Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Share
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 578
    Points : 625
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 40
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  SOC on Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:what sort of military response can Syria mount to respond to US air attacks?

    Syria has Scuds and clearly has chemical weapons... it also has Yakhont...

    About zero. If they're intelligent they simply fire from outside Yakhont range, and while an airbursting SCUD with a chem payload might make things interesting there isn't that much danger because 1) the thing just isn't all that accurate, 2) you can quickly move out of the affected area at sea, and 3) surface combatants are able to be sealed against these kinds of things, so you aren't going to really bother anyone inside pressing the fire button.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18366
    Points : 18924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:04 am

    About zero. If they're intelligent they simply fire from outside Yakhont range, and while an airbursting SCUD with a chem payload might make things interesting there isn't that much danger because 1) the thing just isn't all that accurate, 2) you can quickly move out of the affected area at sea, and 3) surface combatants are able to be sealed against these kinds of things, so you aren't going to really bother anyone inside pressing the fire button.
    Wasn't really thinking about US naval targets... was thinking more about targeting Israel or Turkey... both US allies, and not so much actually attacking them but making it very clear that any US attack on Syria would result in attacks on US allies in the region with the threat that what the US targets in Syria, Syria will target in Israel and Turkey. Of course as you mention, the Scud only has a fraction of the accuracy of a western air strike... but that is hardly Syrias problem.
    avatar
    macedonian

    Posts : 1072
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  macedonian on Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    About zero. If they're intelligent they simply fire from outside Yakhont range, and while an airbursting SCUD with a chem payload might make things interesting there isn't that much danger because 1) the thing just isn't all that accurate, 2) you can quickly move out of the affected area at sea, and 3) surface combatants are able to be sealed against these kinds of things, so you aren't going to really bother anyone inside pressing the fire button.
    Wasn't really thinking about US naval targets... was thinking more about targeting Israel or Turkey... both US allies, and not so much actually attacking them but making it very clear that any US attack on Syria would result in attacks on US allies in the region with the threat that what the US targets in Syria, Syria will target in Israel and Turkey. Of course as you mention, the Scud only has a fraction of the accuracy of a western air strike... but that is hardly Syrias problem.
    I did understand this, but it's not how the world works at present.
    Well, not if self-preservation is something Assad has in mind for his country at least.
    Israel is playing the 'bully's friend' here. They're playing this rather smart actually.
    Why fight directly and have your soldiers put in harms way, when you can push someone else to fight for you.
    It's been proven to be quite successful so far, and there's no need to change tactics yet.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18366
    Points : 18924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:12 am

    I did understand this, but it's not how the world works at present.
    Well, not if self-preservation is something Assad has in mind for his country at least.
    Israel is playing the 'bully's friend' here. They're playing this rather smart actually.
    Why fight directly and have your soldiers put in harms way, when you can push someone else to fight for you.
    It's been proven to be quite successful so far, and there's no need to change tactics yet.
    If the US and the west get their way Assad is a dead man... ask Gaddafi... ask Saddam... no wait you can't... perhaps in terms of self preservation he might realise that if the US attacked Syria that unless his military can effectively protect the country that the air power will become key to a rebel victory because to fight the rebels he has to amass his forces and amassed forces are targets for air power... just like the Taleban found in Afghanistan fighting a rag tag enemy with western air power in support is actually quite difficult because to fight you need to concentrate men and equipment, and when you do that you become an air target. If you remain scattered then the enemy will defeat you with local superiority in numbers and equipment.

    Israel is playing things very skillfully... pulling strings in the back ground to get what they think their ally wants... the main problem of course is that they are not really thinking things through as Assad was not really a friend of Israel but who knows what rag tag ass about regime will take power when Assad is murdered and left at the side of the road... it almost certainly will be more dangerous to Israel than Assads regime ever was.

    Getting Israel involved will destabilise the anti Assad arab coalition, and indeed if they can ferment unrest in Saudi Arabia that would be of use as well in undermining the anti government forces in Syria.

    Cornered animals are the most dangerous...

    As Sa'iqa

    Posts : 414
    Points : 350
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 24
    Location : Western Poland

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:29 pm

    It's unlikely that there will be a full scale bombing campaign as in Libya. Probably we'll see just a brief attack, mostly for propaganda purposes.
    avatar
    macedonian

    Posts : 1072
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  macedonian on Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:If the US and the west get their way Assad is a dead man... ask Gaddafi... ask Saddam... no wait you can't... perhaps in terms of self preservation he might realise that if the US attacked Syria that unless his military can effectively protect the country that the air power will become key to a rebel victory because to fight the rebels he has to amass his forces and amassed forces are targets for air power... just like the Taleban found in Afghanistan fighting a rag tag enemy with western air power in support is actually quite difficult because to fight you need to concentrate men and equipment, and when you do that you become an air target. If you remain scattered then the enemy will defeat you with local superiority in numbers and equipment.
    I agree with everything you've said in your post, but I think you didn't understand my reaction to your previous post.
    Or perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.
    What I meant is that if Assad chose to use chemical weapons against US allies (especially against Israel), I'd expect nothing less than a full scale war against Syria (with an aim of totally destroying the country) by the US/NATO/Israel crowd. Nuclear strike on Syria by Israel is also a possibility. They're beating the war drums now, with WMD evidence that's farcical at best, what do you think they'll do when given a proper excuse?!


    GarryB wrote:Israel is playing things very skillfully... pulling strings in the back ground to get what they think their ally wants... the main problem of course is that they are not really thinking things through as Assad was not really a friend of Israel but who knows what rag tag ass about regime will take power when Assad is murdered and left at the side of the road... it almost certainly will be more dangerous to Israel than Assads regime ever was.

    Getting Israel involved will destabilise the anti Assad arab coalition, and indeed if they can ferment unrest in Saudi Arabia that would be of use as well in undermining the anti government forces in Syria.

    Cornered animals are the most dangerous...
    I actually believe that Israel is quite comfortable as things stand now and considers itself far better off with any of the scenarios you've proposed, rather than having a strong Syrian government as its neighbor. I'd wager that things going this way might have been the plan all along. Syria in ruins, with no actual central power to hold it together, embroiled in sectarian violence is less of a strategic threat to Israel than it was before.
    True, Assad wasn't a threat to Israel since he came to power, but strategic planing in Israel I think is done more by looking into the far distant future, and one thing is certain to the Israelis - that they might have peace for some time perhaps, but they'll never be strategic partners with any Arab or Muslim nation which surround them. I don't think they would want to even if it was feasible. So breaking them up along sectarian lines, and if possible, into several different states that they could play against each-other should the need arise, is quite a strategic accomplishment.

    Of course they know all about how frail the balance in the region is, especially between them and the Arabs, hence the need for the Americans to do the actual fighting, and be at the front of the coalition of the willing. No Arab nation would join a coalition headed by Israel, but one headed by the US is a different matter...

    As Sa'iqa

    Posts : 414
    Points : 350
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 24
    Location : Western Poland

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:12 pm

    Putin has started to step back. He said that Russia will agree to an intervention if there is evidence of Assad's guilt. Quite a step "forward", I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow he said that the evidence is already there. Well,such an "ally"...
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5640
    Points : 6273
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  Viktor on Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:57 pm

    As Sa'iqa wrote:Putin has started to step back. He said that Russia will agree to an intervention if there is evidence of Assad's guilt. Quite a step "forward", I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow he said that the evidence is already there. Well,such an "ally"...
    Nope, he said that in order to for US and its poodles to present its "evidence" and seek UNSC approval. Wich he knows they dont have. (Thats why Cameron was brutally sacked in his British parlamet as British woul go to war 100% if there where any credible evidence and not just talk)
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5565
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  TR1 on Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:38 pm

    As Sa'iqa wrote:Putin has started to step back. He said that Russia will agree to an intervention if there is evidence of Assad's guilt. Quite a step "forward", I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow he said that the evidence is already there. Well,such an "ally"...
    Good. Russia doesn't owe Assad anything.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18366
    Points : 18924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:22 am

    Also unlike the west this is not an about face by Putin... Putin has never said the use of chemical or bio weapons by either side is acceptable, Just as with Saddam he asked for proof of chem or bio weapons in Iraq to justify the invasion. Equally Russia does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons and if there was even a shred of evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program then Putin would likely stop all nuclear related cooperation with Iran.

    The simple facts however are that Iran isn't building a bomb, Saddam didn't have chem or bio weapons, and the Syrian government didn't use chemical or bio weapons against the rebels... they don't need to... they have plenty of conventional weapons to do the job. The only side that benefits from the allegations of Chem or Bio weapons used is the western backed terrorists.

    They are following the KLA playbook... provoke an attack by government forces and then blame the government for brutality...
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3340
    Points : 3424
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:05 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    As Sa'iqa wrote:Putin has started to step back. He said that Russia will agree to an intervention if there is evidence of Assad's guilt. Quite a step "forward", I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow he said that the evidence is already there. Well,such an "ally"...
    Good. Russia doesn't owe Assad anything.
    Let's just ignore the fact then that this is not exactly the first attack of its kind in Syria.
    It's just that for the previous ones the evidence that the Western powers got didn't quite point the fingers at the people they wanted to point the fingers at; so they were just ignored.

    Keep funding & supplying rebels, bringing in mercenaries, imposing economic blockades, encouraging conflict & telling one side to not negotiate under any circumstances - and eventually the country will crack apart and implode, and the US and Europe will find plenty of examples of atrocities that they can use as excuses for intervention.
    Winning formula if there ever was one.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 578
    Points : 625
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 40
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  SOC on Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:40 am

    GarryB wrote:The simple facts however are that Iran isn't building a bomb
    There is no hard evidence that they are building a bomb, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. While it only amounts to circumstantial evidence, the amount and type of uranium enrichment ongoing makes a "peaceful-only" allegation highly suspect. Knowing what I know about the process, all the way from mining uranium to the effects of fallout, I'd be forced to admit that there is no conclusive evidence of an actual weapon but that there is evidence of weapon-related activity that does not completely lend itself to dual-use tasks. Of course, Iran is an NPT signatory, and actually following the NPT would be more than enough to clear up any concerns (well, technical concerns, the politicians will still find a way to make it obnoxious). But, saying Iran should follow the rules doesn't make people feel like part of the trendy crowd, and saying that the USA is off the rails does.

    GarryB wrote:Saddam didn't have chem or bio weapons
    That specific statement is completely and thoroughly untrue. Saddam did possess chemical weapons...just not to the extent which was claimed. Part of the problem was yet another intelligence failure, in that a lot of the evidence pre-dated 1999 and hadn't been updated much for various reasons...something nobody ever really wants to talk about, because of the obvious conclusions one would be forced to draw. At any rate, I was in Baghdad in 2004 and not that far from a chemical artillery shell wired as an IED. Such things were located (don't recall any other IEDs but the things were found in caches: rockets, shells, and the like), by both sides obviously, but there often wasn't that much reporting because 1) we on the ground really didn't give a damn about parading the things around as announcing captures may have led the opposition to go looking for more in similar places, and 2) the American media had a hard-on for anything that was anti-war once the "shock and awe" video feeds expired. It's like the "oh no the war in Iraq is totally illegal" crowd: talking out of their collective asses. Saddam was already in violation of the original cease-fire and had been for some time, which authorized continued military action, no matter how many wanted to whine about it on the floor of the UNSC. If the parrots would've simply stuck to the far more accurate and far more logical "the occupation of Iraq is illegal" argument, they would've had an argument that was credible without dispute. Now, me personally, I wouldn't have gone into Iraq anyway, Saddam was perfectly set up to sit and harass nobody but his own people until death. But the continued propagation of arguments that I can prove via personal experience are 100% inaccurate makes my head hurt!

    GarryB wrote:the Syrian government didn't use chemical or bio weapons against the rebels... they don't need to... they have plenty of conventional weapons to do the job.
    Don't know either way. There's enough back-and-forth by both Assad and the rebels and enough sensible theories to both sides of the argument that you can't call it one way or the other. Maybe that Voronezh down at Armavir saw something and Putin's "backing down" to provide an out if someone else has the same data and actually presents it to the UNSC. Which won't happen, of course, as the US seems hell-bent on becoming Al Qaeda's air force and blowing something up for the hell of it. Although, as to the "they don't need to" side of the coin...it's possible Assad is tiring of the entire conflict, or maybe its affecting the Syrian economy more significantly than believed, or he's actually getting irritated at the damage the whole thing is causing. It's a comparatively small number of insurgents, yet the vaunted Syrian Army has completely failed to achieve total mastery of its own territory! Ergo, maybe they did decide to use chemical weapons to make a statement that, after fighting for so long, enough is enough. It does seem a little bit weird given that they have managed to make gains against the insurgency, albeit at a slow rate. So maybe Assad finally took the gloves off, who knows, they could've viewed it as an attempt to basically scare the other guys into submission and get this over with as the threat of Western action was still around. Maybe the rebels got into some chems and tried to frame Assad. Maybe some of Assad's guys tried to frame the rebels and did something wrong. Many options, none of which can actually be eliminated because the people who supposedly have the evidence? They've decided that we aren't on the list so we can't decide conclusively.

    As an aside, an interesting argument to make would be that, like Pakistan, Syria no longer deserves the designation of a sovereign state as it doesn't fit the definition anymore by not being able to exert control inside its own borders. That, however, is a political theory argument and not necessarily something you could take in front of the UNSC, although it'd be amusing to see what happened if somebody tried it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18366
    Points : 18924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:54 am

    There is no hard evidence that they are building a bomb, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
    It is impossible to prove they are not building a bomb... the burden of proof doesn't work that way. The US and Israel are both making serious accusations and have never given any proof beyond suggestion and innuendo. Ironic considering Israel hasn't signed the NPT either so it is really none of their business.

    When asked to show their evidence both the US and Israel can come up with nothing to clearly show anything.

    While it only amounts to circumstantial evidence, the amount and type of uranium enrichment ongoing makes a "peaceful-only" allegation highly suspect.
    The current embargo imposed on Iran arbitrarily by the EU and US and freezing of Iranian assets suggests their need to produce their own fuel is perfectly sensible... what is the point in spending trillions of dollars on civilian power generation if your enemies can deny you the fuel it needs to do its job?

    [Knowing what I know about the process, all the way from mining uranium to the effects of fallout, I'd be forced to admit that there is no conclusive evidence of an actual weapon but that there is evidence of weapon-related activity that does not completely lend itself to dual-use tasks.[/quote]
    So what you are saying is that they are following the rules as set by the NPT that gives them the right to civilian nuclear power generation technology and the US and Israel and the west in general are abusing that system to try to spy on Iran, making outrageous demands for inspections and generally just being real pricks about things and still pulling claims from their asses that Iran is building nuclear weapons with no evidence at all.

    Of course, Iran is an NPT signatory, and actually following the NPT would be more than enough to clear up any concerns (well, technical concerns, the politicians will still find a way to make it obnoxious). But, saying Iran should follow the rules doesn't make people feel like part of the trendy crowd, and saying that the USA is off the rails does.
    If Iran had broken any rules there would be no amgibuity here... they don't have to be caught with bombs, just breaking the rules would be enough, but they can't even prove that. The US interferes with the inspection process and tries to make their findings vague and open to debate. Findings from the inspectors that there is no evidence they are not making bombs is the height of duplicity... how do you prove that?

    Let US weapons inspectors visit every potential bombing target in Iran and let them record where everything worth bombing is so the US military can mark it on their maps... hopefully noting where the Chinese embassy is of course...

    At any rate, I was in Baghdad in 2004 and not that far from a chemical artillery shell wired as an IED. Such things were located (don't recall any other IEDs but the things were found in caches: rockets, shells, and the like)
    Tony BLiar said they had enormous amounts that were 45 minutes from being used... in other words deployed and ready for use within units.
    The reality turned out there were a few old caches left over from the Iran Iraq war that weapon inspectors and the Iraqis themselves had forgotten about... hardly a smoking gun.

    Saddam was already in violation of the original cease-fire and had been for some time, which authorized continued military action, no matter how many wanted to whine about it on the floor of the UNSC.
    Saddam was guilty of only one crime... he wanted his oil exports paid in Euros instead of US dollars. There was no available legitimate reason to attack and invade Iraq... otherwise they could have used it instead of making sht up about WMDs. The fact that the Oilfields were secured and the cities and museums were left suggests it was always about oil and nothing to do with freedom or democracy or indeed "peace". Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it was anything but an imperial power ensuring the oil flows and its own position is maintained.

    Putin's "backing down" to provide an out if someone else has the same data and actually presents it to the UNSC.
    What is this backing down BS? Since when has Putin said using chem or bio weapons on your own people is OK? Unlike the west Putin is the only consistent voice out there... the west largely ignored when Saddam gassed some Kurds who opposed his rule in the mid 1980s... it was only after he got into their bad books that cries of "he gassed his own people" were heard from every western news outlet and government official. Of course it would be more accurate to say he gassed some people who lived on Iraqi territory that wanted him dead...

    Which won't happen, of course, as the US seems hell-bent on becoming Al Qaeda's air force and blowing something up for the hell of it.
    Which is what happens when you don't have allies... you have interests.

    Although, as to the "they don't need to" side of the coin...it's possible Assad is tiring of the entire conflict, or maybe its affecting the Syrian economy more significantly than believed, or he's actually getting irritated at the damage the whole thing is causing.
    So he wants to get the western military power involved to get it all sorted out much quicker? Hard to believe... there are plenty of artillery weapons that could have been used to kill civilians much more efficiently than that if that was the problem...

    It's a comparatively small number of insurgents, yet the vaunted Syrian Army has completely failed to achieve total mastery of its own territory!
    Yeah... why can't the Syrian Army of conscripts defeat international battle hardened terrorists with support from Saudi Arabia and Washington easily?

    I mean the only superpower left could easily deal with a few primitive mountain men in Afghanistan and they left Iraq in a state of peace and tranquillity, not to mention both countries are transformed from dictatorships to flourishing democracies... or not.

    Ergo, maybe they did decide to use chemical weapons to make a statement that, after fighting for so long, enough is enough. It does seem a little bit weird given that they have managed to make gains against the insurgency, albeit at a slow rate. So maybe Assad finally took the gloves off, who knows, they could've viewed it as an attempt to basically scare the other guys into submission and get this over with as the threat of Western action was still around. Maybe the rebels got into some chems and tried to frame Assad. Maybe some of Assad's guys tried to frame the rebels and did something wrong. Many options, none of which can actually be eliminated because the people who supposedly have the evidence? They've decided that we aren't on the list so we can't decide conclusively.
    Sorry, but that logic fails... if Assad wanted to get tough and show the bad guys who is boss then he should be claiming responsibility for using the chem weapons... which he is not.

    This is not the first time chem weapons have been used in this conflict... it is the first time where the west thinks assad might have been responsible... which means most likely previous times it was most likely the rebels... which suggests to me that it is the rebels again, but this time with spin to make it seem like it was the government.

    BTW Assad turned away from Russia and was reaching out to the west... Russia has no extreme reason to be their buddies... this is not about Russia defending its buddy, this is about Russia defending the current victim of western bullying.


    As an aside, an interesting argument to make would be that, like Pakistan, Syria no longer deserves the designation of a sovereign state as it doesn't fit the definition anymore by not being able to exert control inside its own borders. That, however, is a political theory argument and not necessarily something you could take in front of the UNSC, although it'd be amusing to see what happened if somebody tried it.
    You mean like Afghanistan?

    Most of the lines on the maps in the Middle East were arbitrarily drawn to divide up the areas of know oil by the British and the French after the defeat of Germany in the early 1920s... the so called royal families in the region are a joke and "ruled" since that period (1920s)...
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 578
    Points : 625
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 40
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  SOC on Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:27 am

    GarryB wrote:When asked to show their evidence both the US and Israel can come up with nothing to clearly show anything.
    Which is partly my point, you can't really make a complete, 100% judgment one way or the other based on a lack of credible evidence in either direction.

    The current embargo imposed on Iran arbitrarily by the EU and US and freezing of Iranian assets suggests their need to produce their own fuel is perfectly sensible... what is the point in spending trillions of dollars on civilian power generation if your enemies can deny you the fuel it needs to do its job?
    Yeah, but then again where is the fuel supposed to go? They aren't sprouting reactors left and right but they for damn sure are working away at expanding enrichment. That's part of the problem. "We're using it for power so STFU". Well, then why aren't there power plants appearing? They've been enriching for long enough that you'd expect them to appear. Plus, if they were going to build the plants you might think that starting construction would be a gigantic middle finger to the Iran has/wants a bomb crowd.

    So what you are saying is that they are following the rules as set by the NPT that gives them the right to civilian nuclear power generation technology and the US and Israel and the west in general are abusing that system to try to spy on Iran, making outrageous demands for inspections and generally just being real pricks about things and still pulling claims from their asses that Iran is building nuclear weapons with no evidence at all.
    The problem is that a few inspectors in the enrichment complexes would settle the issue provided they had the right type of access.

    If Iran had broken any rules there would be no amgibuity here... they don't have to be caught with bombs, just breaking the rules would be enough, but they can't even prove that. The US interferes with the inspection process and tries to make their findings vague and open to debate. Findings from the inspectors that there is no evidence they are not making bombs is the height of duplicity... how do you prove that?
    Again, exactly. The whole process has gotten completely retarded.

    Let US weapons inspectors visit every potential bombing target in Iran and let them record where everything worth bombing is so the US military can mark it on their maps... hopefully noting where the Chinese embassy is of course...
    Hell all you really have to see are the enrichment complexes, and then only to see what level the uranium is enriched to. Past a certain threshold and you are definitely not sticking it into a nuclear power plant.

    Tony BLiar said they had enormous amounts that were 45 minutes from being used... in other words deployed and ready for use within units.
    The reality turned out there were a few old caches left over from the Iran Iraq war that weapon inspectors and the Iraqis themselves had forgotten about... hardly a smoking gun.
    I won't ever argue that the intel was incorrect. But when it was pre-existing prior to the 2000 election you can't claim it was all completely fabricated either.

    Saddam was guilty of only one crime... he wanted his oil exports paid in Euros instead of US dollars. There was no available legitimate reason to attack and invade Iraq... otherwise they could have used it instead of making sht up about WMDs. The fact that the Oilfields were secured and the cities and museums were left suggests it was always about oil and nothing to do with freedom or democracy or indeed "peace". Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it was anything but an imperial power ensuring the oil flows and its own position is maintained.
    We still haven't reached Saddam-era levels of oil importation from Iraq. 2001: 290,000 barrels. 2012: 173,000 barrels. That's quite a bit less for supposedly wanting to take control of their oil supply, and the average figures from 2004 to 2012 actually are trending downward. My theory is that Bush decided that we were done with Saddam, and given the Afghani quagmire at the time figured it'd be a "win" to get people's minds off of how screwed up Afghanistan was quickly becoming.

    There was no available legitimate reason to attack and invade Iraq
    Attack, yes, invade, no.

    What is this backing down BS? Since when has Putin said using chem or bio weapons on your own people is OK? Unlike the west Putin is the only consistent voice out there... the west largely ignored when Saddam gassed some Kurds who opposed his rule in the mid 1980s... it was only after he got into their bad books that cries of "he gassed his own people" were heard from every western news outlet and government official. Of course it would be more accurate to say he gassed  some people who lived on Iraqi territory that wanted him dead...
    Someone suggested that Putin's considering of UNSC action constituted backing down, hence the "'s. Plus back in the mid-80s nobody gave the Middle East the same attention it gets now. There was something else going on, I forget what...

    Which is what happens when you don't have allies... you have interests.
    Can't really argue there.

    So he wants to get the western military power involved to get it all sorted out much quicker? Hard to believe... there are plenty of artillery weapons that could have been used to kill civilians much more efficiently than that if that was the problem...
    Maybe with all of the waffling over the past, what, year+?, he figured we still wouldn't do anything. Hell, in the case of the UK, he would've been right!

    Yeah... why can't the Syrian Army of conscripts defeat international battle hardened terrorists with support from Saudi Arabia and Washington easily?
    It's not like they're setting up Patriot batteries or flying F-15Es.

    I mean the only superpower left could easily deal with a few primitive mountain men in Afghanistan and they left Iraq in a state of peace and tranquillity, not to mention both countries are transformed from dictatorships to flourishing democracies... or not.
    I'd argue that the differences there are 1) fighting on someplace that's not your own soil, and 2) a complete balls-up when it came to actually predicting what would happen post-Saddam in Iraq. Tribal and sectarian allegiances were significantly underestimated under the false impression that everyone would jump for joy at being an Iraqi no longer under Saddam.

    Sorry, but that logic fails... if Assad wanted to get tough and show the bad guys who is boss then he should be claiming responsibility for using the chem weapons... which he is not.
    ...because now he realizes that we're going to stick our noses in once again, perhaps. The "red line" statement was made prior to the first allegations of chem use, almost a year ago.

    This is not the first time chem weapons have been used in this conflict... it is the first time where the west thinks assad might have been responsible... which means most likely previous times it was most likely the rebels... which suggests to me that it is the rebels again, but this time with spin to make it seem like it was the government.
    Got me. Although I do seem to recall a few previous instances where it was thought that Assad's forces might have done it, but that it wasn't able to be proved, or something. The 19 March attack was one, Assad did refuse UN access after that one and it was reported that the UK, France, and the US thought Assad's guys did it. Plus it is amusing that the one day in a week where the winds blow back towards rebel positions...Ghouta gets chemmed.

    BTW Assad turned away from Russia and was reaching out to the west... Russia has no extreme reason to be their buddies... this is not about Russia defending its buddy, this is about Russia defending the current victim of western bullying.
    Which could also be interpreted as Russia defending part of its sphere of influence, which it believes is shrinking due to Western political influence expanding.

    You mean like Afghanistan?
    Another example!

    Most of the lines on the maps in the Middle East were arbitrarily drawn to divide up the areas of know oil by the British and the French after the defeat of Germany in the early 1920s... the so called royal families in the region are a joke and "ruled" since that period (1920s)...
    No disagreement there.

    At any rate, were it me, wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Not worth the bother. Would've probably made Afghanistan into very small rocks. No other treatment required. Libya? Hell, Muammar wanted to play nice, didn't he? And for damn sure wouldn't be trying to "fix" Syria. Internal issues should be handled internally, period, end of story, there are no grey areas (Rwanda) and by the way, if you wanna overthrow your government, might want to make sure it's actually realistic before you start shooting. 'Cause it seems like there's a lot of evidence that it pisses them off when you try. And, Since Syria is NOT a signatory of the chemical weapons treaty, then the only people Assad would need to answer to were his own electorate as far as I'm concerned. "Chemicals are illegal"...sure, if you agreed to it. Although, if he managed to gas someplace too close to a border and floated some sarin into Turkey say, I might've been inclined to watch the Turks go ape and do some damage.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 812
    Points : 979
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:41 am

    SOC wrote:My theory is that Bush decided that we were done with Saddam, and given the Afghani quagmire at the time figured it'd be a "win" to get people's minds off of how screwed up Afghanistan was quickly becoming.
    SOC ,with all the due respect, but on the possibility or not that economical and resources control reasons was , in reality, at the basis of US wars in Iraq your theories don't hold much water.


    This is the alternative version by part of someone that, last time i checked, was aware of a thing or two about USA's economy and had also....some voice in its architecture  and in the deciding politics behind it  Very Happy .


    " I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
    Alan Greenspan

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline





    SOC wrote: Plus back in the mid-80s nobody gave the Middle East the same attention it gets now. There was something else going on, I forget what...

    You forget ?
    Very strange because ,some years after, the corrupted seeds your government had implanted and nourished in the area, returned well grown at haunt your same sleep directily at your home.

    Maybe a picture will be more clear than thousands words.





    Today, with the engineered insurrections in North Africa and ME and the attempt to fragment and destroy Syria (naturally the real goal is ,from day one, eliminate any opposing force to US  and  Israel in the ME and insulate Iran from its ally) through the backing of terrorists in false, coordinated, contemporaneous insurrections  even covering them ,with the usual comical lies to the entire world, while them was firmly on the road of the complete defeat, we have the proofs that History reiterate itself , including the legendary, immoral and selfish nearsightedness of US authorities.




    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 578
    Points : 625
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 40
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  SOC on Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:44 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:This is the alternative version by part of someone that, last time i checked, was aware of a thing or two about USA's economy and had also....some voice in its architecture  and in the deciding politics behind it  Very Happy .
    If the wars are about oil and we end up getting less of it as a result, doesn't that make you stop and think about what was really going on?

    Oh, and here's where he clarifies and backtracks from that statement:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html

    Plus, maintaining the status quo is not the same thing as going in to try and gain control.

    Mindstorm wrote:You forget ?
    Very strange because ,some years after, the corrupted seeds your government had implanted and nourished in the area, returned well grown at haunt your same sleep directily at your home.
    You missed the sarcasm, I was referring to the Cold War!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18366
    Points : 18924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:39 am

    Which is partly my point, you can't really make a complete, 100% judgment one way or the other based on a lack of credible evidence in either direction.
    Of course you can... it is completely black and white.

    The US and Israel claim that Iran is making nuclear weapons, Iran says it is not. When it then comes time for the US and Israel to bring out their evidence they have nothing.

    If I claimed another member on this forum was a child molester and I had the proof... if that member denied it... do we lynch them or do we demand the proof? And what happens when that proof turns out to not exist?

    Not only would I have sullied my name for pretending to have proof of something, but there will be a question regarding the accused too but at the end of the day nothing has been proved other than I was an idiot and that anyone can accuse anyone of anything and just because they can't hand over convincing evidence they were somewhere else at the time it happened does not make them guilty.

    Yeah, but then again where is the fuel supposed to go? They aren't sprouting reactors left and right but they for damn sure are working away at expanding enrichment. That's part of the problem. "We're using it for power so STFU". Well, then why aren't there power plants appearing? They've been enriching for long enough that you'd expect them to appear. Plus, if they were going to build the plants you might think that starting construction would be a gigantic middle finger to the Iran has/wants a bomb crowd.
    What is the point of spending trillions to get nuclear reactors if you don't have any fuel and can't get any new fuel because of US led embargoes?

    Just because they are doing it in a way that perhaps you would not does not make them liars.

    The problem is that a few inspectors in the enrichment complexes would settle the issue provided they had the right type of access.
    The US has a history of using weapons inspectors to mark/find targets for the USAF or cruise missiles. In fact in Iraq not so long ago they were using them to try to track down Saddam so they could kill him. When he mentions on his expensive encrypted Swedish cellphone that he will visit mistress X and an hour later the US bombs mistress X's apartment then you kinda have to put two and two together and realise the US owns the IAEA and they can't really be trusted.

    We still haven't reached Saddam-era levels of oil importation from Iraq. 2001: 290,000 barrels. 2012: 173,000 barrels. That's quite a bit less for supposedly wanting to take control of their oil supply, and the average figures from 2004 to 2012 actually are trending downward. My theory is that Bush decided that we were done with Saddam, and given the Afghani quagmire at the time figured it'd be a "win" to get people's minds off of how screwed up Afghanistan was quickly becoming.
    You are missing the point... Imperium US didn't have to invade Iraq and take direct control of the oilwells to benefit. All they needed to do was enforce an embargo for 12 years and then bomb the crap out of them again. A poor starving Iraq with smashed infrastructure is not going to sink into the sea... it is going to rebuild. How is it going to pay for that rebuild? Pumping oil. It matters not where this oil goes... what matters is that they will be selling it on the international market so they can fix what the US military broke and that is the payoff... cheap oil is good for the US and not so good for Russia... a double bonus...

    Attack, yes, invade, no.
    Attack why? Who was he threatening/capable of threatening?

    He was no threat to anyone but the Iraqi people... which neighbour was vulnerable?

    The huge irony is that now that they are "democratic" they are closer to Iran than ever before with their Shia majority.

    It's not like they're setting up Patriot batteries or flying F-15Es.
    They do have scuds and chem/bio weapons. They also have a friendly neighbour that might lend them some support in the form of F-14s...

    I'd argue that the differences there are 1) fighting on someplace that's not your own soil, and 2) a complete balls-up when it came to actually predicting what would happen post-Saddam in Iraq. Tribal and sectarian allegiances were significantly underestimated under the false impression that everyone would jump for joy at being an Iraqi no longer under Saddam.
    It seems that US planners believe the sht coming from the US marketing departments. They seem to think that everyone just wants a McDonalds and to become a consumer of disposable gadgets... even in the US look at the Mormons and you can see that isn't even true in the US.

    ...because now he realizes that we're going to stick our noses in once again, perhaps. The "red line" statement was made prior to the first allegations of chem use, almost a year ago.
    Come on Sean... this is weak... what?, over the last 20 years would have given Assad the impression that the west DIDN'T want to stick their noses into the running of his country and every other country in that region?

    Got me. Although I do seem to recall a few previous instances where it was thought that Assad's forces might have done it, but that it wasn't able to be proved, or something.
    Hmmm, you don't think the fact that it was suspected without proof that Assads forces COULD have been responsible is a bit like suspicions that Iran might be making a nuclear bomb as we speak could be shoveled from the same horse stall floor?

    I mean spin is applied to everything to make our current friends look good and our current enemies look bad... your call. Rolling Eyes 

    The 19 March attack was one, Assad did refuse UN access after that one and it was reported that the UK, France, and the US thought Assad's guys did it. Plus it is amusing that the one day in a week where the winds blow back towards rebel positions...Ghouta gets chemmed.
    So the rebels use chemical weapons and it is ignored because there is no proof, but when the wind changes direction it is Assads forces?

    I hardly think the west has the moral high ground on this anyway... all those US Vietnam vets claiming disability pensions over agent orange... how much did the US government spend on aide to Vietnam after dumping millions of tons of toxic waste on their country? Whining about the plight of a few old vets when people still live where all that crap was dumped and it is still in the ground water there...

    Which could also be interpreted as Russia defending part of its sphere of influence, which it believes is shrinking due to Western political influence expanding.
    Actually I would not totally agree with that... Russia has a few defence contracts with Syria, but at the end of the day Assad jnr was sucking up to the west and reducing his purchases of Russian kit. The actions of the west are actually driving Assad into the Russian MIC and I suspect more than a few other leaders of countries are taking note of the result when the west turns on a little country and are perhaps realising that Russia as the bad guy was a western cold war thing and the cold war is over.


    Do you really think US actions are expanding western political influence?

    Do you think whatever would take Syria from Assad will be pro western?

    Is Iraq currently pro western?

    If the wars are about oil and we end up getting less of it as a result, doesn't that make you stop and think about what was really going on?
    It is about cheap energy. Bombing Iraq and letting them sell oil to fix it means cheaper oil.


    Austin

    Posts : 6837
    Points : 7226
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:42 am

    Once US bombs Syria with Cruise missile etc , How can Russia realistically Syria ? Putin says he will help Syria Militarily and Humanitarian ?  Also is it not a drain on Russia's economy ?

    What gain Russia has in helping Syria ?

    Interview: ‘The Crisis Is Not Only About Syria, But Also About Iran’

    Best-selling author, journalist and commentator Robert Fisk has reported from the Middle East for more than three decades, covering eleven major wars, countless insurgencies, massacres and political crises. Based in Beirut for a long time as the Middle East correspondent for The Independent, Fisk holds more British and international journalism awards than almost any other foreign correspondent
    avatar
    macedonian

    Posts : 1072
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  macedonian on Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:30 pm

    Great stuff GaryB.
    Excellent points...couldn't agree more.

    Austin

    Posts : 6837
    Points : 7226
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:37 pm

    http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

    11:44 GMT: The European Union's Catherin Ashton claims that available information is enough to constitute strong evidence of the Syrian regime's responsibility for Augusts' chemical attack.

    11:20 GMT: President Obama said that a small military force may be needed in Syria after all, to deter future chemical weapons attacks – according to Reuters. Although he said on his weekly radio and internet address that a protracted conflict like “Iraq or Afghanistan” is not something he wants.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 668
    Points : 838
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:11 pm

    Austin wrote:Once US bombs Syria with Cruise missile etc , How can Russia realistically Syria ? Putin says he will help Syria Militarily and Humanitarian ?  Also is it not a drain on Russia's economy ?

    What gain Russia has in helping Syria ?

    Interview: ‘The Crisis Is Not Only About Syria, But Also About Iran’

    Best-selling author, journalist and commentator Robert Fisk has reported from the Middle East for more than three decades, covering eleven major wars, countless insurgencies, massacres and political crises. Based in Beirut for a long time as the Middle East correspondent for The Independent, Fisk holds more British and international journalism awards than almost any other foreign correspondent
    Russia said it will protect the global law , so i think the russian vessels and frigates could drop down any tomahawk missile that launched 1000 km from the syrian coast , or at least sending S-300 and pantsir batteries to syrian army to avoid direct conflict against U.S fleets .
    avatar
    macedonian

    Posts : 1072
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  macedonian on Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:20 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:Russia said it will protect the global law , so i think the russian vessels and frigates could drop down any tomahawk missile that launched 1000 km from the syrian coast , or at least sending S-300 and pantsir batteries to syrian army to avoid direct conflict against U.S fleets .
    One can only hope...but I personally don't think that the Russians will get involved on that scale.
    Though...Putin has proven me wrong on many occasions so far in these current events vis-a-vis Syria, so I'd rather not predict how things will move further down the line.
    He has proven to be a great Russian leader indeed, so I think heads wiser than mine are at work at the Kremlin contemplating what their options are. So far I've been disappointed, only to be proven wrong time and again. So, I think I should wait and see what exactly will be their next move. Whatever it is, I'm sure it'll be significant. I hope.

    Austin

    Posts : 6837
    Points : 7226
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:25 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:
    Russia said it will protect the global law , so i think the russian vessels and frigates could drop down any tomahawk missile that launched 1000 km from the syrian coast , or at least sending S-300 and pantsir batteries to syrian army to avoid direct conflict against U.S fleets .
    That would be like a fight against US which Russian would avoid. Even Putin said he wont enter into a fight on Syria.

    Perhaps gathering and providing intel in real time to Syria and replacing the military hardware lost in strike.

    Humanatrian Aid is what Putin spoke about.

    If Putin sends S-300 the Israel would bomb it for sure.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 668
    Points : 838
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:42 pm

    But Putin says he will help Syria Militarily and Humanitarian !

    So what kind of military help ?
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1661
    Points : 1656
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:46 pm

    [quote="Austin"]
    ahmedfire wrote:
    If Putin sends S-300 the Israel would bomb it for sure.
    I think you mean they'll "try" to bomb it. Wink 

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia reaction in case of US/West attack to Syria

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:39 am