The war in Syria
- Thread starter Second Summer
- Start date
ledboots
Peace
yakherder
老外
I've seen it mentioned on a few sketchy, heavily biased websites
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if they have indeed sent a ship. They've been getting more involved globally, as does any national with something at stake in the outcomes of various situations. Their special operations has been more active than most people would assume as well.
yakherder
老外
And for those who are worried, vast numbers they may have, but the Chinese Navy is pretty much worthless at this point in time.
OP
OP
Russian Warships ‘Special Cargo’ In Syria Stokes Fear Of World War 3 (The Inquisitor, 6. Sept. 2013)
Blobbenstein
.......
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Blobbenstein
.......
how is it about oil?
Not that it isn't but you hear about it being about oil quite a bit, I'm just not sure of the connection.
yakherder
老外
Google Treaty of Sèvres, go to the Wikipedia page, and pay close attention to where it talks about the Tripartite Agreement signed in conjunction with it. We're still fighting the broken version of the Ottoman Empire which was created at the end of World War 1. Yes, it's largely about oil, but only partially about greed. It's more about strategy.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
It's about every country in the Middle east and their strategic access to oil or land that is close to countries that may be a threat to that access.
OP
OP
It's partly about oil, partly about the Suez canal, alliances and strategic considerations. The West is allied with Israel first and foremost, but also with certain dictatorships/kings and groups in the Arab countries, some of whom control oil reserves. The important thing to note about Syria is that the regime is aligned with Iran and Russia, and hostile to Israel, and therefore an enemy of the West. An article I read recently said about 30,000 Russians live and work in Syria. Plus, Tartus is a naval port in Syria that is leased to the Russians, and is the only Russian naval base in the Mediterranean Sea.
Dedalus
Mercurial and fleeting
yakherder
老外
Unfortunately, humanitarian aid to a country at war with itself ultimately just provides another resource to fight over. Just distributing food in a manner that won't result in bloodshed requires a military presence.
Throw an apple to a group of chimps, and the response is "Omg an apple! Let's fight, winner gets the apple!"
Throw an apple to a group of bonobos, and the response is "Omg an apple! Let's all have sex with each other then share the apple!"
Though we're closely related to both, within the context of civilization we tend to act more like the chimps.
Throw an apple to a group of chimps, and the response is "Omg an apple! Let's fight, winner gets the apple!"
Throw an apple to a group of bonobos, and the response is "Omg an apple! Let's all have sex with each other then share the apple!"
Though we're closely related to both, within the context of civilization we tend to act more like the chimps.
Last edited:
Dedalus
Mercurial and fleeting
Yes - but as you very well know: military presence results in bloodshed. My point is that while I have no desire to turn a blind eye to the volatile situation - I don't for one nano-second think that bombs and missiles are going to magically makes things all happy and wonderful.
yakherder
老外
Aye. Even as something of a pessimistic war monger, I can agree with that.
You can't secure chemical weapons with long range explosives. I like to think those making the decisions are seeing something I don't and assume that I can trust them to do what's best, because I know they're not stupid. But if they think air strikes will lead to anything other than boots on the ground in the middle of a civil war with no "good guys", so to speak, then they are being overly optimistic.
Last edited:
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
Unfortunately that has not happened in any recent wars, in fact the outcome has been a complete disaster for any countries involved.
OP
OP
I think your premises may be true to some extent, but it doesn't follow that we can trust them to do what's best neither for your own country nor for Syria or the ME. Political and ideological concerns cloud their view.
OP
OP
Yesterday secretary of state John Kerry said Syria should surrender their chemical weapons within a week to avoid an attack, and several people subsequently gave their reserved blessings to this "plan", including UK foreign minister William Hague, former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, etc. The Russians discussed it with the Syrian regime, and they both seemed to support the idea. Now Kerry is backtracking, saying he was just being "rhetorical" since Syria was unlikely to agree to such a plan ...
Having read more about the recent chemical attack near Damascus, there seems to be indications that the Syrian regime really was responsible, but there is no "smoking gun" yet.
Having read more about the recent chemical attack near Damascus, there seems to be indications that the Syrian regime really was responsible, but there is no "smoking gun" yet.
OP
OP
It seems Kerry may have accidentally "solved" the dispute with Russia & Syria.
Syria agrees to place chemical weapons under international control (The Independent, 10. Sept. 2013)
Syria agrees to place chemical weapons under international control (The Independent, 10. Sept. 2013)
Similar threads
