Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Syria Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Foreign Diplomats Flee And U.S. Braces For The Worst
SYSOP    12/12/2012 5:07:56 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Gerry       12/12/2012 9:36:38 PM
This has turned into an Islamist dream and a nightmare for everybody else. Too many nuts with only one oar in the water. The US should be hands off until the blood bath is over. I suspect it may go on for a long time after Assad is gone.
 
Quote    Reply

Carlos Marx-Smith       12/13/2012 3:58:20 AM
The PKK is of course fighting the Islamists. The PKK stands for (in Kurdish of course) Kurdistan Workers Party as any search on the 'net will show. Yes, they are  "Marxist" etc, but they are the only hope for the Kurds to begin establishing a nation based on the values of the Enlightenment, not on Islmaic "values". No, it probably would not be a parliamentary democracy, mores the pity. Not to begin with anyway. And before we begin accusations such as "another repressive regime" , the PKK would not stand for Islamic values such as keeping females out of education, covering them up and regarding them as baby factories for the sole purpose of bringing up martyrs. This is important because by freeing the female population from repression, the whole of society will benefit and ignorance (which the Islamists prey on) will be abated. As an aside, the current elected president of Iraq was part of a socialist anti-Saddam Kurdish resistance movement. BTW, I am not suggesting that the PKK is some squeaky clean outfit, or "goodies" as it were. Only that they, as well other anti-Islamist movements, are the best chance to at least check the power of the Islamists.
It certainly is a nightmare for the non Islamists. The Islamists are sensing that the Pan-Arabic Caliphate is close. Let's hope that the resistance remains disciplined. Can you imaging a Hamas style regime over the whole area?
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       12/13/2012 5:26:02 AM
Why do U.S. forces need to be sent in to secure the chemical weapons?  The Russians are already there, and they are likely just as interested in seeing WMDs not being used where their people live, as we are in making certain the Terrorists don't get them.  Remember that the rebels are very unhappy with the Russians for supporting and arming the Assad regime.  Does anyone doubt that the first target for a captured chemical WMD could very likely be the naval base at Tartus?  Sending in special forces has, unfortunately, become the politically safe way of projecting U.S. military power.  But the risks of sending in small, lightly armed forces deep into enemy territory requires a mission goal that can be accomplished quickly.  There is nothing 'hit-and-run' about securing a warehouse or a bunker loaded with scud missiles and chemical stockpiles and then holding it in the face of an enemy determined to get at them, whether they are rebels or loyalists or... BOTH.  Such an operation will require us to send in an army to relieve the special Ops team within 12 to 24 hours, and I think the Russians will have views on the subject.   If they don't oppose us directly, they could (As they have been known to do in the past) tip off the bad guys that a black-ops helicopter is approaching them from a particular direction, at a set altitude and within a certain time-frame.  A more sensible solution would be to secure guarantees from the Russians that stockpiles of WMDs will be secured by Russian forces, if and when the Assad regime collapses.  Which, if the stories of them down to using SCUDS is any indication that their stockpiles of ammo is running low, could be very soon.
 
Quote    Reply

TonoFonseca    Syria   12/13/2012 12:54:00 PM
It's retarded that people are "recognising the Syrian opposition".  There is no "Syrian opposition"; it's just an assortment of people fighting to destroy Assad.  It's not like they're working together or anything.  I support the Kurdish separatists, and I just hope that the rest of Syria won't be governed by anybody too extreme, since it won't be any better than that.
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       12/13/2012 3:38:23 PM
Whatever becomes of Syria, it is better than being an ally of Iran. It will probably become another Egypt, which is bad, but better that Iranian satellite country. Of course, nobody knows what will become of Egypt, yet. But, Iran has proven certain ability to get organized and cause more serious problems. Losing their only regional ally will hit them hard.
 
Particularly the fact that they spent billions to support Syrian regime. All that money has gone in vain. That will have effect on Iranian internal politics, deep ones. Difficult to say how deep.
 
Having another Islamic nation with hostile attitudes is bad. But it doesn't change much. They are not the only ones, and they were not friendly in the past, either. I say that Egypt is much more alarming. It was an Islamic nation with hostile attitudes and friendly government. Now it is a nation with same hostile attitudes and very much undetermined government. And it is the largest Islamic nation, after Indonesia.
 
DG
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics