aka_tom_w Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 We're already too far into this to do anything but an arid 2007ish setting. Steve ....and the game is going to have the Stryker and the M1A1 Abrams in it! (or else) No matter what happens in Real Life in Syria it would seem this game is going to have a US Stryker Brigade in it no matter what. (thats ok with me) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: We won't go and do WWII, Cold War, or a conflict in Asia with the Chinese. We're already too far into this to do anything but an arid 2007ish setting.2007: China invades Afghanistan. Russia invades Turkey (through Georgia) Great fun! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I did say that I feel most Americans are idiots when it comes to complex issues, and I stand by that statement. Same -ish the world over. I think Plato made a similar complait about Athenians around 2400 years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Perhaps Plato was correct! I heard a funny comment from a Greek American visiting Greece for his first time... in his opinion it appeared they built the Acropolis, invented Democracy, then called it a day Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I heard a funny comment from a Greek American visiting Greece for his first time... in his opinion it appeared they built the Acropolis, invented Democracy, then called it a day Was he weird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted October 28, 2005 Author Share Posted October 28, 2005 Whoa! Having been away for a couple of days from this forum I was very surprised at how this thread seemed to be going downhill with all the sniping going on between a few of the posters. Glad it's turned the corner to being civil again. Still to put the question of how politics will affect rules of engagement and the parameters of winning or losing in a scenario... will it matter at all or not a whit? From what I've read on this Stryker vehicle judging from the pros and cons and how it actually handles in the real world the vehicle seems to be doing the job. The only thing doubtful is whether they'll ever really make an operable MGS out of it with the gun they want. All best Patrick All best Patrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 You seldom see such egoism as with Patrick here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted October 29, 2005 Share Posted October 29, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: One thing is for sure, though... if we do switch away from Syria then we'll come up with a comperable setting. We won't go and do WWII, Cold War, or a conflict in Asia with the Chinese. We're already too far into this to do anything but an arid 2007ish setting. Steve [/QB]CM: Prince of Persia, then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted October 29, 2005 Author Share Posted October 29, 2005 Sergei Um...yes I guess. haha! All best Patrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 U.N. Security Council OKs Syria resolution By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday demanding Syria's full cooperation with a U.N. investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister and warning of possible "further action" if it doesn't. The United States, France and Britain pressed for the resolution following last week's tough report by the U.N. investigating commission, which implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Rafik Hariri and 20 others. The report also accused Syria of not cooperating fully with the inquiry. The three co-sponsors agreed to drop a direct threat of sanctions against Syria in order to get support from Russia and China, which opposed sanctions while the investigation is still under way. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which is militarily enforceable... [...] ...The Syrian media criticized the U.N. resolution before the vote Monday, with the English-language Syria Times saying it was "openly politicized" and too heavily influenced by the U.S. "It's immoral and totally unacceptable that the will of the (international) community remains captive to a unilateral diktat and ... accepts tyranny and hegemony," the paper said. Syria's official news agency, SANA, said Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Moallem toured Gulf countries this past weekend bearing a message from the Syrian president concerning "the dangers Syria faces" as a result of the U.N. action. SANA quoted Moallem as saying the resolution was "dangerous" and aimed at hurting Syria, not uncovering the truth in the Hariri assassination. But Moallem said Syria will "continue to cooperate" with the U.N. investigation despite. While Syria has rejected accusations of its involvement in Hariri's killing, it buckled under international pressure and withdrew its soldiers from Lebanon in April, ending a 29-year presence in its smaller neighbor. Associated Press writers Donna Abu-Nasr and Samar Kassabli contributed to this report from Damascus, Syria © 2005 The Associated Press 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I had some guy in the Intelligence Community chide me on such a stupid and utterly unrealistic setting such as Syria. I wonder if he would send me the same email this week that he sent me when we first announced the CM:SF concept? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 With what is happening at the UN tensions are certainly rising over Syria's possible involvement in the Hariri assasination. If Syria is found guilty what then? Scapegoats will be found to exonerate the real masterminds of the bombing and the world community will be appeased and Syria embarassed but not really punished for its transgression. Hopefully Syria will be left politically impotent to commit another crime. However this whole episode may just lead her leaders to do something totally stupid like sponsoring a terrorist act which would make CMSF a reality. Al best Patrick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 latest news.... wired news web page Syria's future in doubt as international pressure mounts Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:28 a.m. ET By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - By tightening the diplomatic noose around Syria's leadership, the United States is aiming to ensure a weakened, compliant government in Damascus without the use of military force. The Bush administration, tempered by the Iraq experience, appears to be approaching the conflict over the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri with more caution. It is striving for a "win-win situation" in which a "weak and frightened Bashar al-Assad (stays in power but) is more cooperative," said Jon Alterman, head of Middle East programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But some experts worry the growing international pressure could cause events in Syria to spin out of control. The latest salvo came on Monday in a tough resolution sponsored by the United States, France and Britain and approved on a unanimous 15-0 vote by the U.N. Security Council. It ordered Syria to cooperate fully with an investigation into Hariri's February 15 assassination or face unspecified further action, an implicit reference to economic sanctions. The chief U.N. investigator, German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, already has named Syrian officials as suspects in the assassination in the plot to kill Hariri and 22 others. He found that the killing was organized by Syrian security officials and their Lebanese allies and that Syria's government had interfered with efforts to complete the evidence-gathering. IRAQ'S SHADOW Washington accuses Damascus of stoking insurgents who fuel the conflict in nearby Iraq, of undermining the Mideast peace process and of funding "terrorist" acts in addition to the killing Hariri. Iraq's shadow hovered over Monday's deliberations at U.N. headquarters in New York, prompting questions about whether the United States might eventually use military action to enforce the Syria resolution, which was approved under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, meaning it is militarily enforceable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 If we are able to rein in the Syrians, without military force, so much the better. What happens though, when they realize that by many accounts, the US has no force to spare to invade them, and even if it did, many would say that it lacks the will. Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel? If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by NG cavscout: If we are able to rein in the Syrians, without military force, so much the better. What happens though, when they realize that by many accounts, the US has no force to spare to invade them, and even if it did, many would say that it lacks the will. Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel? If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces? "What happens though, when they realize that by many accounts, the US has no force to spare to invade them, and even if it did, many would say that it lacks the will." Yes " Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel?" Probably yes but they are all just politically correct yellow belly diplomats with no clue anyways and they are wrong. " If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces?" Not likely I suspect Syria will take advantage of the situation, try to "act" proper, (enjoying a free ride) and keep their collective heads down and come out ahead in the long run without any real fear of actual military intervention by anyone, except maybe the Israeli's (perhaps?). If not Israel who else could do it? (military invasion I mean?) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by NG cavscout: Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel? If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces? And on what grounds should one take military action, or indeed invade Syria? If the basis is the suspected link to the assasination in Lebanon, then USA and most larger powers in the world should have been invaded many times over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 On the following grounds; #1 International consensus, ie a unanimous vote by the Security Council. Pity, could of used one of these for Pol Pot in Cambodia, or in Rwanda in the 90's. Too bad the international community can't seem to rally behind opposition to Genocide... #2 Relative power. No one is powerful enough to successfully invade the United States, whatever evils you may feel it has committed, Syria on the other hand, is nowhere nearly as powerful as the U.S. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 So NG cavscout, It comes down to might is right, One set of rules for the big guy ( written by the big guy) and another for the little guy (also written by the big guy). I was reading today that Israel has resumed flying jets a low level at night over the gaza strip creating deliberate sonic booms that terrorise the 1 million inhabitants. Israel being a US ally, if your rules are correct then. 1) We should hold our breath for a UN resolution with any teeth like sanctions to get them to stop. 2) No one in the world but "terrorists" will do anything military to strike back... and I suppose, I should at 3) Hell will freeze over before there is peace in the Middle East. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Panzer76: If the basis is the suspected link to the assasination in Lebanon, then USA and most larger powers in the world should have been invaded many times over. How do you link the US to the recent assasination in lebanon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: I was reading today that Israel has resumed flying jets a low level at night over the gaza strip creating deliberate sonic booms that terrorise the 1 million inhabitants. Come on Peter, did one million people tell you that they were terrorized by sonic booms? I would suggest not believing everything you read. If Palestinian terrorists float your boat and you think Israel should take no action (not referencing sonic booms here) then I would suggest you are not of the correct opinion. Myself, I think they should be hunted down and killed like the scum that they are, the same with terrorists in Iraq and their supporters in Iran and Syria. I also believe it would be in our best interest not to have that discussion on these boards. Regards, Nick 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I also believe it would be in our best interest not to have that discussion on these boards. Perhaps due to irreconcilable political differences? -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: So NG cavscout, It comes down to might is right, One set of rules for the big guy ( written by the big guy) and another for the little guy (also written by the big guy). I was reading today that Israel has resumed flying jets a low level at night over the gaza strip creating deliberate sonic booms that terrorise the 1 million inhabitants. Israel being a US ally, if your rules are correct then. 1) We should hold our breath for a UN resolution with any teeth like sanctions to get them to stop. 2) No one in the world but "terrorists" will do anything military to strike back... and I suppose, I should at 3) Hell will freeze over before there is peace in the Middle East. Peter. It's called "realpolitik" I believe. Welcome to the real world. And the terrorist strikes you speak of are notoriously ineffective in acheiving their goals. The IRA didn't acheive anything by bombing, the Munich Olympic operation by the PLO did nothing but encourage the western nations to implement effective anti-terrorist organizations such as GSG9 and Delta. I am not saying that if I could make the rules in an ideal world that it would be like this, heck, it would be great if we could all get along, and the weak were treated just as the strong, and wealth was distributed equally and when the fat guy in the next booth at Applebee's farted it smelled like roses, that would all be great, but it isn't like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Perhaps Plato was correct! I heard a funny comment from a Greek American visiting Greece for his first time... in his opinion it appeared they built the Acropolis, invented Democracy, then called it a day Steve LMAO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by NG cavscout: I am not saying that if I could make the rules in an ideal world that it would be like this, heck, it would be great if we could all get along, and the weak were treated just as the strong, and wealth was distributed equally and when the fat guy in the next booth at Applebee's farted it smelled like roses, that would all be great, but it isn't like that. Well said, I could not agree. It would be nice if we all could get along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I also believe it would be in our best interest not to have that discussion on these boards. Perhaps due to irreconcilable political differences? -tom w </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.