasefire the armies went back at it again and called it WWII (even though for all intents and purposes WWII was a continuation of WWI). There are times when Great Man theory has a place, but not here really-- when you have a powderkeg and shower it with a million sparks the exact specific spark that sets it off is irrelevant for everything but trivia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
lollontee posted:I didn't say it didn't have consequences. I said. Consequences. In. Syria. I'm saying it's stupid and arbitrary to draw that line, and I'm not going to play that idiotic game. It's cool how everything anyone does in response to our actions is a threat we shouldn't be afraid of, but anything we do in response to someone else's actions is just self evidently correct and necessary. You're so gung ho and sure of yourself that you read like a parody of actual warmongers who bother to have some idea of what they're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
lollontee posted:What? Russia will bomb damascus? The regime will not just give up the capital, and I'm assuming you're putting forward a faction that isn't the regime seizing control. That's gonna be a fight. If you think Jeffersonian Democracy is gonna spring forth simply because America shoots a dude then I need to ask you politely to not post this drunk and possibly horny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
guys lets not get this worked up until the bombs actually start dropping with any notable force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The regime will not just give up the capital, and I'm assuming you're putting forward a faction that isn't the regime seizing control. That's gonna be a fight. If you think Jeffersonian Democracy is gonna spring forth simply because America shoots a dude then I need to ask you politely to not post this drunk and possibly horny. I didn't say they would, stop assuming things. All I said and argued for the past two pages is that assasinating Assad would have a good chance of collapsing the regime. I would like to see PYD taking over the whole country, but the regime needs to fall before that could happen. What happens on the way there isn't part of my argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
For the record, I support a limited strike against the regime's CW capabilities, think Assad's a moron for forcing this confrontation, and really think Russia needs to do a better job of policing its idiot protectorate to prevent this poo poo.lollontee posted:I would like to see PYD taking over the whole country, but the regime needs to fall before that could happen. What happens on the way there isn't part of my argument. Oh word, replacing the Alawite minority domination of a Sunni majority with a bunch of communist Kurds who are Turkey's number one enemy running the country would work out great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
If somebody kills Assad, his successor won't be selected by the Syrian people, he will be selected by his handlers from Iran and Russia, from among current government hardliners. Would that achieve anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If somebody kills Assad, his successor won't be selected by the Syrian people, he will be selected by his handlers from Iran and Russia, from among current government hardliners. Would that achieve anything? I'd say that mostly depends on what the reasoning behind the chemical attacks was. If it's an original Assad idea, maybe him getting ganked will at least
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
lollontee posted:I didn't say they would, stop assuming things. All I said and argued for the past two pages is that assasinating Assad would have a good chance of collapsing the regime. You've done so in a way where the necessary presumptions to think so are fantastical, which is annoying, because there's quite a bit of evidence to show for a while now the regime is surprisingly decentralized specifically in its military organization and your evidence that the entire nation hinges on the 2nd son of the family who just needs to die and that'll end the SCW and that all those militias will pack it in and welcome Jaish al-Islam back into Douma and even their own neighborhoods is that you would really like that to be true. lollontee posted:I would like to see PYD taking over the whole country, but the regime needs to fall before that could happen. What happens on the way there isn't part of my argument. The PYD would not. They have good reasons for not wanting to. That's kinda the problem! Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
What is the end goal of a Western strike here? Punitive? "Hey you killed people with gas, we just hosed up your bases"? Turning the side surely isn't the goal as A. Russia won't allow it and B. No countries involved want to get that far in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:You've done so in a way where the necessary presumptions to think so are fantastical, which is annoying, because there's quite a bit of evidence to show for a while now the regime is surprisingly decentralized specifically in its military organization and your evidence that the entire nation hinges on the 2nd son of the family who just needs to die and that'll end the SCW and that all those militias will pack it in and welcome Jaish al-Islam back into Douma and even their own neighborhoods is that you would really like that to be true. It's exactly that decentralization that makes the collapse likely. There isn't a unified leadeship with a second-in-command waiting to take the reigns in case Assad is killed. Instead, there's an infinity of possible rival centers for power for the regime to disintegrate to. As for the Islamists taking power, well that's a question you might wanna raise with someone who doesn't think that Erdogan and Saudis are the scum of the earth and the enemies of everything I stand for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
pro starcraft loser posted:What is the end goal of a Western strike here? Punitive? "Hey you killed people with gas, we just hosed up your bases"? Turning the side surely isn't the goal as A. Russia won't allow it and B. No countries involved want to get that far in. Make it so it's not worth it for Assad to use chemical attacks. If every time he does it he has to spend weeks rebuilding air strips he hopefully knocks it the gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
lollontee posted:It's exactly that decentralization that makes the collapse likely. There isn't a unified leadeship with a second-in-command waiting to take the reigns in case Assad is killed. Instead, there's an infinity of possible rival centers for power for the regime to disintegrate to. Kabul 1992. and that's the best case scenario which assumes everyone sits on their hands and lets the infinitely militarized hellzone play out between israel, iraq, and turkey
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
pro starcraft loser posted:What is the end goal of a Western strike here? Punitive? "Hey you killed people with gas, we just hosed up your bases"? Turning the side surely isn't the goal as A. Russia won't allow it and B. No countries involved want to get that far in. As usual, expanding US sphere of dominance
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
pro starcraft loser posted:What is the end goal of a Western strike here? Punitive? "Hey you killed people with gas, we just hosed up your bases"? Turning the side surely isn't the goal as A. Russia won't allow it and B. No countries involved want to get that far in. To degrade and, as possible, eliminate the Iranian base of influence in Syria. All the geopolitical stars are aligned with this one objective and it serves the purpose of weakening Assad's ability to project force internally. Also losses would require Iran to fill up stockpiles and get more green troops in while their currency is at its weakest. Given some KSA-RUS talks, even Russia might be OK with this so long as their interests are preserved. Russia couldn't care less about dead Iranians or Lebanese and its only result will be more weapons sales. CW is just a casus belli for something completely unrelated. e: Not to mention, Israel, KSA, and Bolton would absolutely love to goad Iran into retaliation to escalate further. I doubt Iran will bite in any traditional way. guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The PYD would not. They have good reasons for not wanting to. That's kinda the problem! I mean they've pretty continuously said that Democratic Confederalism could serve as a solution to the Syria Crisis, and since they're the standard bearers for democratic confederalism in syria that's basically de-facto saying "we would do a pretty good job running the country!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:As usual, expanding US sphere of dominance We aren't expanding poo poo. This is a reminder that it exists and there will necessarily be a price for openly defying its mandates. The really sick thing is nobody would really give a gently caress if it was a barrel bomb that blew up that shelter in Douma because even with PGM that stuff still happens. It's posturing. All of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Russia might be OK with this so long as their interests are preserved. Russia couldn't care less about dead Iranians or Lebanese and its only result will be more weapons sales. I don't think Russia's walking away from Iran and Hezbollah that fast given how unreliable Turkey's been as a partner in Syria. Every time it looks like they're going to start making out, Russia or Turkey gets pissed off and calls out the other one, and honestly it seems like Turkey might be the one getting the better end of the deal these days. Willie Tomg posted:We aren't expanding poo poo. This is a reminder that it exists and there will necessarily be a price for openly defying its mandates. Syria was never in our sphere of influence, and was always in Russia's. Our interventions, small though they've been, have been an expansion against Russian interests. Russia's done a really lovely job of keeping their boy from crossing big glaring lines though, so I think limited actions make some amount of sense as long as they don't pull us into a deeper conflict.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Oh, I don't think Russia is walking away. They absolutely rely on those partners, but they can afford to look the other way while USA mows the lawn, so to speak. They're just playing both sides for the sake of expediency. Iran has no choice but to accept because of how overstretched they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Kabul 1992. History doesn't repeat itself. Funny you should bring up the last time Russia intervened in ME as an argument for a good outcome for letting Assad reconquer the whole country, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Syria was never in our sphere of influence, and was always in Russia's. Our interventions, small though they've been, have been an expansion against Russian interests. Russia's done a really lovely job of keeping their boy from crossing big glaring lines though, so I think limited actions make some amount of sense as long as they don't pull us into a deeper conflict. This is way closer to what I'm thinking. And I will admit, I was totally on board with stating it made no sense for Assad to do this etc, etc, then Russia vetoed deployment of a OPCW team. I can't imagine anything screaming guilt as loudly as that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
lollontee posted:History doesn't repeat itself. It does, however, rhyme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
Lister on Daily Beast earlier this week beating the drum for war against Iran in Syria: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-israeli-airstrike-on-syria-monday-a-message-to-iran-russia-and-trump Beltway folks really love killing, killing, and more killing to turn their tautologies into reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:NK only really started gunning for those nukes back when it started becoming appearent that the US will invade at the drop of a hat, so kind of? I have no idea what timeline you think makes this plausible. By the time, say Bush II was hyping up North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran, the North Korea nuclear weapons program had been underway again for many years (there was a temporary halt between Soviet collapse and the end of the great famine, during this period was also when the US finished removign all nuclear weapons from South Korean soil). They succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon after Bush started yelling, but that was only possible because they had already been working for many years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:As usual, expanding US sphere of dominance 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:We aren't expanding poo poo. This is a reminder that it exists and there will necessarily be a price for openly defying its mandates. The really sick thing is nobody would really give a gently caress if it was a barrel bomb that blew up that shelter in Douma because even with PGM that stuff still happens. I'm gonna reiterate a thing I've said before: while filing chemical weapons directly with nuclear and biological weapons is facially very stupid, there are very good and very practical reasons for making them Very Unacceptable. To wit: chemical weapons, realistically, are meant to target civilians. Military forces will almost by definition be more equipped to resist them than civilians. Chemical weapons are therefore Bad and discouraging their use is, if appropriately carried out, Good. (trump's a moron and I don't trust him to even do this right, but)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
well the good news is the russian veto didn't really matter one way or the otherquote:In response to the allegations, Syria said it has invited the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate the suspected poison gas attack, which opposition activists say killed 40 people and wounded hundreds over the weekend. those stupid fucks
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:well the good news is the russian veto didn't really matter one way or the other Which stupid fucks? I almost wonder if Assad isn't looking for a way to push someone under the bus for this. It might even be legitimate - I seem to recall that one of the prior chemical attacks was (allegedly) after a general's son got killed by the rebels and he flipped the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
"Finding out who and what did this will not alter at whom our response is targeted" Hahaha wow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Russia makes last minute plea:- https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/983862323776577536 Reports are coming in that the pentagon will be making an announcement shortly. https://twitter.com/AlSuraEnglish/status/983854520680640512 areal refueling systems arrive in jordanian airspace https://twitter.com/AlSuraEnglish/status/983865487678373889 Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Which stupid fucks? At this hour we have a fine selection to pick from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:well the good news is the russian veto didn't really matter one way or the other That's not what Russia vetoed. Russia actually put forward a resolution calling on that inspection to take place. They're probably just trying to buy time to cast doubt, and I'm not inclined to give them or Assad any benefit of the doubt so I think did it, but the countries getting ready to attack Syria haven't made their case at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That's not what Russia vetoed. Russia actually put forward a resolution calling on that inspection to take place. Russia put forward a toothless meaningless resolution after vetoing the stronger version.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Should we expect war with Russia or just with Syria (and Iran)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:This article about MBS is loving fascinating, and way too long to clip excerpts from (except for this line which supports the Al-Saqr is MBS conspiracy theory: His favorite diversion is Call of Duty, the video game). If you want to understand the region, it's worth reading. lol at this quote quote:Friedman wrote that the young crown prince had kept him up until one-thirty in the morning, discussing national renewal until he pleaded exhaustion. “It has been a long time,” he wrote, “since any Arab leader wore me out with a fire hose of new ideas for transforming his country.” The column inspired outrage among critics of Saudi Arabia. The Al Jazeera journalist Mehdi Hasan called it “an embarrassment.” At a Brookings Institution event a few days later, Friedman responded brusquely. “I got news for you—the entire Arab world is dysfunctional right now,” he said. “And so when I see someone who is having the balls to take on the religious component of that, to take on the economic component, to take on the political, with all of his flaws . . . I wanna stick my head up and say, ‘God, I hope you succeed.’ And when you do that the holy hell comes down on you. Well, ‘gently caress that’ is my view, O.K.?” _ _ . . O /\
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
You know, I'm still pretty certain most of what's about to happen is a whole lot of bloody macho military posturing that amounts to nothing, but I can't help but think about Bolton just signing in while several WH folks leaving at exactly the same time might not mean something really nuts is about to go down. If so, I'm pretty certain lots of people itt will cheer on fascist animals dying...but I can't help but think how that poo poo might spiral onwards out of control if someone like Bolton keeps egging on someone like Trump on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Supposing some FRUKUS air strikes do take place, what will be the point? Making a big pothole in a Syrian runway serves what strategic purpose exactly? It's not going to turn the tide of the war. It's not going to stop Bashar from basharing up the Syrians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:Should we expect war with Russia or just with Syria (and Iran)? The Russian line is they'll shoot at any ships firing missiles. I think the Navy and Air Force might have something to say about that, so I reeeeeeeeaaaaallllly hope that's, to put it nicely: CrazyLoon posted:a whole lot of bloody macho military posturing that amounts to nothing Cat Mattress posted:Supposing some FRUKUS air strikes do take place, what will be the point? Making a big pothole in a Syrian runway serves what strategic purpose exactly? It's not going to turn the tide of the war. It's not going to stop Bashar from basharing up the Syrians. There really isn't one beyond appearances, pending the incoming Pentagon statement. That's a problem because it is, at times, helpful to have a defined end state going into a fight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 01:54
|
|