Conquer Club

List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do You Support Military Action in Syria?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Qwert on Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:26 am

Frigidus wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:When did Frig become a Libertarian?


I wasn't aware that progressives were big on war.


We're not going to war with Syria. We're helping the Syrian people get rid of a tyrannical dictator. There's never been a single proposal at all to invade Syria in any capacity, only to lob Cruise missiles from a distance, and send guns to the rebels.

Progressives are not supposed to be isolationists. They're supposed to see a problem and want to understand it, and try to fix it.


If Canada fired cruise missiles into our country we would absolutely consider it to be an act of war. If we fired cruise missiles at China we would be at war with them. Just because Syria lacks the military muscle to respond to our actions doesn't make an act of war something else. I wouldn't call myself an isolationist, but I do believe in respecting Westphalian sovereignty outside of extreme situations. We chose to send weapons to the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Cold War. Sometimes the prudent decision is to not stir up hornets nests.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Frigidus wrote:1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.


The main rebel force isn't fighting for political power; it's fighting a dictator for democracy.

It's obscene to me that all these Liberals say the same thing:
If people are being targeted because they are black, or because they are Christian, then we need to intervene. But if they are being targeted because they are poor, so some rich oligarchical asshole can keep an iron grip on the country's government, then that's acceptable. This isn't a war of race or religion, it's a class war. That's not ok.


The Middle East does not need democracy right now, they need Enlightenment values. Giving political agency to people who riot when they hear that somebody drew a picture of their prophet is not the best idea. If you want an example of how tacking democracy on to a deeply flawed culture can go wrong, just look at Egypt. After electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power, the new government immediately began work on removing all restraints on their authority. The military eventually threw the guy out, but they sure as hell aren't the good guys. Just a couple of weeks ago they started using live ammunition on protestors. Should we fire cruise missiles at Egypt too?

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm also pretty shocked by the number of people who refuse to intervene when chemical weapons are used, citing the fact that "we can't know for sure who used them." As if that's more important than the lives of 1400 people who were killed by one.


So even though we don't know who used them we should just punch the first guy we see in the face? Is the use of chemical weapons any worse than the stoning of adulterers that occurs in other parts of the region? Who are we to complain about chemical weapons when we hold people without a trial for years, often while torturing them? I guess the rest of the world (minus France) should just stand aside while we fire missiles in such a way that we appear "just muscular enough not to get mocked"? Where was this demand for action in Darfur? Why aren't we taking sides in the current civil war in the Central African Republic?

Muslim brotherhood win in democratic elections, this its what US want when they dont support hes former ally Moubarak, right?

Also ,only because Saudi Arabia are US ally, its not complain when they cut hands of thief, its this a democraty , why US not put pressure on Saudi Arabia, to not use this in punishment?

If you are ally with US, you can do everything to your citizens, and US will not do anything, but one day when you not important, then US will open eye, and react.
This its so pathetic behavior of US government . They care for other country civilians, only in propaganda .

Ongoing Civil Wars (US not have any money interest)
Somalia Civil War-start 1991- fatalities 500000 +
War in Darfur-start 2003--up to 460000 fatalities

US dont react, because they can not extract anything from this countries, no money-no show.
Image
NEW REVOLUTION-NEW RANKS PRESS THESE LINK viewtopic.php?f=471&t=47578&start=0
User avatar
Major Qwert
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 9190
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:07 pm
Location: VOJVODINA

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:45 pm

Qwert wrote:Muslim brotherhood win in democratic elections, this its what US want when they dont support hes former ally Moubarak, right?

Also ,only because Saudi Arabia are US ally, its not complain when they cut hands of thief, its this a democraty , why US not put pressure on Saudi Arabia, to not use this in punishment?

If you are ally with US, you can do everything to your citizens, and US will not do anything, but one day when you not important, then US will open eye, and react.
This its so pathetic behavior of US government . They care for other country civilians, only in propaganda .

Ongoing Civil Wars (US not have any money interest)
Somalia Civil War-start 1991- fatalities 500000 +
War in Darfur-start 2003--up to 460000 fatalities

US dont react, because they can not extract anything from this countries, no money-no show.


Minor correction:
The US launched a failed operation in Somalia (UNITAF)--along with the UN. Black Hawk Down is a fictional account of part of that story.

It was mostly about 'aid', which inadvertently subsidized local 'governments' or gangs (gangs = government), thereby prolonging the conflict and starting new sources of conflict. The food 'relief' also dropped the prices of food, so any current producers of food saw their profits diminish (e.g. small, local farmers), and so x-amount of them couldn't farm the land since it was no longer profitable to do so. If they were subsistence farmers, then they're best bet was to work less (or not at all) and then spend more time in line for the food 'relief'. The low prices of food 'relief' also increased the pressure of other services in areas/cities since more people flocked there for the 'free' stuff, which caused more problems for those city's infrastructures and capacities to maintain order.

The disorder of the markets and of local governance become exacerbated and reinforced through well-intended* government intervention. It's yet another failure on their list. Part of these stories usually start with people like JB spouting the moral rhetoric of Zero Accountability. Many Americans of the welfare liberal variety also use similar means to JB's (they simply assume government would do X better than markets, and that government actually would have it within their interest to seek the optimal policies and enact them in an optimal manner).

Their position is nonsensical, but since the power of moral rhetoric is strong while the demand for verification/positive scientific understanding is lacking, then their position therefore makes 'sense'. This is one main source as to why the USG gets involved in counter-productive wars and projects.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:22 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, even if JB is 100% correct (which he isn't because more than Turkey was involved), then his retort would still support patches' story.


BigBallinStalin wrote:However this contract was annulled at the beginning of 2009 and it was re-tendered.

The only one who could re-tender the contract was Turkey. They didn't want the gas.

Natural gas prices have been dropping since 2008, hence the main focus of why it was re-tendered.


BigBallinStalin wrote:So, the plans were there, but then the civil war happened, so the funding/potential capital shriveled up. This corresponds more with patches' version. However, due to the civil war, Turkey was increasingly putting on the brakes for that pipeline---to repeat: because of the civil war.

The contract was annulled in 2009. The protests started in 2011. The Arab Spring did not even start until 2010.


There goes your pet conspiracy theory.

Da da dummmm
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:24 pm

saxitoxin wrote:So Juan, apparently, has never heard of ZeroHedge!?!?! :lol:

Juan, for your edification, "Tyler Durden" - the Chuck Palahniuk character - is the collective pen name used by ZeroHedge's authors. ZeroHedge is a major markets analysis website that exposed the Goldman Sachs flash trading scandal (have you heard of Goldman Sachs?).


Hella no, I've never heard of Zero Hedge. Apparently it's an anti-Obama conspiracy website run by anonymous people. At least, yeah that's what google says. It's the 4chan of the world of marketing.

RationalWiki:
Zero Hedge[1] is a batshit insane pseudonymous finance blog run by an anonymous founder who posts articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club antagonist personality. Tyler claims to be a "believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo." His solution actually mirrors the anatagonist in Fight Club in that Tyler wants, per Austrian school ideas, to lead a catastrophic market crash in order to destroy banking institutions and bring back "real" free market capitalism.[2]

The site posts nearly indecipherable analyses of multiple seemingly unrelated subjects to point towards a consistent theme of economic collapse any day now. Tyler seems to repeat The Economic Collapse Blog's idea of posting blog articles many times a day and encouraging people to post it as far and wide as humanly possible. Tyler moves away from the format of long lists to write insanely dense volumes[3][4] filled with often contradicting jargon that makes one wonder if the writers even know what the words actually mean.[5] The site first appeared in early 2009, meaning that (given Tyler's habit of taking a shit on each and every positive data point), anyone listening to him from the beginning missed the entire 2000-2013 rally in the equities market.

The only writer very conclusively identified is Dan Ivandjiiski, who conducts public interviews on behalf of Zero Hedge.

Zero Hedge is not quite the NaturalNews of economics, but not for want of trying.


Dale Gavlak, the chick who wrote up what Patches was repasting, appears to be a fraud without actual sources.* Remember when you mocked the administration's report for a lack of sources? Well, the author's story relies on a nondescript video from youtube, in which some nondescript people load up what appears to be a nondescript weapon in a nondescript location. Worst still, he quotes anonymous and likely made-up pretend people named "J" and "K." You're attaching yourself to a conspiracy theory and attempting to pass it off as an established fact. You're of the exact same position as Alex Jones on this one.

Video "source"-


Award for most informative reply-

Squidfish wrote:It's an improvised weapon the rebels call a Hell Cannon. It fires propane cylinders, which is probably what that "suspicious blue canister" is. The rebels probably released this themselves, and then someones put a new title on it, and blurred out the symbol of the brigade that filmed it. The attack was at night, while this is clearly day time. And if i had somehow managed to synthesize Sarin in my basement, i'd at least be wearing a gas mask when i lobbed it off some rickety home made cannon.



Image


Hold on... I think this is the part where I get to use the laughing smiley - :lol:
Looking forward to your spin, garbage man can.


*EDIT: she wasn't on the ground, she "assisted in writing."
Last edited by Juan_Bottom on Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:40 pm

If Canada fired cruise missiles into our country we would absolutely consider it to be an act of war. If we fired cruise missiles at China we would be at war with them. Just because Syria lacks the military muscle to respond to our actions doesn't make an act of war something else. I wouldn't call myself an isolationist, but I do believe in respecting Westphalian sovereignty outside of extreme situations. We chose to send weapons to the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Cold War. Sometimes the prudent decision is to not stir up hornets nests.


That's not what this situation is at all. Syrians peacefully demonstrated and protested for more freedom. Their government responded by blowing them up. Assad has tortured over 600 prisoners to death since the actual hostilities started. In order for this to be considered an act of war on a country, there has to be a country... This is a police action to defend the Syrian people from a tyrannical ruler. The people are the country, and that's what we're defending. Any government that relies on torture and artillery to force peace within it's boarders is not a legitimate government.

Standing by and watching only helps the oppressor.



The Middle East does not need democracy right now, they need Enlightenment values. Giving political agency to people who riot when they hear that somebody drew a picture of their prophet is not the best idea. If you want an example of how tacking democracy on to a deeply flawed culture can go wrong, just look at Egypt. After electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power, the new government immediately began work on removing all restraints on their authority. The military eventually threw the guy out, but they sure as hell aren't the good guys. Just a couple of weeks ago they started using live ammunition on protestors. Should we fire cruise missiles at Egypt too?


You are assuming that the Syrians are the same people as "bad Middle Easterners."


So even though we don't know who used them we should just punch the first guy we see in the face? Is the use of chemical weapons any worse than the stoning of adulterers that occurs in other parts of the region? Who are we to complain about chemical weapons when we hold people without a trial for years, often while torturing them? I guess the rest of the world (minus France) should just stand aside while we fire missiles in such a way that we appear "just muscular enough not to get mocked"? Where was this demand for action in Darfur? Why aren't we taking sides in the current civil war in the Central African Republic?

This isn't a defense either.
"Because bad things happen in other parts of the Middle East, we should hold those against the Syrians."
"It could be worse than chemical weapons used in civilian neighborhoods."
"Because we haven't taken action in Darfur, we should not involve ourselves anywhere."

Those are some pretty flimsy excuses.



Qwert wrote:If you are ally with US, you can do everything to your citizens, and US will not do anything, but one day when you not important, then US will open eye, and react.
This its so pathetic behavior of US government . They care for other country civilians, only in propaganda .


I can't argue with you here, I can only say that we have a chance to do the right thing in this single instance, and I think we should take it. I'd like to abolish the UN and bring everyone up on equal terms, but all we can do in life is act on the opportunities that we get. This is an opportunity for good.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:49 pm

WMD's!!!!!

:o :o :o :o :o

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Frigidus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:22 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
If Canada fired cruise missiles into our country we would absolutely consider it to be an act of war. If we fired cruise missiles at China we would be at war with them. Just because Syria lacks the military muscle to respond to our actions doesn't make an act of war something else. I wouldn't call myself an isolationist, but I do believe in respecting Westphalian sovereignty outside of extreme situations. We chose to send weapons to the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Cold War. Sometimes the prudent decision is to not stir up hornets nests.


That's not what this situation is at all. Syrians peacefully demonstrated and protested for more freedom. Their government responded by blowing them up. Assad has tortured over 600 prisoners to death since the actual hostilities started. In order for this to be considered an act of war on a country, there has to be a country... This is a police action to defend the Syrian people from a tyrannical ruler. The people are the country, and that's what we're defending. Any government that relies on torture and artillery to force peace within it's boarders is not a legitimate government.

Standing by and watching only helps the oppressor.


This is an impressive contortion of language. So if we started firing missiles into China (an unquestionably tyrannical government) you wouldn't consider that an act of war?

Juan_Bottom wrote:
The Middle East does not need democracy right now, they need Enlightenment values. Giving political agency to people who riot when they hear that somebody drew a picture of their prophet is not the best idea. If you want an example of how tacking democracy on to a deeply flawed culture can go wrong, just look at Egypt. After electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power, the new government immediately began work on removing all restraints on their authority. The military eventually threw the guy out, but they sure as hell aren't the good guys. Just a couple of weeks ago they started using live ammunition on protestors. Should we fire cruise missiles at Egypt too?


You are assuming that the Syrians are the same people as "bad Middle Easterners."


Yes, I am. Do you have any reason to believe that the general religious climate of Syria is substantially different from that of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

Juan_Bottom wrote:
So even though we don't know who used them we should just punch the first guy we see in the face? Is the use of chemical weapons any worse than the stoning of adulterers that occurs in other parts of the region? Who are we to complain about chemical weapons when we hold people without a trial for years, often while torturing them? I guess the rest of the world (minus France) should just stand aside while we fire missiles in such a way that we appear "just muscular enough not to get mocked"? Where was this demand for action in Darfur? Why aren't we taking sides in the current civil war in the Central African Republic?

This isn't a defense either.
"Because bad things happen in other parts of the Middle East, we should hold those against the Syrians."
"It could be worse than chemical weapons used in civilian neighborhoods."
"Because we haven't taken action in Darfur, we should not involve ourselves anywhere."

Those are some pretty flimsy excuses.


My point is that our government is not considering military action in Syria because they have a genuine interest in protecting human rights, as if we actually cared about human rights we would have intervened over similar situations in countries that don't have oil. I would be willing to at least consider the humanitarian excuse if we had even one time in the last decade taken an action without an obvious ulterior motive.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Ray Rider on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:49 am

Frigidus wrote:
Ray Rider wrote:Looks like the antiwar crowd is dominating the discussion here and I happen to agree for the most part. The National Post had a good article about it recently here.

However I do have a couple questions for the non-interventionists here:
1. At what point is intervention in sovereign nation's civil war justifiable, or is it ever justifiable, in your opinion? In the case of Syria, it's of low strategic value to the West, neither warring faction shares the West's values, and the risk of the war spilling over to other nations is low if left to continue its course; however do you believe there is a point, say after 500,000 causalities or something, that intervention is morally just and necessary from a humanitarian standpoint? Or perhaps only if it is ethnic cleansing which is occurring i.e. Rwanda?

2. At what point is intervention in a sovereign nation justifiable to prevent chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands or from being used indiscriminately on a population? Does the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria affect your view at all--is it a factor in deciding whether war is justifiable or not? Or do you view it as "just another 300 dead out of 100,00; who cares about the exact cause of their death"? What about if these chemical weapons had long-term lasting effects on the environment?

Those are some of the questions I'm mulling over right now. I'm opposed to the war right now, but I'm figuring out at what point my view on that would change; what would it take for me to join the pro-war side?


1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.

So in your opinion, the only valid reason for us to step in would be if there were mass extermination occurring based on religious or ethnic divides or nuclear weapons were getting into the wrong hands? That is the only criteria in which case intervention would become acceptable?
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Frigidus on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:54 am

Ray Rider wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Ray Rider wrote:Looks like the antiwar crowd is dominating the discussion here and I happen to agree for the most part. The National Post had a good article about it recently here.

However I do have a couple questions for the non-interventionists here:
1. At what point is intervention in sovereign nation's civil war justifiable, or is it ever justifiable, in your opinion? In the case of Syria, it's of low strategic value to the West, neither warring faction shares the West's values, and the risk of the war spilling over to other nations is low if left to continue its course; however do you believe there is a point, say after 500,000 causalities or something, that intervention is morally just and necessary from a humanitarian standpoint? Or perhaps only if it is ethnic cleansing which is occurring i.e. Rwanda?

2. At what point is intervention in a sovereign nation justifiable to prevent chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands or from being used indiscriminately on a population? Does the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria affect your view at all--is it a factor in deciding whether war is justifiable or not? Or do you view it as "just another 300 dead out of 100,00; who cares about the exact cause of their death"? What about if these chemical weapons had long-term lasting effects on the environment?

Those are some of the questions I'm mulling over right now. I'm opposed to the war right now, but I'm figuring out at what point my view on that would change; what would it take for me to join the pro-war side?


1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.

So in your opinion, the only valid reason for us to step in would be if there were mass extermination occurring based on religious or ethnic divides or nuclear weapons were getting into the wrong hands? That is the only criteria in which case intervention would become acceptable?


For the most part, yes. I'd be willing to hear the case for a different definition, but the situation in Syria definitely wouldn't make the grade in my mind.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Ray Rider on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:16 am

Frigidus wrote:
Ray Rider wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Ray Rider wrote:Looks like the antiwar crowd is dominating the discussion here and I happen to agree for the most part. The National Post had a good article about it recently here.

However I do have a couple questions for the non-interventionists here:
1. At what point is intervention in sovereign nation's civil war justifiable, or is it ever justifiable, in your opinion? In the case of Syria, it's of low strategic value to the West, neither warring faction shares the West's values, and the risk of the war spilling over to other nations is low if left to continue its course; however do you believe there is a point, say after 500,000 causalities or something, that intervention is morally just and necessary from a humanitarian standpoint? Or perhaps only if it is ethnic cleansing which is occurring i.e. Rwanda?

2. At what point is intervention in a sovereign nation justifiable to prevent chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands or from being used indiscriminately on a population? Does the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria affect your view at all--is it a factor in deciding whether war is justifiable or not? Or do you view it as "just another 300 dead out of 100,00; who cares about the exact cause of their death"? What about if these chemical weapons had long-term lasting effects on the environment?

Those are some of the questions I'm mulling over right now. I'm opposed to the war right now, but I'm figuring out at what point my view on that would change; what would it take for me to join the pro-war side?


1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.

So in your opinion, the only valid reason for us to step in would be if there were mass extermination occurring based on religious or ethnic divides or nuclear weapons were getting into the wrong hands? That is the only criteria in which case intervention would become acceptable?


For the most part, yes. I'd be willing to hear the case for a different definition, but the situation in Syria definitely wouldn't make the grade in my mind.

Ok, I'm just interested in hearing other people's viewpoints on the subject. I won't debate you on it since I haven't come to a conclusion yet myself.

Here's a good article about Syria and the current US administration...it's not pro-war or anti-war, but it's highlighting the general indecisiveness of the current US administration regarding "red lines" and touches on the history of previous administrations to similar situations. Here are some tidbits from the writeup:

National Post wrote:As of this writing, the astonishing run-up to possible military action against Syria appears to be reaching some sort of anti-climax.

It is not the decision to do nothing that should be annoying. Rather, it is the lack of any kind of definitive decision one way or the other.

Barack Obama has positioned cruise missile-equipped vessels off the coast of Syria that could deliver conventional warheads precisely on Syrian targets. Yet as he has done this, he has engaged in vigorous public discussion about the dangers that would await the United States in Syria. Last week, for instance, he told CNN that he was wary of “being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

It is an unusual (and, among the leaders of Great Powers, probably unprecedented) gambit, to muster a nation’s war-making potential while publicly musing on the inadvisability of engaging in war-like acts. It is the ultimate spectacle of the narcissist: All the world must watch while I pull the petals off this daisy. As Bret Stephens wrote in a brilliant piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, this U.S. administration seems to have extreme difficulty distinguishing between a foreign policy and an attitude.

...

In the Bosnian conflict, after the Europeans got over the hubristic illusion that it was “the hour of Europe,” Republican Senate leader Robert Dole denounced the European arms embargo, correctly, as a plan to enable the Serbs to massacre their designated opponents, and pushed the U.S. into the conflict with his lift-and-strike legislation. President Bill Clinton and his advisers then developed the dubious concept of the war worth killing for, but not worth dying for: Allied aircraft flew at 30,000 feet to avoid any possibility of ground-to-air fire from the Serbs while bombing that country into backwardness, and the commander-in-chief publicly wept when one American airman’s plane crashed and he was captured alive by the Serbs. On this arithmetic basis, many of the world’s greatest statesmen, including Lincoln, Churchill and Roosevelt, would have drowned in their own tears.

...

In the 2003 Iraq War, Saddam was ousted just as quickly as the Gulf War has been won in 1991, and with a fifth of the forces. He was captured and executed, but in the greatest military blunder in modern U.S. history (except the failure to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail in the Vietnam War), the American authorities laid off the 400,000 members of the Iraqi army and police forces but allowed them to retain their weapons and munitions, as if they were going to set up target and quail-shooting clubs around Iraq and not rent themselves out (as they did) as private armies and factional death squads. George W. Bush’s dream of democracy in the Middle East has wilted; the Maliki government in Baghdad is unstable, ungrateful and undemocratic (though an improvement on Saddam).

...

Opponents of an attack on Syria say that American munitions can’t target Bashar Assad’s poison gas stocks without releasing them; and that any punitive attack that weakens Assad would facilitate the triumph of his Jihadist enemies. This analysis suggests that nothing should be done except “punishing” Assad for his use of chemical weapons … without actually hurting him in any militarily significant way. That’s the sort of Bill Clinton tokenism that led directly to 9/11.
It is paralysis by analysis: the antics of people who don’t want to decide, who feel something must be done but don’t want to do anything.

The United States is right not to become exposed, as it once was, to being drawn into virtually every conflict all over the world. But eventually, some American leader will have to pronounce in a definitive way what the U.S. national interest is and convince the world that it will be protected...the point is that no one in the world — friend (insofar as any remain) or foe — has any idea where the United States draws the “red line,” or if it will enforce it.
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Ray Rider on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:36 am

saxitoxin wrote:
patches70 wrote:and why Russia is determined not to let Assad fall. It's about energy. In this case, natural gas to Europe. Russia owns the market, Qatar wants in, Syria is the battlefield for a proxy energy war.


Well said. So many of the pro-war crowd, which draws its support from the segments of society with the least formal education, have this simpleton's Weltanschauung that imagines Russia is supporting Syria because they're some kind of cartoon, James Bond super-villain.

My fav Qatari-Russian exchange -
    Qatari Supreme King (U.S. ally) - [boisterous threat]
    Russian Ambassador - "If you continue to talk to me like that, there will be no Qatar."

Thanks, Patches, for the info about the natural gas pipeline; I'd never heard of that before but it's something I'll have to look into some more.

lol at the Russian ambssador
Image
Image
Highest score: 2221
User avatar
Major Ray Rider
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: In front of my computer, duh!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:10 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:So, even if JB is 100% correct (which he isn't because more than Turkey was involved), then his retort would still support patches' story.


BigBallinStalin wrote:However this contract was annulled at the beginning of 2009 and it was re-tendered.

The only one who could re-tender the contract was Turkey. They didn't want the gas.

Natural gas prices have been dropping since 2008, hence the main focus of why it was re-tendered.


Still not seeing the requested sources. It's okay, JB. You've tried your best, so it's time to revise your paradigm.


Juan_Bottom wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:So, the plans were there, but then the civil war happened, so the funding/potential capital shriveled up. This corresponds more with patches' version. However, due to the civil war, Turkey was increasingly putting on the brakes for that pipeline---to repeat: because of the civil war.

The contract was annulled in 2009. The protests started in 2011. The Arab Spring did not even start until 2010.


There goes your pet conspiracy theory.

Da da dummmm


You still need a source other than a wiki sentence without a citation. You wouldn't make conclusions without verification, would you? Even if you were correct, that doesn't rule out all investors (because it's not just Turkey involved---remember that bit about parts being within the "FSA"?)

Assuming investors can't make forecasts or receive any information about the future (in)stability of their investments, then you might be right. But... you're not because:

n late 2010, his government signed a memorandum of understanding with Iraq for the construction of two oil and one gas pipeline to carry gas and oil from Iraq’s Akkas and Kirkuk fields, respectively, to the Syrian port of Banias on the Mediterranean Sea. In July 2011 Iranian officials announced a $10 billion gas pipeline deal between Syria, Iraq and Iran that would transport gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field, the world’s biggest, through Iraq to Syria. Also planned was an extension of the AGP from Aleppo, in Syria, to the southern Turkish city of Kilis that could later link to the proposed Nabucco pipeline linking Turkey to Europe, if that pipeline ever materializes.


See how it says, "late 2010"? You see that?

lrn2read, instead of chanting, "da da dummmm." Refusing to think doesn't help anyone, JB--assuming you're actually interested in helping others.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:13 am

Frigidus wrote:So even though we don't know who used them we should just punch the first guy we see in the face? Is the use of chemical weapons any worse than the stoning of adulterers that occurs in other parts of the region? Who are we to complain about chemical weapons when we hold people without a trial for years, often while torturing them? I guess the rest of the world (minus France) should just stand aside while we fire missiles in such a way that we appear "just muscular enough not to get mocked"? Where was this demand for action in Darfur? Why aren't we taking sides in the current civil war in the Central African Republic?



These are the good questions, especially the last two. Isn't it odd how inconsistent the US foreign policy?--assuming their main goal is to 'spread democracy, help others, and blah blah blah'. (It's not. It's about control through almost any means).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:11 am

Frigidus wrote:My point is that our government is not considering military action in Syria because they have a genuine interest in protecting human rights, as if we actually cared about human rights we would have intervened over similar situations in countries that don't have oil. I would be willing to at least consider the humanitarian excuse if we had even one time in the last decade taken an action without an obvious ulterior motive.


Here's some critical commentary on the idea that saxi and others have presented -- that US involvement in Syria is about the US.

http://ww4report.com/node/12589

We noted over a year ago that the increasingly poorly named "anti-war" movement (more of a gaggle than a "movement," and highly selective in being "anti-war") was betraying the Syrian people by failing to even acknowledge Bashar Assad's atrocities, and portraying the opposition as all CIA pawns or al-Qaeda jihadists or both. Now that Assad is apparently escalating to genocide and the US threatens air-strikes, is there any sign that the "anti-war" forces have been chastised into a more honest appraisal? Sadly, no.

To take just a few representative examples. "We're here to say that we're against US intervention in Syria," Amelia Ramsey-Lefevre of the Syracuse Peace Council told the local Post-Standard at the vigil they launched. "We stand again on the verge of illegally going to war under false pretenses." Do you care to explain that "false pretenses" comment, Amelia? We'll be waiting. Talk about fighting the last war—to say this days after a chemical attack in which perhaps over a thousand died betrays an unthinking analogy to Iraq, overlooking obvious, overwhelming context. And this is the least reactionary "anti-war" tendency, as contrasted with those openly supporting the war criminal Bashar Assad.

At yesterday's protests in front of the White House (an AFP photo reveals it was organized by the ultra-reactionary ANSWER Coalition), the favored chant was "No war in Syria!" (as captured on a BBC sound clip and also echoed with approval by Tehran Times). Don't ANSWER's cannon fodder follow the news at all? "No war in Syria"?! Two million refugees, 100,000 dead, schools getting bombed (see this harrowing BBC footage, in case you missed it), and this is somehow deemed a logical demand? The war in Syria is a fact, regardless of whether the US intervenes.

...

That the US has imperial interests in the Middle East is hardly a great revelation, and certainly those interests will be a big part of the context in any military intervention. But as we've said before: If you were sitting in a Damascus suburb with Assad's missiles raining down on your head, you might have more pressing concerns than US motives. The notion that the Syrians who are eager for intervention are naive about US intentions (or are US pawns) is deeply insulting. Pointing out the obvious problems with US military intervention is entirely legitimate, but failing completely to grapple with the question of what are the world's responsibilities to the Syrians in this dark hour is not.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6719
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: California

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Gillipig on Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:00 am

Screw Syria, invade Iran!!
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:22 am

Ray Rider wrote:Looks like the antiwar crowd is dominating the discussion here and I happen to agree for the most part. The National Post had a good article about it recently here.

However I do have a couple questions for the non-interventionists here:
1. At what point is intervention in sovereign nation's civil war justifiable, or is it ever justifiable, in your opinion? In the case of Syria, it's of low strategic value to the West, neither warring faction shares the West's values, and the risk of the war spilling over to other nations is low if left to continue its course; however do you believe there is a point, say after 500,000 causalities or something, that intervention is morally just and necessary from a humanitarian standpoint? Or perhaps only if it is ethnic cleansing which is occurring i.e. Rwanda?


No, but this is a incomplete view of the situation. It's not just simply: after x-amount of people die by (a) Assad's government--and also (b) various rebels, then war is morally justified. (Who's killing who, and why?) Given one's moral position, would intervention achieve the goal of stopping the casualties or would it increase it? And how would intervention be conducted?

Means, Ends, Outcomes
We must first understand if the means, (a) intervention or non-intervention, attain the goals of our moral position, and more importantly, this requires comparing the various means with alternatives--e.g. letting Syrian refugees into the US. *(Watch how some moralists would bulk at that proposition. They'd want to 'help' but at the distance of a missile strike, which to me says something about their moral 'reasoning'). Wouldn't extended visas to Syrian refugees minimize more casualties?, and upon arrival, wouldn't the work/trade benefit them and us even more? The relative benefits and costs of intervention must be compared with the relative benefits and costs of non-intervention.

(b) Then, we have to consider the intended and unintended consequences for the means, and this requires looking at the past pattern of US intervention in (1) resolving conflict, thus (2) preventing more deaths, and (3) providing better/worse long-term outcomes (all of which the US + Allies have had a very unimpressive record).

Also, if we answer (a) intervention, you'd have to (c) examine the political process in order to clarify one's expectations of the outcomes from US policymakers and politicians. For example, of the many plans for intervention, and regardless of the pro-war clamoring of the electorate, would the USG actually pick the one which minimizes casualties in the long-run? (which would presumably be the goal of the initial moral claim). Or would they pick something else? (e.g. supporting a dictatorship, 'accidentally' prolonging the war, etc.). If they would pick something else, then why support intervention?
    (Notice how moral rhetoric/'reasoning' can have zero accountability because that approach often overlooks consequences of its clamoring, and it fails to explain the process through which the moral means would be implemented).


Reevaluate the moral position
Are casualties all that matters? Suppose the US were to impose a dictatorship in Syria which actually keep casualties at a lower rate. Would it be acceptable for a moral position to inadvertently support dictatorships? Are there not other criteria for moral approbation (e.g. freedom, health, well-being, etc.)? If so, would the various means of intervention be better at attaining such lofty goals, or would the various means of non-intervention be more effective? For example, compare building a democracy (Iraq, AFG) to simply inviting people to an already established democracy (e.g. opening borders of US, CAN, wherever to innocent Syrians).

    So, we can't just rely on the casualties nor on the means of those casualties as a reason for intervention.


Moral Positioning: subsidies, accountability, and opportunity cost
Who's going to subsidize/pay the costs for one's moral position? And would such a process accurately reflect your consideration of the costs and benefits over time? Again, how would the moralist hold himself accountable if his means for attaining his moral goal not only fail but create even worse outcomes?

Let's apply what we know about the importance of opportunity costs. Since we live in a world of scarcity, we have finite means for attaining many desired goals. Suppose an intervention in Syria would cost $1bn per month. If one's moral goal is to reduce deaths, then would spending $1bn per month on other means better attain that goal?--e.g. foreign aid, R&D in medicine, whatever. In other words, for any plan of action, you should compare it to the opportunity cost--i.e. what could you have spent the money on instead.

And if spending $1bn per month on Whatever could've saved more lives, then how can one justify an intervention in Syria? Do not other people's lives matter as well?


Then, what happens in the political process of subsidizing one's moral goals? If you don't pay for something--or to be precise, if you only pay a relatively minimal amount than you otherwise would have had to pay (since everyone else is being force to pay), nor control the decision rights over that money, then you'll have a limited ability to attain your goal.
    Suppose you could freely spend your money on intervention (military/non-military) in Syria. If your place of donation was failing to attain its goals, you could stop giving it money. The problem with the political process is that (1) you can't choose to stop giving it money--no matter how much it fails, and (2) political enterprises don't go bankrupt, so when they fail, they neither learn as effectively as businesses in the market system learn, nor we will they be forced to actually stop or rapidly decrease doing harm--in most cases.

Also, if you subsidize something, you generally get more of it. If you subsidize the means for intervention, then the price for moral clamoring toward intervention would decrease (it's encapsulated in the thought: "hey, we got the military, so why not use it as 'a global force for good'" Why not 'do something'?). The problem is that a subsidy in the political process doesn't hold itself accountable to waste/lower productivity--compared to 'subsidies'/investments in the market system. (Recall the paragraph above on why that is).


And, is it more right for others' to die--like Allied/rebels/Syrian govt. soldiers/innocents? Is it more right to deprive others' of more of their money (taxation)? Your moral concerns might be assuaged, but are you choosing and attaining the best moral means and goals?
('might' because the goal through intervention is not certain, nor highly likely given past performance).

Given all this, would the moralist hold himself accountable to all the above problems? Or do they generally shout for X, get X, and then move onto Y while ignoring X? (If so, then they should stop doing that since no accountability doesn't help others in the long-run). If one supports intervention, and it fails or causes more harm, then is the moralist punished for supporting such means? No, hardly. Would they learn from their mistakes? Maybe. If so, then moral clamoring for intervention shouldn't be subsidized.

Those who insist on intervention should be required to face the consequences of their actions--whether it be joining the war and getting shot, or supporting military/non-military intervention through donations while watching that money become poorly used. That's how people are best held accountable: when the costs of their actions are internalized. (The political process does not encourage this since its means are almost entirely provided through involuntary exchange--i.e. each citizen hardly has as much autonomy over the political means, compared to one's autonomy on making decisions in markets).


Ray Rider wrote:2. At what point is intervention in a sovereign nation justifiable to prevent chemical weapons from getting into the wrong hands or from being used indiscriminately on a population? Does the fact that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict in Syria affect your view at all--is it a factor in deciding whether war is justifiable or not? Or do you view it as "just another 300 dead out of 100,00; who cares about the exact cause of their death"? What about if these chemical weapons had long-term lasting effects on the environment?

Those are some of the questions I'm mulling over right now. I'm opposed to the war right now, but I'm figuring out at what point my view on that would change; what would it take for me to join the pro-war side?


Same as above. You need to compare various means to alternatives and to examine the processes through which each might be attained. For example, would spending $1bn per month to stop environmental damage from chemical weapons actually increase environment damage or decrease it? (US military causes a lot of pollution) (/process). Would spending that money elsewhere better attain that goal? (/alternative, or opportunity cost).

To answer some questions,
If those with chemical weapons (a) actually have the weapons and (b) actually are capable of threatening the US/your home, then sure, intervention is justifiable. It would be similar to someone threatening you with their gun.

For example, if someone starts spraying his neighborhood with bullets, then I'd be more inclined to intervene--but it depends on my means and my tacit knowledge. I understand Americans more than I understand Syrians, and I can understand (1) the context of an American neighborhood shooting more than (2) the other context of civil war in a foreign country. This should update one's "moral calculus" with a sense of clearer perspective. Also, if intervention in (1) is deemed morally justifiable, it doesn't follow that intervention is morally justifiable in (2) since the means and tacit knowledge, thus awareness of consequences, completely differ from (1).

The use of chemical weapons in Syria has affected my view, but it doesn't compel me to jump on the bandwagon of warmongering--especially since it is very likely that both government and rebel groups have and are using chemical weapons. If one's goal is to stop the use of chemical weapons, and their means of subsidizing the rebels who have used/are willing to use chemical weapons--or who are even are willing to coordinate with those who use chemical weapons (e.g. the FSA), then that defeats the purpose.


If one really wishes to help the Syrians, then they should invite a family to their home. If the USG prevents that, then the hindrance to one's moral means becomes obvious (immigration policy issue). This is one path of non-intervention; moral goals can be attained through peaceful means and through the market system. Imagine if Syria was deprived of 80% of its population which moved elsewhere. You'd mostly be left with militants and government fighting over a land whose most important resource was allowed to escape (thanks to more open borders). If you diminish the profit/benefits of war, then you can expect higher marginal costs of war, thus a lower demand for war (i.e. conflict resolution)--e.g. what's the point of fighting over a land whose tax-base has left?

Thanks, Ray, for the questions. It's been enjoyable answering them.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Frigidus on Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:47 am

For those that are in favor of military intervention, what would you consider to be the major differences between Iraq and Syria that made one a poor decision and the other a worthy cause?
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:03 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:So Juan, apparently, has never heard of ZeroHedge!?!?! :lol:

Juan, for your edification, "Tyler Durden" - the Chuck Palahniuk character - is the collective pen name used by ZeroHedge's authors. ZeroHedge is a major markets analysis website that exposed the Goldman Sachs flash trading scandal (have you heard of Goldman Sachs?).


Hella no, I've never heard of Zero Hedge. Apparently it's an anti-Obama conspiracy website run by anonymous people.


Juan - honestly, you sound like a completely unhinged nutter and possibly a high school dropout.

    You made a major, embarrassing misstep by exposing your lack of informational and intellectual pedigree and - instead of slinking off - decided to double-down ... by screaming ZeroHedge (a major markets analysis website) is part of a conspiracy out to get you from "anonymous people" - affirming this view by quoting a Wikipedia off-shoot written by anonymous people and continuing with your previous conspiracy rant that all media reports are part of a conspiracy by corporations like Goldman Sachs ... whom you don't like because of its involvement in the 2009 flash trading scandal (which Zero Hedge broke). :roll:
You then had a complete melt-down and posted a bizarre, angry collection of Simpsons photos you'd spent a half-hour pasting together over which you pounded out a reprisal of your weird attempt to de-legitimize the peace movement by attaching it to Alex Jones, Pauley Shore and Bozo the Clown. Which didn't seem to work the first two times and just seems increasingly off-kilter now. You're not helping your case by presenting the image of an angry, irrational man with an increasingly untethered grip on reality. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:08 pm

Frigidus wrote:For those that are in favor of military intervention, what would you consider to be the major differences between Iraq and Syria that made one a poor decision and the other a worthy cause?


Just tune into CNN or MSNBC or any of the Sunday morning talk shows. They are making lists of ways this is different than Iraq. I even heard one lady on CNN yesterday talking about how Obama, if he strikes, is actually staying true to his nobel prize acceptance speech, in that "sometimes war is necessary".
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:17 pm

Support for America's War Against Syria Increases!
(from 9% to 20%)


After rallying the corporate media to bombard Americans with his wrapped-in-the-flag message of destruction and carnage for a week, Obama has succeeded in moving the needle of support for America's War Against Syria from 9% to 20%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... UO20130830

cue Juan_Bottom:
    "I've never heard of this Reuters thing - besides, I read on an anonymous website it's part of a conspiracy against Obama in collaboration with the Zeta-Reticulan shapeshifters and GEICO!!!"
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:21 pm

saxitoxin wrote:Support for America's War Against Syria Increases!
(from 9% to 20%)


After rallying the corporate media to bombard Americans with his wrapped-in-the-flag message of destruction and carnage for a week, Obama has succeeded in moving the needle of support for America's War Against Syria from 9% to 20%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... UO20130830

cue Juan_Bottom:
    "I've never heard of this Reuters thing - I read on an anonymous website it's some fly-by-night operation conspiring against Obama in collaboration with the Zeta-Reticulan shapeshifters and Philip-Morris!!!!!"


Holy Deja Vu from the Iraq run-up. Back when I used to keep a paper journal, I made notes on all the polls at the time for anything Iraq related, and bit by bit the support grew.

Remember the clincher to get all the polls over 50%?

show
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:49 pm

updated deployments based on new reports ...

Image
orange are nations that could host air strikes against Syria
    - Patches has pointed out that Russia just renegotiated the Cypriot debt and Cyprus responded by declaring their airfields off-limits to the U.S. so they got a red X
    - media reports that Jordan has declared itself off-limits to the U.S. so they got a red X
    - Turkey's Erdogan - who has a 32% approval rating in his country - has declared he's willing to host the U.S., despite public protests
    - it's safe to presume the Supreme King of Saudi Arabia, a pedophile and cocaine addict who cuts the hands off his citizens and - with the aid of his police - rapes any woman who catches his eye, is willing to host airstrikes to bring democracy to Syria
    - I left Iraq 'non-orange' since the U.S. retreated from that country and, according to the Washington regime, has no forces left there
According to new reports, the U.S. has no additional ships in Italy, but three unnamed subs have joined the U.S. flotilla. France has three ships in Toulon, and the De Gaulle is being refitted and unable to put to sea, but the Chevalier Paul has finally managed to link-up with the Americans. The five Russian ships forming the picket line in the eastern Med apparently comprise the entire Black Sea Fleet so there are no blue-water reserves nearby; the transiting Russian ships are from the Northern Fleet.

RED TEAM

Mordor
- USS San Antonio (amphibious assault ship) + partial U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Unit
- USS Samuel Gravely (frigate)
- USS John Barry (frigate)
- USS Alfred Mahan (frigate)
- USS Lawson Ramage (frigate)
- 1 unknown ship
- 3 unknown subs
- aircraft in Turkey and Saudi Arabia

Isengaard
- aircraft in Turkey

Orcs
- FS Chevalier Paul (frigate)
- 2 unknown ships at the naval base at Toulon

BLUE TEAM

Russia
- 5 unknown ships in eastern Med
- RFS Moskva (cruiser) transiting Dardanelles en route to join RUS flotilla
- RFS Ladnyy (frigate) transiting Dardanelles en route to join RUS flotilla

UNKNOWN INTENT

NATO Standing Naval Force
HNLMS Tromp (Dutch frigate / NATO flagship)
HNLMS De Ruyter (Dutch frigate)
TCG Giersun (Turkish frigate)
USS William Haliburton (American frigate)
USS William Bainbridge (American frigate)
HDMS Esben Snare (Danish resupply ship)

sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 1Z20130831
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-fra ... terranean/
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... s_doorstep
http://wtkr.com/2013/08/29/uss-stout-to ... -to-syria/
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_08_29/Fra ... yria-6608/
http://www.thelocal.fr/20130829/french- ... ards-syria
http://news.sky.com/story/1134531/syria ... ips-to-med
Last edited by saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Postby 2dimes on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:59 pm

Russia trying hard to distance themselves from the past?

How could they be the blue team? Are these colours selected by the new CC colour team?
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 10900
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Unable to sync with satellites.

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:17 pm

Juan - can you give us an update on whether you and the other Chickenhawks have enlisted yet? Or is it that someone has to stay safe and snug with the kids and housewives in middle America to keep the search for Koni alive?

Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda's air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs ... -air-force


(Advance apologies to Juan if he's never hard of the The Hill. Not an insult, I just don't want to assume anything at this point, given this recent revelations.)

anonymous chief petty officer says (probably anonymous to keep from being Manning'ed by the regime)...
Image
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Qwert on Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:37 pm

ok blue team we need good dices in first turn :)
Image
NEW REVOLUTION-NEW RANKS PRESS THESE LINK viewtopic.php?f=471&t=47578&start=0
User avatar
Major Qwert
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 9190
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:07 pm
Location: VOJVODINA

PreviousNext

Return to The Recovery Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users