Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Obama is the worst chess player I have ever seen KC_Hokie

This is very, very true.

Bossperson,

I haven't been following this particular thing for the past few months. Is Russia still having a full hardon for Assad, and could that possibly have to do with the questionable reluctance on the part of the U.S. WRT military intervention?

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

Also the US better start helping the rebels before they fall apart. The "alliance" between the FSA and extremists is a time bomb.

LJS9502_basic

So how far past the red line are we now?wolverine4262

I can't keep up with how fast they keep redrawing that line

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Bossperson,

I haven't been following this particular thing for the past few months. Is Russia still having a full hardon for Assad, and could that possibly have to do with the questionable reluctance on the part of the U.S. WRT military intervention?

BossPerson

Would that also rule out things like material assistance form of military hardware against the US (probably would go down way too fast for them to do anything about that though) or, more likely, the following government?

'cuz short of that

it seems like this isn't something Obama seems to give a sh!t about

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

Also the US better start helping the rebels before they fall apart. The "alliance" between the FSA and extremists is a time bomb.

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Bossperson,

I haven't been following this particular thing for the past few months. Is Russia still having a full hardon for Assad, and could that possibly have to do with the questionable reluctance on the part of the U.S. WRT military intervention?

dude_brahmski

Would that also rule out things like material assistance form of military hardware against the US (probably would go down way too fast for them to do anything about that though) or, more likely, the following government?

'cuz short of that

it seems like this isn't something Obama seems to give a sh!t about

Jeb Bush 2016?

Jeb Bush 2016?

dude_brahmski

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Russia still has unrelenting support for Assad. Whether or no America doesnt want to intervene because of that; i think america is smart enough to know that Russia will not go to war with America just to protect some cartoon looking like dictator in the middle east. BossPerson

Would that also rule out things like material assistance form of military hardware against the US (probably would go down way too fast for them to do anything about that though) or, more likely, the following government?

'cuz short of that

it seems like this isn't something Obama seems to give a sh!t about

well

we have been pondering the idea of helping rebels

iirc we might have given them weapons already

and assad is backed and armed by russia

so it is already a hair away

and them (the russians) arming the next set of rebels after a regime change wouldn't upping the ante THAT much

but it would be a (further) escalation i think

but then again idk what options they'l actually have if assad falls, so this is all meandering speculation

i mean, i feel like they will do what they can to passively increase their influence in the region which could very well possibly be weakening a gov't that is not so favorable to them

but this is all armchair global affairs

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Jeb Bush 2016?

BossPerson

you think he'd stand for the russians stopping us from spreading democracy?

In other news, the sky is blue.

The Middle East is a fvcked up part of the world. Who would have known?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Would that also rule out things like material assistance form of military hardware against the US (probably would go down way too fast for them to do anything about that though) or, more likely, the following government?

'cuz short of that

it seems like this isn't something Obama seems to give a sh!t about

dude_brahmski

well

we have been pondering the idea of helping rebels

iirc we might have given them weapons already

and assad is backed and armed by russia

so it is already a hair away

and them (the russians) arming the next set of rebels after a regime change wouldn't upping the ante THAT much

but it would be a (further) escalation i think

but then again idk what options they'l actually have if assad falls, so this is all meandering speculation

i mean, i feel like they will do what they can to passively increase their influence in the region which could very well possibly be weakening a gov't that is not so favorable to them

but this is all armchair global affairs

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]thats an interesting thought. Im not sure if Russia fine with being in a "full" proxy war with AmericaBossPerson

well

we have been pondering the idea of helping rebels

iirc we might have given them weapons already

and assad is backed and armed by russia

so it is already a hair away

and them (the russians) arming the next set of rebels after a regime change wouldn't upping the ante THAT much

but it would be a (further) escalation i think

but then again idk what options they'l actually have if assad falls, so this is all meandering speculation

i mean, i feel like they will do what they can to passively increase their influence in the region which could very well possibly be weakening a gov't that is not so favorable to them

but this is all armchair global affairs

i meant that after a regime change that they could very well continue a passive thing

i guess by "active" i'd consider that tossing tanks on the ground

but what i am trying to say is that i dont think russia will just be all "gg;wp" after assad is gone

ofc, maybe that just means we could actively support syria against passive aggression, which would be a nice upper hand for stability

I WISH I KNEW MORE ABOUT THE VARIOUS NUANCES THOUGH

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

well

we have been pondering the idea of helping rebels

iirc we might have given them weapons already

and assad is backed and armed by russia

so it is already a hair away

and them (the russians) arming the next set of rebels after a regime change wouldn't upping the ante THAT much

but it would be a (further) escalation i think

but then again idk what options they'l actually have if assad falls, so this is all meandering speculation

i mean, i feel like they will do what they can to passively increase their influence in the region which could very well possibly be weakening a gov't that is not so favorable to them

but this is all armchair global affairs

dude_brahmski

i meant that after a regime change that they could very well continue a passive thing

i guess by "active" i'd consider that tossing tanks on the ground

but what i am trying to say is that i dont think russia will just be all "gg;wp" after assad is gone

ofc, maybe that just means we could actively support syria against passive aggression, which would be a nice upper hand for stability

I WISH I KNEW MORE ABOUT THE VARIOUS NUANCES THOUGH

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]but the US's assistance is more passive than active. Russia is going all out in helping Assad. Iran too. BossPerson

i meant that after a regime change that they could very well continue a passive thing

i guess by "active" i'd consider that tossing tanks on the ground

but what i am trying to say is that i dont think russia will just be all "gg;wp" after assad is gone

ofc, maybe that just means we could actively support syria against passive aggression, which would be a nice upper hand for stability

I WISH I KNEW MORE ABOUT THE VARIOUS NUANCES THOUGH

Interesting.

You should post about this stuff more.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

i meant that after a regime change that they could very well continue a passive thing

i guess by "active" i'd consider that tossing tanks on the ground

but what i am trying to say is that i dont think russia will just be all "gg;wp" after assad is gone

ofc, maybe that just means we could actively support syria against passive aggression, which would be a nice upper hand for stability

I WISH I KNEW MORE ABOUT THE VARIOUS NUANCES THOUGH

dude_brahmski

Interesting.

You should post about this stuff more.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Assad is Russia's man in Syria. When he falls, Russia will have nothing left there. They dont care about installing a puppet regime. when assad is lynched or escapes to siberia any proxy war that will happen will be between the West vs the Gulf (seculars/moderates vs bearded fvcks) or iran vs the gulf and Israel to an extent (iran vs sunnis and enemies of hezbollah)BossPerson

Interesting.

You should post about this stuff more.

you are p. solid on foreign affairs sh!t

so maybe

The Syrian Civil War is more or less a proxy war, with Russia and Iran arming & funding the government, while the US, UK and France are arming & funding the rebels. This may very well be the start of a second Cold War...

The Syrian Civil War is more or less a proxy war, with Russia and Iran arming & funding the government, while the US, UK and France are arming & funding the rebels. This may very well be the start of a second Cold War...

Jag85

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

Also the US better start helping the rebels before they fall apart. The "alliance" between the FSA and extremists is a time bomb.

sherman-tank1

Is anyone here entertaining the thought that this sarin attack wasn't launched by Assad?

In other news, the sky is blue.

The Middle East is a fvcked up part of the world. Who would have known?

gamerguru100

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"]

In other news, the sky is blue.

The Middle East is a fvcked up part of the world. Who would have known?

themajormayor

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

The Syrian Civil War is more or less a proxy war, with Russia and Iran arming & funding the government, while the US, UK and France are arming & funding the rebels. This may very well be the start of a second Cold War...

BossPerson

I think that everyone should take a step back and think, because NOBODY knows who did what. I dont know what to thnk: 

Could it be Assad ? maybe. but why ? the UN inspectors that HE ASKED for are thre literal MILES away from the attack, and it wold mean suicide for him because if confirmed that it was him the international community will almost certainly step in and remove him. and most importantly it has seemed as though his forces have been winning the past few months. 

Could it be the rebels ? a ploy to gain international support to oust assad ? maybe but the gassed a major strong hold of theirs and killed their OWN FIGHTERS in what looks like a losing battle.

Quite frankly its impossible to give blame to anyone yet since there are so many possibilities. what is clear is that this whole war is a debacle of epic proportions.   The whole point of this civil war was to depose a dictator in the name of freedom, now its a war being fought by a blood thirsty tyrant, religious extremists and a proxy war between the US and Russia with the populace caught in the middle, the whole nation is destroyed and EVERYONE is far worse off that before this started, no winners here only losers. 

Assads days are numbered.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="gamerguru100"]

In other news, the sky is blue.

The Middle East is a fvcked up part of the world. Who would have known?

gamerguru100

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

[QUOTE="BBC News"]

Chemical weapons attacks have killed hundreds on the outskirts of Damascus, Syrian opposition activists say.

Rockets with toxic agents were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region early on Wednesday as part of a major bombardment on rebel forces, they say.

The Syrian army says the accusations have been fabricated to cover up rebel losses.

The main opposition alliance said that more than 1,000 people were killed by the attacks.

Activist networks also reported death tolls in the hundreds, but these could not be independently confirmed.

BossPerson

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201

Here we go.

amirite barry?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

The Syrian Civil War is more or less a proxy war, with Russia and Iran arming & funding the government, while the US, UK and France are arming & funding the rebels. This may very well be the start of a second Cold War...

BossPerson

I mean, Saddam had to go.

Russia is going all out in helping Assad. Iran too.

BossPerson

Good for them.  I hope China joins in too.

The body count is "officially" about 100,000.  But we'll probably find out later it's upwards of 200,000.  Tragic.  F*cking islam.

The body count is "officially" about 100,000.  But we'll probably find out later it's upwards of 200,000.  Tragic.  F*cking islam.

GOGOGOGURT

it's a shame the us wasted its invasion on iraq rather than a place that could actually use it.....

it's a shame the us wasted its invasion on iraq rather than a place that could actually use it.....

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

The body count is "officially" about 100,000.  But we'll probably find out later it's upwards of 200,000.  Tragic.  F*cking islam.

Jag85

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

it's a shame the us wasted its invasion on iraq rather than a place that could actually use it.....

Jag85

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

it's a shame the us wasted its invasion on iraq rather than a place that could actually use it.....

sherman-tank1

false flag no doubt

[QUOTE="Jag85"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

it's a shame the us wasted its invasion on iraq rather than a place that could actually use it.....

sherman-tank1

My jist is that if the government gains momentum the West will conduct a no fly zone from Jordan. And if the rebels gain the upper hand Iran is going to be sending in more than just advisors. What a bloody mess it is.

The problem is that if the West (US, UK, France, and Sunni allies) try to pull any punches, then the East (Russia, Iran, Shia allies, and possibly even China) may try to pull some punches too. It's a tricky situation for both sides of this proxy conflict.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] The US and allies were actually planning to invade Syria, but Russia and China prevented them. As a result, the Syrian civil war has now turned into a Cold War proxy conflict between NATO and Russia...Jag85

My jist is that if the government gains momentum the West will conduct a no fly zone from Jordan. And if the rebels gain the upper hand Iran is going to be sending in more than just advisors. What a bloody mess it is.

The problem is that if the West (US, UK, France, and Sunni allies) try to pull any punches, then the East (Russia, Iran, Shia allies, and possibly even China) may try to pull some punches too. It's a tricky situation for both sides of this proxy conflict.

China and Russia aren't going to vote for one after what happened with Libya. The Libyan intervention was supposed to a 'humanitarian' mission. Instead, NATO and their allies used it as an offensive weapon against Gaddafi only.

The Chinese and Russians both felt tricked by what NATO & allies did in Libya. No way in hell they will vote for another intervention of an ally.

Also the US better start helping the rebels before they fall apart. The "alliance" between the FSA and extremists is a time bomb.

sherman-tank1

You mean the same way US helped Libya and then Libya backstabbed the US?

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

Also the US better start helping the rebels before they fall apart. The "alliance" between the FSA and extremists is a time bomb.

RadecSupreme

You mean the same way US helped Libya and then Libya backstabbed the US?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

My jist is that if the government gains momentum the West will conduct a no fly zone from Jordan. And if the rebels gain the upper hand Iran is going to be sending in more than just advisors. What a bloody mess it is.

KC_Hokie

The problem is that if the West (US, UK, France, and Sunni allies) try to pull any punches, then the East (Russia, Iran, Shia allies, and possibly even China) may try to pull some punches too. It's a tricky situation for both sides of this proxy conflict.

China and Russia aren't going to vote for one after what happened with Libya. The Libyan intervention was supposed to a 'humanitarian' mission. Instead, NATO and their allies used it as an offensive weapon against Gaddafi only.

The Chinese and Russians both felt tricked by what NATO & allies did in Libya. No way in hell they will vote for another intervention of an ally.

I don't blame the Chinese and Russians. I also felt cheated by that Libya "intervention". I thought that, with the new governments in the US and UK, surely they wouldn't try to pull another Iraq on us... But it turned out they did in Libya (though not quite to the same extent as Iraq, of course).

However, the current Syria conflict seems to be getting deadlier than the Libyan one was. And there doesn't seem to be a solution in sight...

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

The problem is that if the West (US, UK, France, and Sunni allies) try to pull any punches, then the East (Russia, Iran, Shia allies, and possibly even China) may try to pull some punches too. It's a tricky situation for both sides of this proxy conflict.

Jag85

China and Russia aren't going to vote for one after what happened with Libya. The Libyan intervention was supposed to a 'humanitarian' mission. Instead, NATO and their allies used it as an offensive weapon against Gaddafi only.

The Chinese and Russians both felt tricked by what NATO & allies did in Libya. No way in hell they will vote for another intervention of an ally.

I don't blame the Chinese and Russians. I also felt cheated by that Libya "intervention". I thought that, with the new governments in the US and UK, surely they wouldn't try to pull another Iraq on us... But it turned out they did in Libya (though not quite to the same extent as Iraq, of course).

However, the current Syria conflict seems to be getting deadlier than the Libyan one was. And there doesn't seem to be a solution in sight...

Only thing U.S. and allies could do now would be covert stuff. And I doubt that would counter what Iran, Russia and China are sending to Syria. We also do a horrible job picking the 'good guys' in these proxy wars.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Highly doubt anything happens since you need UN security counsel permission to get involved (officially, overtly) with air strikes for example.

China and Russia aren't going to vote for one after what happened with Libya. The Libyan intervention was supposed to a 'humanitarian' mission. Instead, NATO and their allies used it as an offensive weapon against Gaddafi only.

The Chinese and Russians both felt tricked by what NATO & allies did in Libya. No way in hell they will vote for another intervention of an ally.

KC_Hokie

I don't blame the Chinese and Russians. I also felt cheated by that Libya "intervention". I thought that, with the new governments in the US and UK, surely they wouldn't try to pull another Iraq on us... But it turned out they did in Libya (though not quite to the same extent as Iraq, of course).

However, the current Syria conflict seems to be getting deadlier than the Libyan one was. And there doesn't seem to be a solution in sight...

Only thing U.S. and allies could do now would be covert stuff. And I doubt that would counter what Iran, Russia and China are sending to Syria. We also do a horrible job picking the 'good guys' in these proxy wars.

Yes, these are the "good guys" we're supporting:

Syrian rebel 'eats the heart' of Syrian soldier

(Warning: Graphic)

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I don't blame the Chinese and Russians. I also felt cheated by that Libya "intervention". I thought that, with the new governments in the US and UK, surely they wouldn't try to pull another Iraq on us... But it turned out they did in Libya (though not quite to the same extent as Iraq, of course).

However, the current Syria conflict seems to be getting deadlier than the Libyan one was. And there doesn't seem to be a solution in sight...

Jag85

Only thing U.S. and allies could do now would be covert stuff. And I doubt that would counter what Iran, Russia and China are sending to Syria. We also do a horrible job picking the 'good guys' in these proxy wars.

Yes, these are the "good guys" we're supporting:

Syrian rebel 'eats the heart' of Syrian soldier

(Warning: Graphic)

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

Also the US better start helping the rebels before they fall apart. The "alliance" between the FSA and extremists is a time bomb.

Jag85

You mean the same way US helped Libya and then Libya backstabbed the US?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Yea I don't blame China and Russia now because they were tricked by NATO and the U.S. into thinking Libya would be 'humanitarian'.

Only thing U.S. and allies could do now would be covert stuff. And I doubt that would counter what Iran, Russia and China are sending to Syria. We also do a horrible job picking the 'good guys' in these proxy wars.

sherman-tank1

Yes, these are the "good guys" we're supporting:

Syrian rebel 'eats the heart' of Syrian soldier

(Warning: Graphic)

You have to think several steps ahead not one like in the Cold War.