McCain Invades Syria to Back Rebels

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MeanGreenStompa**

dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So the US has never condemned a nation's breaches of human rights under international law, regardless of the nation's own laws and punishments?

The US has condemned many countries, and has occasionally cited international law as evidence that other countries should also condemn the relevant countries; but it has never claimed international law supersedes domestic law.

If the international law is being used to condemn the behavior of a nation's government or ruler and the cruel punishments being applied, under the law of that land... then the US is saying that international law protecting human beings supersedes the domestic law's punishment and therefore that the international law is a higher law than the national law is in breach of...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
eg: 'North Korea's draconian imprisonment and torture of political dissidents is a clear breach of international law, despite the dissidents going to trial in North Korea and being found guilty by a kangaroo court there, meeting North Korean law and we, the free world, absolutely condemn it and call for sanctions/punishment etc etc'...

(and I used single quotation marks to indicate that was an example, not double quotations to indicate a real quote).

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
No-one is talking US troops on the ground here. I don't know how many more times that has to be said.

By marching I did mean any involvement in Syria whatsoever, I should have been clearer on that. However, plenty of people have advocated for sending the troops in when discussing the topic of Syria, you only have to look back at the numerous threads we've had

**KalashnikovMarine**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In Syria, you have Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, every gulf state with a few dimes to spare, Saudi Arabia et al getting sucked in. What a mess. And they want to give weapons to that lot?

But there is such choice in who we back in Syria. we could back;
- Assad. We could stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Russia in propping up a dictator with a history of oppression, a long list of human rights abuses, and allegation of using chemical weapons
- The Free Syrian Army. They were slitting the throats of captive prisioners, shelling civilian areas and are also accused of eating the hearts of their enemies and of using chemical weapons
- The Al-Queda affiliated militias. Afterall why not stand side by side with the group that has killed thousands in terror attacks and could use the carnage to take weapons to use in other terror attacks.
- No one. We could go in ourselves and have everyone shoot at us

Choices, choices

I vote we mail the Israelis some of the left over munitions surplus from the dumps in Afghanistan and call it a day, I have beer and nachos guys!

**MeanGreenStompa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In Syria, you have Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, every gulf state with a few dimes to spare, Saudi Arabia et al getting sucked in. What a mess. And they want to give weapons to that lot?

But there is such choice in who we back in Syria. we could back;
- Assad. We could stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Russia in propping up a dictator with a history of oppression, a long list of human rights abuses, and allegation of using chemical weapons
- The Free Syrian Army. They were slitting the throats of captive prisioners, shelling civilian areas and are also accused of eating the hearts of their enemies and of using chemical weapons
- The Al-Queda affiliated militias. Afterall why not stand side by side with the group that has killed thousands in terror attacks and could use the carnage to take weapons to use in other terror attacks.
- No one. We could go in ourselves and have everyone shoot at us

Choices, choices

I vote we mail the Israelis some of the left over munitions surplus from the dumps in Afghanistan and call it a day, I have beer and nachos guys!

I vote we've given them quite enough toys to be going on with and that we just utterly withdraw from the entire middle east region. Let them all do what the hell they want short of nukes (with the understanding they pull that stuff and regardless which side they're on, we remove them from the board, permanently) and attend to aiding and building Africa, South America and Asia where we might be able to do some good without religious extremist backfire for years to come.

Let's sort Zimbabwe out, it was once the breadbasket of Africa and it's destabilization has had dire consequence for all its neighbors and Mugabe has run it like his own little kingdom. Let's go squash that bastard and make it a functioning country again. Let's work good where we can have a positive influence instead of bashing our collective heads and wasting our soldiery's lives on the religious clusterfeth of the Middle East.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sell-least-10-mig-fighters-syria-082620685.html

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's MiG aircraft maker said Friday it plans to sign a new agreement to ship at least 10 fighter jets to Syria, a move that comes amid international criticism of earlier Russian weapons deals with Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
MiG's director general, Sergei Korotkov, said a Syrian delegation was in Moscow to discuss the details of a new contract for the delivery of MiG-29 M/M2 fighters. In remarks carried by Russian news agencies, he said Syria wants to buy "more than 10" such fighters, but wouldn't give the exact number.
The significance of his comments was unclear. A MiG spokesman wouldn't comment on Korotkov's statement, and the MiG chief could be referring to a deal the company previously negotiated with Syria that apparently has been put on hold amid Syria's brutal two-year civil war.
More than 70,000 people have died in the fighting and millions of Syrians have fled the country.
Moscow has shipped billions of dollars' worth of missiles, combat jets, tanks, artillery and other military gear to Syria over more than four decades. Syria now is Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East and hosts the only naval base Moscow has outside the former Soviet Union.
Russia has shielded Assad from U.N. sanctions and has continued to provide his regime with weapons despite the uprising against him that began in March 2011.
Russian media reports say Syria placed an order a few years ago for 12 MiG-29 M2 fighters with an option of buying another 12. The Stockholm Peace Research Institute also has reported that Russia planned to provide Syria with 24 of the aircraft.
The MiG-29 M2 is an advanced version of the MiG-29 twin-engine fighter jet, which has been a mainstay of the Soviet and Russian air force since mid-1980s. Syria had about 20 fighters of the original make among scores of other Soviet- and Russian-built aircraft.
Russia has said it's only providing Assad with weapons intended to protect Syria from a foreign invasion, such as air defense missile systems, and is not delivering weapons that could be used in the civil war.
But the delivery of MiGs would contradict that claim and expose Russia to global criticism, so the Kremlin might think twice before giving the go-ahead.
Another recent Russian jet deal with Damascus, a contract to deliver Yak-130 combat training jets that could also be used for ground attacks, apparently has been put on hold amid the civil war.

**Jihadin**

Money talks.....

**Dreadclaw69**

http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-syrian-rebels-heavy-weapons-190000613.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Syrian rebels battling the forces of President Bashar Assad must receive ammunition and heavy weapons to counter the regime's tanks and aircraft or it will be impossible for them to prevail, Sen. John McCain said days after he quietly slipped into Syria to meet with the opposition.
"They just can't fight tanks with AK-47s," McCain said Friday in a telephone interview.
The Republican lawmaker and 2008 presidential candidate made an unannounced visit to Syria on Monday, traveling across the border near Kilis, Turkey, and spending about two hours meeting with rebel leaders. McCain has been one of the most vocal lawmakers demanding aggressive U.S. military action in the 2-year-old Syrian civil war, calling for establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebels.
The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide weapons to the disparate opposition, fearing that they will fall into the wrong hands in a volatile region. McCain said he discussed what types of weapons the rebels need and whether they could ensure their control.
"I'm confident that they could get the weapons into the right hands and there's no doubt that they need some kind of capability to reverse the battlefield situation, which right now is in favor of Assad," McCain said.
McCain, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since the civil war began more than two years ago. He said he worked with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns in arranging the trip.
McCain said he spoke with Secretary of State John Kerry "a couple of times. It wasn't that I was hiding it from him; it just didn't seem to come up. I thought Burns was the right guy to go through. They were very important in the trip. We couldn't have done it without their cooperation."
Gen. Salim Idris, chief of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, accompanied McCain and they met with 19 battalion commanders.
Citing the photo of McCain's meeting, a Lebanese newspaper has reported that McCain unwittingly crossed paths with two men connected to a rebel group responsible for the kidnapping of 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims in 2012. McCain said one of the men he reportedly met with is dead and no one in his meeting was identified as the other.
"The people I met with and talked to directly were well-vetted. Their names and their duties were outlined to me. They came from all over Syria," he said.
Two years of violence in Syria have killed more than 70,000 people, according to the United Nations. President Barack Obama has demanded that Assad give up power, while Russia has stood by Syria, its closest ally in the Arab world. Russian officials have said they will support anti-aircraft systems to Syria, and Assad suggested on Thursday that he had received the first shipment.
The United States and Russia are trying to get the Syrian government and opposition forces into peace negotiations. Those talks, initially planned for Geneva next month, have been delayed until July at the earliest.
"It's hard to imagine Bashar Assad negotiating his departure when he has the upper hand on the battlefield," McCain said. "I'm all for a conference, but I think that conference should take place when Bashar Assad knows that he is doomed to defeat if he doesn't negotiate."
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to provide weapons to rebels in Syria, as well as military training to vetted rebel groups and sanctions against anyone who sells oil or transfers arms to the Assad regime.
The European Union decided late Monday to lift the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition while maintaining all other sanctions against Assad's regime after June 1, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said.

American Woman Killed In Syria Fighting For Rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22727911

An American woman has been killed in Syria fighting for opposition forces, her family have been told by the FBI.

Nicole Mansfield, 33 and from Flint in Michigan, converted to Islam about five years ago, her aunt told Reuters news agency.

The family did not know the details of how she died, the agency reported.

State-run TV in Syria showed pictures of a passport and a Michigan driving licence apparently belonging to Ms Mansfield.

She is the only American known to have died in the conflict in Syria. An estimated 70,000 people are believed to have died since violence broke out more than two years ago.

'Known to take off'
On Thursday a monitoring group said three foreigners had been killed in Syria including an American woman and a British man. Both were reported to be Muslims.

They were in Idlib province near the Turkish border, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

"They were shot dead during an ambush in the Idlib region and the army found them with maps of military positions," Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the monitoring group, told the AFP news agency.

The woman's cousin David Speelman told the Associated Press that FBI agents had visited the family on Thursday to tell them of Ms Mansfield's death.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

I think she could have been brainwashed”

Carole Mansfield
Grandmother
The Detroit Free Press reported that Ms Mansfield, who was raised a Baptist, had previously been married to an Arab man and had a teenage daughter.

After her marriage ended, Ms Mansfield remained a Muslim and travelled to Dubai to learn about Arab culture, her aunt Monica Mansfield-Speelman told the AFP news agency.

She said she had last heard from her niece in September.

"We didn't know she was over there," Ms Mansfield-Speelman said. "We didn't know she was gone, but Nicole, she was known to take off like that."

The photographs on her ID show her wearing a hijab or Muslim headscarf.

It is reported that Ms Mansfield had dropped out of school after becoming pregnant but later gained her GED or high school equivalency qualification.

She had worked in healthcare for the past decade.

Her father was a General Motors production worker.

Her grandmother told the newspaper that she had "a heart of gold," but was easily influenced by others.

"I think she could have been brainwashed," Carole Mansfield said.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yes because I thought Syria is where the Crips and Bloods have moved their latest conflict. Actually now that I think about it, its not too far off.

Really? Your response to criticism is to reify it?

Andrew1975 wrote:

The phrase you are looking for is "black on black crime" or "black on black violence", which if you can read contextually has noting to do with what is going on, as most people can see.

They can be, and have been, used interchangeably.

But more importantly, "black" doesn't necessarily have to mean "black" as "black" often means "other", as you have demonstrated above.

Andrew1975 wrote:

No you are not forgiven, mister Anal. This from a guy who argues The Greater Middle East has nothing to do with the Middle east. Go back to trolling somewhere else.

This isn't an attempt to troll, it is attempt to educate; as it was when discussing the boundaries of the Middle East.

Andrew1975 wrote:

This all comes down to Sunni vs Shiite, that is the base issue here, its Muslims fighting other Muslims over the interpretation of a book!

Well, and nationality, and tribe...and the particular Sunni/Shiite sect.

So, not so simple as you believe it to be.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If the international law is being used to condemn the behavior of a nation's government or ruler and the cruel punishments being applied, under the law of that land... then the US is saying that international law protecting human beings supersedes the domestic law's punishment and therefore that the international law is a higher law than the national law is in breach of...

That doesn't indicate that all international law governing the protection of human beings supersedes domestic law regarding the same.

For example, one might argue that one particular portion of UK law is superseded by international law, but that a comparable portion of US law is not. It depends entirely upon the wording of the international statute, the agreement to said statute by the target and accusatory nations, and the wording of domestic statutes regarding the same.

The US, notably, is exempt from much of international law due to the absence of ratification by the Senate and, of course, its military and economic dominance.

**Dreadclaw69**

Looks like the fighting may be spreading into Lebanon now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22746675

A number of people have been killed in an exchange of fire between Syrian rebels and fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, say reports.

Lebanese security sources said the clashes took place on Lebanon's side of the border, near the town of Baalbek.

Hezbollah is fighting alongside the army in Syria, but the clashes have rarely crossed onto Lebanese soil.

Meanwhile the Red Cross has said it is alarmed by the worsening situation in the besieged Syrian town of Qusair.

It has appealed for access to the town, which lies just 10km (6 miles) over the Lebanese border.

Thousands of civilians are believed to be trapped as pro-government forces - including Hezbollah fighters - battle rebels.

The office of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also appealed to the warring parties to allow residents to flee.

Syrian state TV quoted Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem as saying the Red Cross would be allowed in "as soon as military operations are over".

Reuters reported that Mr Moualem had expressed his surprise to Mr Ban about the international concern, saying there had been none when rebels took over the town last year.

Also on Sunday, a car bomb killed nine members of the Syrian security forces in the capital, Damascus, according to the British-based pro-opposition watchdog the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The watchdog said the bomb had targeted a police station in the eastern district of Jobar, which has seen renewed clashes between government forces and rebels who are entrenched there.

Qusair 'blockade'
Reuters news agency quoted a Lebanese security source on Sunday as saying that at least 15 people were killed in the overnight fighting in Baalbek, just over the border from Syria. The casualties have not been independently verified.

Lebanese media quoted officials as saying the rebels had been preparing to launch rockets when the clashes broke out.

The Syrian rebels have threatened Hezbollah targets in Lebanon in revenge for its backing of the government in Damascus, and have frequently fired rockets into Lebanon, including several on Saturday.

Hezbollah fighters are also involved in the siege of Quasir, which is considered a key logistical hub and supply route for weapons smuggled into Syria.

An opposition activist told the BBC on Friday that around 30,000 civilians were still in the town, effectively under blockade.

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the fact that both the UN and ICRC have issued urgent statements on Qusair at the same time is an indication of how desperate they believe the situation there has become.

Continue reading the main story
Strategic town of Qusair

Estimated population of 30,000 people
Up to 10,000 people have fled to neighbouring towns and 1,500 people are wounded, the UN says
Some 23 villages and 12 farms west of Qusair are reportedly inhabited by Lebanese Shia
Near the main route from Damascus to port of Tartous, a gateway to the heartland of President Assad's Alawite sect
Qusair's importance
The UN Security Council attempted to issue a declaration voicing "grave concern" about Qusair, but it was blocked by Russia so failed to obtain the necessary unanimous agreement of council members.

A diplomat said Russia blocked the draft text because the UN had failed to speak out when Qusair was seized by rebels.

Fighting in Qusair intensified last month with militants from Hezbollah joining forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

Reinforcements from the rebel Free Syrian Army are reported to have managed to break through from the north-east to support the embattled rebel fighters.

Some Lebanese Sunnis have also crossed into Syria to fight alongside the rebels, who are drawn largely from Syria's majority Sunni community.

Activists from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights say rebels in Qusair are bracing themselves for another assault.

Fifteen Syrian army tanks have massed north of the town, says Rami Abdel Rahman, the observatory's director.

"Regime forces are reinforcing the sites that they have north of the city, including Dabaa airport and Jawadiya," he said.

The UN estimates that than 80,000 people have been killed and 1.5 million have fled Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011.

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By marching I did mean any involvement in Syria whatsoever, I should have been clearer on that. However, plenty of people have advocated for sending the troops in when discussing the topic of Syria, you only have to look back at the numerous threads we've had

And there is a serious, well founded academic argument that the top marginal tax rate should be about 73%*, but when talking about what the top marginal tax rate might be set at in the real world there's no point in talking about that 73% rate, because it is never going to happen.

Similarly, there are no doubt people arguing that there should be US troops on the ground in Syria. But in terms of things that are actually going to happen, that ain't one of them.

*That's basically estimated at the point at which the Laffer Curve actually sets in, ie the point where increasing the rate produces such a disincentive on earning more money that total tax revenue decreases.

**Andrew1975**

Really? Your response to criticism is to reify it?

No, its called humor. You should try it sometime.

They can be, and have been, used interchangeably.

But more importantly, "black" doesn't necessarily have to mean "black" as "black" often means "other", as you have demonstrated above.

Right. Which is where contextual reading comes in. No one else had any problems understanding what I was saying. So either you are dense or you are pretending to be.

This isn't an attempt to troll, it is attempt to educate; as it was when discussing the boundaries of the Middle East.

No one here is asking for your anal education. I refereed to a country as middle eastern that is part of the greater middle east. If you have a problem with that then its your OCD, not mine.

**Seaward**

Well, whatever, it's too late now. With Qusayr falling, the rebels have a month or two, tops. We could've done any number of things - even just destroying the regime's airfields would've been helpful - but instead we decided to let Russia and Hezbollah be the guys who have the power in the Middle East.

**Ouze**

Seaward wrote:
but instead we decided to let Russia and Hezbollah be the guys who have the power in the Middle East.

If Russia & Iran are going to own Syria, I hope they saved the receipt.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
If Russia & Iran are going to own Syria, I hope they saved the receipt.

Russia already owns what they want in Syria: Tartus. It's why they've had a fleet sitting in the offing since this whole thing started, and why they've given Assad so much material support.

It's not just about Syria, though. The region operates on power deterring power, and we've shown, through "Friends of Syria" bs conferences and running as fast as possible from the 'red line' and the like, that we don't have the stomach for it anymore, at least under this administration. Every other country in the region is going to take note.

**KalashnikovMarine**

...so?

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...so?

So, isolationism, while nice in theory, doesn't work. We need influence in the region. We, in short, need the region to be more concerned about us getting involved than Russia. We need to be seen as willing to follow through on warnings we issue. There's a waterway we need to keep navigable, there's brushfires in the region we need to put out with a quiet word behind the scenes, there's allies that we need to be able to support and keep from going apegak, etc.

We don't suddenly start disengaging just because we didn't get involved in Syria. We simply lose leverage having said, "If the red line gets crossed, gak's going down," and then seeing to it that, once the red line was crossed, gak did not go down. There were a lot of low-risk, low-cost options on the table.

Not to mention the moral cost of not supporting tens of thousands of fairly moderate guys who just didn't want to live under a dictator anymore, most of whom are dead or are going to be.

**Ouze**

Seaward wrote:
Not to mention the moral cost of not supporting tens of thousands of fairly moderate guys who just didn't want to live under a dictator anymore, most of whom are dead or are going to be.

Is this the same moral cost from that's got us going to war with China to free billions of people from oppression? Because that brand of "morality" seems awful selective.

There is no shortage of brutally oppressed places in the world, but as a foreign policy it seems best for us not to go abroad to seek out monsters to destroy. I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Fighting in Syria is not in our national security interests, period. We get nothing of value no matter who wins..

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
Is this the same moral cost from that's got us going to war with China to free billions of people from oppression? Because that brand of "morality" seems awful selective.

Nope. As far as I'm aware, our own president has never publicly sided with a Chinese revolutionary movement with broad popular support while stating that Xi Jinping has lost all legitimacy and needs to go. Nor has that Chinese revolutionary movement begged for our help, nor have our various allies both in the region and in NATO suggested that we really ought to consider lifting a finger to help it out.

Not to mention that our policy of engagement with China does seem to be paying off in the form of liberalization, albeit at a snail's pace.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Fighting in Syria is not in our national security interests, period. We get nothing of value no matter who wins..

There we will have to disagree, especially on the issue of "fighting." We've managed to accidentally penetrate Syrian airspace (without them knowing) while doing photo recce of Beirut before - with bog standard Rhinos. Crippling their air power would not have been particularly difficult. Enforcing a no-fly in the north would only have been mildly so. We did not need to do Iraq 2.

**Ouze**

I would not have had a problem with drones support only, maybe even some level of air support, if it's done under a UN or NATO mandate.

Even then I'd only go so far because we said we would if chemical weapons were used, and it appears they have been (though by who seems a totally open question). If the United States says something, we need to mean it.

**MeanGreenStompa**

It appears both sides are employing chemical warfare.

So, we back the side we prefer? Because they are both breaking that rule we set for the 'bad guys', and then we discovered the 'good guys' are riddled with elements of 'other bad guys'.

1. Let the UN reach a decision on what to do.

2. Let a coalition of islamic nations send in their soldiery to resolve it.

3. Continue, if we must meddle at all, to supply medical and logistic support.

4. Take no offensive action at all. Muslims have felt compelled to set off bombs and hack apart live soldiers on Western streets because they oppose outsiders in muslim matters, so let them deal with it and if Russia wants to stick it's hands into the beehive, let it get stung for a while.

**Seaward**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
1. Let the UN reach a decision on what to do.

Not happening with Russia on the Security Council.

2. Let a coalition of islamic nations send in their soldiery to resolve it.

Not happening, especially with Hezbollah in the mix.

3. Continue, if we must meddle at all, to supply medical and logistic support.

I vote for air support. Teaching them Combat Lifesaver doesn't stop air strikes.

4. Take no offensive action at all. Muslims have felt compelled to set off bombs and hack apart live soldiers on Western streets because they oppose outsiders in muslim matters, so let them deal with it and if Russia wants to stick it's hands into the beehive, let it get stung for a while.

That is unlikely to change simply because we do not intervene in Syria. We are still going to protect our interests in the Middle East. We are still going to base our military where we base them, for all the reasons I outlined above in a previous post.

**MeanGreenStompa**

Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

**Seaward**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

I disagree.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

There was a massive range of options short of sending in ground forces. The rebels could have legitimately won if we'd taken care of Syrian air power. A carrier air wing probably could've done the job in a pinch, even with the Russians having significantly beefed up the AD network.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

Ouze made the point earlier that he would've supported a drone campaign or even a general air campaign -- with certain caveats -- if only because when we say we'll do something, we then need to do it. This is the real argument, frankly. We bluffed, got called, and then did nothing. Syria's not going to be the only country that notices.

**djones520**

Yeah, look at what an air campaign did for the Libyan rebellion. It turned it a whole 180 degrees, and we lost exactly 1 aircraft, and 0 lives throughout the whole affair.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
**snip**

Ok, answer me this. Who should we have supported, and thus wanted to run the show when the dust settled?
- the dictator Assad. Who was backed by Russia (who are very interested in having a port there), Iran and Hezbollah (who are now causing more trouble in Lebanon). Who's troops are responsible for war crimes, shooting down a Turkish jet under disputed circumstances, and who are strongly suspected of deploying chemical weapons
- the Free Syria Army. Who have not been particularly effective, who have no cohesive leadership, who have members trying to carve out their own empires, who have also slit the throats of captives and shelled civilian areas, and who are also suspected of deploying chemical weapons
- The Al-Qaeda affiliated militias. They have been effective in combat, but any material support we give them risks being used against us in the future, and having them be the victors will allow the to set up shop there to train and consolidate their power (in close proximity to several allies) and destabilise the region. As well as the fact that we'll be supporting people we are fighting elsewhere and who are responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity carried out on US soil.

Because not a single one of those sounds like a good option, much less the possibility for the conflict spreading.

**djones520**

The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

They are also the ones who haven't sword allegiance to one of our enemies as well. How much longer till that happens though because they have no other choice.

**MeanGreenStompa**

djones520 wrote:
The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

So you are in favor of intervention to support a group who deploy chemical weapons on civilian population and who torture and murder prisoners of war?

Why are they a better choice than the existing regime?

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

It's still an incredibly poor choice. They have no cohesive leadership, are often at cross purposes with each other and with no guarantee that whatever we give them won't end up in the wrong hands. That's ignoring murdering captives, shelling civilians and possibly deploying chemical weapons. But remind me again how stable Libya is, and how Al-Qaeda managed to get a cell in with not insignificant firepower to storm an embassy and kill US citizens. And how happy Russia will be at losing a port, especially as we'll need their help over Iran's nuclear program, and the fact that they're shipping advanced SAM systems to Syria.

**BaronIveagh**

*sigh*

None of them are good options. But this has the potential to get much worse and become a bigger problem for the US in the long run if they sit back and do nothing than in the short run where they lose men and material.

It's like the many many wars in Africa. No one wants to commit (though, thank you, Legion Estranges) and the problem rolls on and on and starts to get worse and worse and spreads, becoming 'First World' countries problems in unexpected ways (piracy, anyone?).

Not that the US allies will probably let it get that far before citing one of the numerous pacts that hte US has with countries in the middle east and dragging them in as well.

There are no Middle East problems, there are no European problems, there are no Asian problems, there are no American problems.

There are just problems.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
There are just problems.

And this one isn't ours. Lets keep it that way

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Not that the US allies will probably let it get that far before citing one of the numerous pacts that hte US has with countries in the middle east and dragging them in as well.

You mean the one you mentioned before that just mentions appropriate aid? By all means, let's send humanitarian supplies. That's our best option.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
They are also the ones who haven't sword allegiance to one of our enemies as well. How much longer till that happens though because they have no other choice.

They're already working with Al-Qaeda affiliated militias, too late.