Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,557 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
I agree with Peter on this one. In terms of the CMSF backstory, I can't see the UN intervening to put the Assad government back in power.
To me, a more logical backstory would be tied in to Lebanon. Syria wants to keep Lebanon as a protectorate. The US and France have been pressuring Syria to leave. The Syrian army left in april 2005, but Syria is trying to maintain control, as we can see from the Hariri assassination and that of Tueni on Monday.
For example, what about this sory:
1.In 2006, an anti-Syrian government is elected in Lebanon which starts to take concrete measures to remove Syrian influence from the lebanese government and economy;
2.The Assad government, in a bid to retain power, organises a coup by pro-syrian forces in Lebanon which topples the newly elected Lebanese government;
3.The new pro-Syrian government asks Syria for help to maintain order. Syria sends in a couple of divisions as "peacekeepers";
4. The UN security council, which sees through the Syrian game, demands that Syria leave Lebanon.
5. Assad who knows that another pullout from Lebanon could lead to an internal coup against him, stalls for time and tries to bluff his way out;
6. US and coalition forces launch a limited attack against Syria to liberate Lebanon and blunt Syrian military capability.
This scenario is a mix of Afghanistan, 1979, and Kuwait, 1990.
-
I agree with Peter on this one. In terms of the CMSF backstory, I can't see the UN intervening to put the Assad government back in power.
To me, a more logical backstory would be tied in to Lebanon. Syria wants to keep Lebanon as a protectorate. The US and France have been pressuring Syria to leave. The Syrian army left in april 2005, but Syria is trying to maintain control, as we can see from the Hariri assassination and that of Tueni on Monday.
For example, what about this sory:
1.In 2006, an anti-Syrian government is elected in Lebanon which starts to take concrete measures to remove Syrian influence from the lebanese government and economy;
2.The Assad government, in a bid to retain power, organises a coup by pro-syrian forces in Lebanon which topples the newly elected Lebanese government;
3.The new pro-Syrian government asks Syria for help to maintain order. Syria sends in a couple of divisions as "peacekeepers";
4. The UN security council, which sees through the Syrian game, demands that Syria leave Lebanon.
5. Assad who knows that another pullout from Lebanon could lead to an internal coup against him, stalls for time and tries to bluff his way out;
6. US and coalition forces launch a limited attack against Syria to liberate Lebanon and blunt Syrian military capability.
This scenario is a mix of Afghanistan, 1979, and Kuwait, 1990.
-
What I can't figure out is how he sees what's on the screen. :confused:Originally posted by Madmatt:OK, okay, OH-KAY!!! Here, an uber-exclussive sneak peak of Charles at work.. Now quit bugging us so we can get back to work! Madmatt
-
Yes, but weren't the Arabs on his side? That's supposed to help, I think. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
Yes, but weren't the Arabs on his side? That's supposed to help, I think. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
Yes, but weren't the Arabs on his side? That's supposed to help, I think. </font>Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
It can't be that hard, old man, that chap Lawrence did it with less than a thousand men in 1918.
-
Syria is suspected of being behind today's assassination of journalist and lawmaker Gibran Tueni.
Syria denies involvement in recent hit
Lebanon blast kills anti-Syria lawmaker"A car bomb Monday killed journalist and lawmaker Gibran Tueni, the latest in a string of assassinations of anti-Syrian figures in Lebanon. A previously unknown group claimed responsibility for the blast, but many quickly accused Damascus in the slaying."
If true, it's a surprising move, I thought Syria would lay low considering the international scrutiny they are getting over the Hariri assassination." Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt all but openly accused Syria of assassinating Tueni." -
I dunno, but I don't think those guys are in CM:SF. When I check it out for myself I'll make a detailed report to you guys. I think you'll like some of the other improvements, besides the new ignition sobriety testers installed in every vehicleOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are you still using drunken, nearsighted, demolition derby drivers as the standard?
Steve </font>
-
Dillweed, I hope you are right, but I'm looking at the new XBOX (my son wants it
), 3.2 GHZ CPU, ATI X1800XL video card, for about CDN $500.If I want to upgrade my computer, the best I could get would be a pentium 3.8 or a FX-57 and when I add the motherboard, ddr memory, fast HD, new pci video card, etc., you're looking at lets say CDN $2,000.
That's mighty powerful competition from the XBOX.
Tom Clancy is starting to migrate his games to XBOX. Ghost Recon 3 will be XBOX only, no PC. I thought GR 1 was a pretty decent game.
If all the FPS, tactical shooters and the like become XBOX only, will software makers keep making games for the PC market or will PCs go back to being workhorses while consoles become the new entertainment machines.
If that happens, what happens to Battlefront, will it remain a niche PC player or will we eventually see a XBOX version of CM?
-
*DAMN* I can't use that line again until 2008.Originally posted by Dillweed:*YAWN* We hear this every 3 years when the new console come out.
-
Why would it be a bad thing for the community if CMSF is a hit? Battlefront would have more money to turn out higher quality products faster.Originally posted by Dillweed:I think CMSF has the potential to be a hit in the strategy gamer market. My question is this a good or a bad thing for the community?
The market for quality realistic simulations is dying and things are only going to get worse as more games move to consoles like the XBOX.
If the price to pay to keep this market alive is to have a lot of new, fresh faces around, I say: "Welcome, young, green and soon to be crushed opponent!"
-
Peter,
I don't know where you got the idea from my posts or the links I posted that I see the world in black and white terms. I have too many gray hairs for that. I see everyone in various shades of grey ( except CANADA, of course, we're perfect
)I am no expert on Syria, like everyone else, I have been playing catchup and reading various articles since CMSF was announced. I certainly would not say that Syria is EVIL, it certainly is not even close to Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, it is a run of the mill dictatorship, about par for the course in that region of the world.
However, the more closely you look at it, the harder it is to find any redeeming quality in the Assad regime. The basic aim of the Syrian government appears to be the protection and the promotion of the Assad family and their cronies. Nothing gets done in Syria unless the Assad family and allies get their cut and any potential enemy is ruthlessly put down. In that sense, it feels alot more like the mafia than a goverment.
It is certainly not an issue limited to Syria, you had the same thing in Marcos's Philippines, Mobutu's Congo, Amin's Uganda, Hussein's Iraq, etc., etc. It certainly is not an issue that would justify an armed invasion to change the regime. I can think of many other countries that would be on the list ahead of Syria. Assad senior and junior have been very good at sensing when they should keep a low profile, something which Saddam Hussein never quite mastered.
If you want to know more about Syria, a good place to start is the Middle East Quaterly.
Despite what you might think about the political leanings of the ME forum, the Quarterly publishes articles which are informative and well researched. The Board of Editors includes Anthony Cordesman who is recognized as being one of the authorities on Middle Eastern military affairs. You may question some of their conclusions, but their facts usually check out.
one last point, I am sure the reference to slowing democratisation on the site is a mistake, when you look at the affiliated sites, it is clear that one of their missions is to promote democracy in the region.
John.
-
Are you still using drunken, nearsighted, demolition derby drivers as the standard?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Charles has been busy working on things you can't see, like ... vehicle driving AI...
Steve
-
Peter,
I found the last two articles after about 10 minutes of googling, which is a very superficial research. I'm sure if I did a more in depth academic research, I would find pretty much the same thing.
Do the american ME forum and Israel's ICT have an agenda? probably, but I have seen other articles about Syria's involvement in the drug trade and other illegal activities from time to time which say pretty much the same thing.
The last point about Syrian labour is minor, but you have one article that estimates 1,000,000 syrian workers in lebanon and one that estimates between 500,000 to 800,000 workers, I'm fairly confident that there is no accurate census available other than these rough estimates. But the important point is that the Syrians were taking jobs away from the lebanese.
for example, from the second article:
there is also this selective quote from the second article:"The sudden departure of Syrian laborers has been greeted with enthusiasm across Lebanon's divided political spectrum.Working-class and unemployed Lebanese see the withdrawal of the workers, and the decline of Syria's influence in Lebanese politics, as a harbinger of a new era of opportunity.
"Syria will have to open an embassy, and Lebanon will impose work visas," says Baha al-Kurdi, a jobless Lebanese man from Tripoli who traveled to Beirut for work.
Even the rank and file of the militant Shiite movement Hezbollah, whose leaders are pro-Syrian, are dominated by impoverished Lebanese embittered by the unfettered flow of cheap Syrian labor, which had priced poor Lebanese out of work. Syrian day-laborers say they earn about $6 a day, a third of what their Lebanese counterparts earn.
However, if you would like to offer up your own sources instead of just criticizing mine, I'm all ears."Al Nahar daily, one of the opposition's most vocal mouthpieces, estimated that the Syrian presence cost the Lebanese economy $20 billion since end of civil war, including $9 billion earned from bribes. But bankers cringe at the prospect of Damascus imposing an economic blockade on Lebanon. Aside from Israel, with which Lebanon remains formally at war, all the country's overland trade routes pass through Syria. .And regarding your last point:
I think you will see that I criticize everyone equally, including the Brits...."I guess we are gradually getting closer to reality and away from America (Good) v Syria ( evil)"John.
[note:edited to add content]
[ December 07, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]
-
You Brits, always letting the facts get in the way of a good story!Originally posted by Peter Cairns:I take the idea that the Syrians did well out of the Lebanon with a huge pinch of salt.
Peter.
some backup:
web page"The importation of raw material to Lebanon, as well as the production and marketing of narcotics in Lebanon, is a thriving industry involving criminals, terror organizations, Lebanese and Syrian security personnel, government officials and the Lebanese banking system, which launders the drug profits. These enormous profits are divided among senior Lebanese and Syrian officials (in the past the names of Mustafa Tlas, the Syrian Minister of Defense, and Rifat Assad, President Assad's brother, were mentioned as being involved in the Lebanese drug trade). These profits also significantly contribute to the economies of Syria and Lebanon and to the Hizballah as an organization (which needs large sums of money for its political-social activities in the Shiite community).It should be stressed that the centers where the drugs are produced and marketed are situated in the Bekaa Valley, where Hizballah has a strong-hold on the local population, and which is controlled by large numbers of Syrian military and intelligence personnel. The State Department's report for 1996 states that the laboratories producing heroin in the Bekaa Valley are located in areas largely controlled by elements of Hizballah and would generally require a large and concentrated effort to root them out.
There is no doubt that the production and marketing of drugs, as well as the forging of Western bank-notes, can be carried out only with the approval of the Syrian intelligence and army officials who control the Valley and have excellent relations with Hizballah. The Syrians have not put an end to the criminal activity in the Valley because of the large profits they gain from the drug industry and because they regard Hizballah as an important tool in furthering their interests in Lebanon and within the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Furthermore, they do not wish to enter in conflict with Iran, which supports Hizballah.
When you analyse Syria, think of "The Sopranos", the only aim of the Syrian government is to defend and promote the business interests of the Assad family and their allies. Syria would not have stayed for 30 years in Lebanon if it was not a profitable venture."As allegations swirl that Damascus was behind Hariri's killing, many of the estimated 500,000 to 800,000 Syrian manual laborers in Lebanon are fleeing a wave of reprisal attacks and anti-Syrian rhetoric. Others have gone into hiding amid reports from Damascus-based media that more than 35 Syrians have been killed in Lebanon since Hariri's killing. The sudden departure of Syrian laborers has been greeted with enthusiasm across Lebanon's divided political spectrum."John.
-
Peter,Originally posted by Peter Cairns:JC_Hare,
interesting post JC but you ommitted the title of the publication.
so here it is.
THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM Promoting Americas Interests.
It's even got a mission statement.
Mission
The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East through research, publications, and educational outreach. The Forum's policy recommendations include fighting radical Islam (rather than terrorism), convincing the Palestinians that Israel is permanent, reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, slowing down the democratization process, and more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Forum works to improve Middle East studies in North America.
MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.
Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public.
I particularly liked this bit,
reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, slowing down the democratization process
Peter.
I agree the ME forum has an agenda which made me leery at first, but the articles themselves appear to be well researched. Besides, its not like there is a ton of information on the net about Syria.
John.
-
screenshot?
-please, pretty please, before the forum spins into a black hole. I think we have said all there is to say about 5.56 v. 7.62 ammo...
steps away from the keyboard...
-
I knew that torture thread would not last long.
Getting back to semi-topic. Some posters have inquired what Syria is getting out of Lebanon. Lebanon is a major cash cow for Syria.
Syria after Lebanon: Hooked on Lebanon
"A 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, itself based on classified briefings by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Drug Enforcement Agency, estimated that the Syrian military earned between $300 million and $1 billion from narcotics production and trafficking in Lebanon. "Whether by extorting protection payments, collecting bribes, or even becoming active partners with the Lebanese traffickers," the report found, "most individual Syrian officers and troops directly profit from the drug trade… Without Syrian military participation, the present system of growing, producing and transporting drugs in Lebanon today would simply collapse."Counterfeiting. Beginning in the late 1980s, Syrian officers in Lebanon became heavily involved in counterfeiting U.S. and, to a lesser extent, European currencies. They initially focused on distributing Iranian-produced bills through the same networks that laundered their drug proceeds but soon began to produce higher quality forgeries at their own Bekaa printing presses. In 1993, NBC quoted U.S. intelligence sources as saying that Syrian counterfeiting of $100 bills in Lebanon had "skyrocketed." It reported both that U.S. authorities had already seized $200 million of the fake currency and officials' fears that billions more were in circulation.[13] The bogus bills were so sophisticated that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank's scanning machines failed to identify the money as counterfeit.[14] After pocketing perhaps over $1 billion, the Syrian government came under intense U.S. pressure to cease their racket.Money laundering. After gaining full control over Lebanon in 1990, the Syrian regime exploited Lebanon's bank secrecy laws to launder billions of dollars from the drug trade, the sale of weapons to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and other illicit activities. For example, the Beirut-based Bank al-Madina bought billions of dollars in real estate at inflated prices. It required sellers to deposit their proceeds in the bank and accept "no questions asked" interest payments drawn from secret Iraqi accounts not recorded in the bank's books. This pyramid scheme collapsed only when the influx of Iraqi money stopped in the weeks prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Depositors panicked and tried to withdraw their money, only to find that more than one billion dollars were gone. The bank quickly collapsed.[15] The Lebanese government's investigation failed to uncover the whereabouts of these funds, but there is evidence that the bank paid substantial kickbacks to senior Syrian officials.[16] After the owner of the Beirut-based television station New TV, Tahsin Khayat, declared in December 2003 that he had evidence linking a top Syrian intelligence officer to the scandal, Lebanese security forces detained him.
"A third critical economic return of Syria's occupation is the flow of remittances from roughly one million Syrian workers in Lebanon estimated to range from $2-$4 billion annually""A fourth dimension of Syrian economic domination also hurts Lebanon's poor. Much like nineteenth century European colonial powers, the Syrian government treats its protectorate as a captive market for its own exports, particularly agricultural produce. The Assad regime not only forces its Lebanese counterpart to accept disadvantageous terms of trade, but it also violates these terms whenever expedient by smuggling produce past Lebanese customs." -
It is a delicate issue.
There is a good article in the New Yorker about an Iraqi suspect who died while he was being "interrogated" by the CIA.
It also appears that there may be other similar cases."After being removed from his house, Jamadi was manhandled by several of the SEALs, who gave him a black eye and a cut on his face; he was then transferred to C.I.A. custody, for interrogation at Abu Ghraib. According to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead."
Of course, we should not be surprised that these cases are appearing. The Bush administration has been steadily expanding what is permissible in terms of interrogation. It was only a matter of time before deaths occured."The C.I.A. has reportedly been implicated in at least four deaths of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, including that of Jamadi, and has referred eight potentially criminal cases involving abuse and misconduct to the Justice Department."
This case cetainly raises the question of whether it is permissible to torture and kill suspects, whether in the context of the war in Iraq or the war on terror."One reason these C.I.A. officials may not be facing charges is that, in recent years, the Justice Department has established a strikingly narrow definition of torture. In August, 2002, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel sent a memo on interrogations to the White House, which argued that a coercive technique was torture only when it induced pain equivalent to what a person experiencing death or organ failure might suffer. By implication, all lesser forms of physical and psychological mistreatment—what critics have called “torture lite”—were legal. The memo also said that torture was illegal only when it could be proved that the interrogator intended to cause the required level of pain. And it provided interrogators with another large exemption: torture might be acceptable if an interrogator was acting in accordance with military “necessity.” A source familiar with the memo’s origins, who declined to speak on the record, said that it “was written as an immunity, a blank check.” In 2004, the “torture memo,” as it became known, was leaked, complicating the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney General; as White House counsel, Gonzales had approved the memo. The Administration subsequently revised the guidelines, using language that seemed more restrictive. But a little-noticed footnote protected the coercive methods permitted by the “torture memo,” stating that they did not violate the “standards set forth in this memorandum.”The Bush Administration has resisted disclosing the contents of two Justice Department memos that established a detailed interrogation policy for the Pentagon and the C.I.A. A March, 2003, classified memo was “breathtaking,” the same source said. The document dismissed virtually all national and international laws regulating the treatment of prisoners, including war-crimes and assault statutes, and it was radical in its view that in wartime the President can fight enemies by whatever means he sees fit. According to the memo, Congress has no constitutional right to interfere with the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief, including making laws that limit the ways in which prisoners may be interrogated. Another classified Justice Department memo, issued in August, 2002, is said to authorize numerous “enhanced” interrogation techniques for the C.I.A. These two memos sanction such extreme measures that, even if the agency wanted to discipline or prosecute agents who stray beyond its own comfort level, the legal tools to do so may no longer exist. Like the torture memo, these documents are believed to have been signed by Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, but written by a Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who is now a professor of law at Berkeley.
For nearly a year, Democratic senators critical of alleged abuses have been demanding to see these memos. “We need to know what was authorized,” Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, told me. “Was it waterboarding? The use of dogs? Stripping detainees? . . . The refusal to give us these documents is totally inexcusable.” Levin is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to have an oversight role in relation to the C.I.A. “The Administration is getting away with just saying no,” he went on. “There’s no claim of executive privilege. There’s no claim of national security—we’ve offered to keep it classified. It’s just bull****. They just don’t want us to know what they’re doing, or have done,"
-
Yes, bring in the B-52s!Originally posted by MikeyD:Weren't B52s performing CAS in Afghanistan? They'd stay a couple mile up loitering and loitering and loitering like nothing else can, occassionally dropping a 2000 lb. laser or GPS bomb when asked. A bit more cost-effective than flying F-16s in-and-out every fifteen minutes all day long.
The chances are probably slim BFC will give us our own loitering B52 to play with in the game.
[ December 05, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]
-
30 000 points! :eek: I am having trouble just panning around!
I have to admit your map of Kharkov is very impressive.
), 3.2 GHZ CPU, ATI X1800XL video card, for about CDN $500.
Damascus, "Should you touch it with a barge pole".
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I agree with Peter on this one. In terms of the CMSF backstory, I can't see the UN intervening to put the Assad government back in power.
To me, a more logical backstory would be tied in to Lebanon. Syria wants to keep Lebanon as a protectorate. The US and France have been pressuring Syria to leave. The Syrian army left in april 2005, but Syria is trying to maintain control, as we can see from the Hariri assassination and that of Tueni on Monday.
For example, what about this sory:
1.In 2006, an anti-Syrian government is elected in Lebanon which starts to take concrete measures to remove Syrian influence from the lebanese government and economy;
2.The Assad government, in a bid to retain power, organises a coup by pro-syrian forces in Lebanon which topples the newly elected Lebanese government;
3.The new pro-Syrian government asks Syria for help to maintain order. Syria sends in a couple of divisions as "peacekeepers";
4. The UN security council, which sees through the Syrian game, demands that Syria leave Lebanon.
5. Assad who knows that another pullout from Lebanon could lead to an internal coup against him, stalls for time and tries to bluff his way out;
6. US and coalition forces launch a limited attack against Syria to liberate Lebanon and blunt Syrian military capability.
This scenario is a mix of Afghanistan, 1979, and Kuwait, 1990.