Mightypeon Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 @ Boche The no fly zones in Irak following gulf war 1 were something very different to what happened in Libyia. And post GW1 no fly zones (which protected dissenters but were not aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein) were propably what the Russians and Chinese thought they were agreeing to. And you can hardly claim that the Russians/chinese have no idea how of how the military works either, I would also believe that the Russians/Chinese required at least informal guarantees/promises on what would/would not happen in return for their non veto. It is safe to say that any such promises were blatantly broken. While promises are often broken in diplomacy, in particular by the west (the Soviet union/Russia have/had no issue with killing/opressing people, but significant issues with appearing as not keeping its word on the international stage), doing it in a so blatant way will generate significant blowback. A no fly zone does not give you the right to bombard cities held by loyalists on their last stand. Shooting Lybian Jets in the air: yes, attacking Libyian anti air: yes, making ground strikes on Lybian ground vehicles who are on the offense: Questionable but in practise yes, attacking Libyian army assets in defensive positions: Here is were non pro Nato people say no Attacking the Libyian loyalist last stands in Sirte and beni Walid: No, just no. Following the word of the resolution would have meant to attack the rebels during Sirte and Beni Walid, and I guess the citizens of Tawergha and Sirte do not feel very protected by this resolution either. Concerning Iran: After what happened to Libyia, non pro western power like Iran will liken disarmament to death since this is what happened to ghadaffi. Also, the US/Israel is already engaging in what can be constituted as acts of war (multiple assasinations of both civilian and military targets) anway. Lastly, Motasadeq did not attempt to gain nukes, and the US still ended him. From their point of view, the USA is a hyperagressive, unpredictable aggressor that only respects strength, and they will act accordingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 I had a thought on the subject of whether CMSF could really happen. We forget the timeframe for the game still has Bush/Cheney in office. Cheney famously carried in his coat pocket a list of countries to invade. Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and I think one or two others besides. The Neocons had been pushing the concept for years of a 'Pax Americana', a new 'Roman empire' in the region. Within days of entering Bagdhad Cheney was already making belligerant noises in Syria's direction. I have every confidence if things had worked out as expected in Iraq ('greeted as liberators') Cheney would've come up with a pretext for crossing the wester border of Iraq well before the game's May 2008 start date. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Hi all, Apologies if this has already been discussed - I haven't the time right now to do a search. I was just thinking, it is not at all implausible right now for NATO to be dragged into an invasion of Syria, for the reasons I shall outline below. Firstly, the Syrian crackdown seems now to be completely out of control. Reports are coming out of Syrian soldiers being shot in the back of the head for refusing to fire on demonstrators. If the reports are true, even soldiers firing deliberately over the heads of demonstrators are being executed on the spot for disobeying orders. Secondly, the Turkish president is apparently furious over the situation because he was given assurances in person by Syria that there would be no excessive use of force against unarmed opposition elements. Thirdly, Turkey is now having to contend with thousands of Syrian refugees streaming over its borders. Fourthly, Turkey is a NATO member. Here's how I think it could go. Faced with a humanitarian crisis on its border, Turkey sends forces into the border area of Syria to establish a safe haven for Syrian refugees so they don't have to cross into Turkey. Syria responds by attacking those Turkish forces which have entered the country. Turkey invokes article 5 of the NATO treaty, which says that an attack on one member should be considered an attack on all, requiring other signatories of the NATO treaty to come to its aid. In response, NATO quickly organises an expeditionary force to help police the Syrian border area siezed by Turkey. End game: NATO forces build up in the border area and then drive on Damascus to depose the regime, which is now viewed as having no legitimacy and as posing a continuing threat to a NATO ally. What do you think - could it happen? It would more likely run as follows. Syria keeps defendng its soverignty as a state. NATO decides to conquer Syria. Syria is invaded and recolonized. The Syrians realize too lae who their enemys are. and Yes, I'm guessing Syria is next on the list of former colonys to be recolonized. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 "Turkey sends forces into the border area of Syria..." Um, that IS an attack, so NATO treaty would not apply. Or, alternatively, Syria calls for Jihad vs the west and Iran, Sudan, Afghan, Egypt, even Jordan (the moderate govt falls) jihadists flood the area making the US invasion or Iraq and Afghanistan look like a walk in the park, not to mention a huge increase in terrorist acts vs the (very) vulnerable US and Allied interests around the world. Some people (think "W" and cronies) never learn... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Did anyone see the video by the self-proclaimed "Free Syrian Army" today? They looked just like CM:SF Uncons. Not really a surprise given that BFC will have based the models on irregular forces from all around the region but it's still quite eery the way images from the game and real-life are converging. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Did anyone see the video by the self-proclaimed "Free Syrian Army" today? They looked just like CM:SF Uncons. Not really a surprise given that BFC will have based the models on irregular forces from all around the region but it's still quite eery the way images from the game and real-life are converging. Link -------------------------------------------------------------- The no fly zones in Irak following gulf war 1 were something very different to what happened in Libyia. And post GW1 no fly zones (which protected dissenters but were not aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein) were propably what the Russians and Chinese thought they were agreeing to. True. but I did not metion Gulf War 1. And you can hardly claim that the Russians/chinese have no idea how of how the military works either Did not say that either, I said that the normal person on the street doesnt know anything about the military. I never mentioned Russia or China. A no fly zone does not give you the right to bombard cities held by loyalists on their last stand. Shooting Lybian Jets in the air: yes, attacking Libyian anti air: yes, making ground strikes on Lybian ground vehicles who are on the offense: Questionable but in practise yes, attacking Libyian army assets in defensive positions: Here is were non pro Nato people say no Attacking the Libyian loyalist last stands in Sirte and beni Walid: No, just no. Following the word of the resolution would have meant to attack the rebels during Sirte and Beni Walid, and I guess the citizens of Tawergha and Sirte do not feel very protected by this resolution either. Well I dont think anybody here believes that the No Fly Zone in Lybia was actually going to be only a no fly zone. All for the public. Its the same thing as calling Afghanistan a "Peace keeping mission", when its a full fledged conflict. And about who has the right to bomb something or doesnt. Thats never stopped anyone. Dont think the US has the right to perform cross-border raids into several mid east countries, invade their airspace with Predators and fire on their towns and much less fly a Spec-Ops raid into the middle of your country, kill someone and then fly out. But The US still does it and, to speak blatently and referring to whether the ground attacks are legitimate or not, nobody gives a f***. And thats the truth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Link Free Syrian Army Video 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Free Syrian Army Video Indeed, sad that the Syrian uprising is not getting as much coverage as Lybia. Its quite interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well clearly the west had an agenda in Libya, not so much in Syria. Couldn't be something to do with our oil that somehow got under Libya's sands? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well clearly the west had an agenda in Libya, not so much in Syria. Couldn't be something to do with our oil that somehow got under Libya's sands? It's funny that several secret stashes of chemical weapons have now been found in Libya, so WMD would actually have been a legitimate excuse, unlike in Iraq! British PM Tony Blair was instrumental in bringing Libya back in from the cold in exchange for the destruction of all its supplies of WMD. I wonder how he feels now? What am I talking about, he'll feel fine about it, just like he feels about Iraq. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Im sorry Steiner but...as far as I am aware of Iraq did have chemical weapons (VX,Anthrax,Mustard etc) plus actually used them. If it would have been a valid excuse for Lybia why not for Iraq? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 Im sorry Steiner but...as far as I am aware of Iraq did have chemical weapons (VX,Anthrax,Mustard etc) plus actually used them. If it would have been a valid excuse for Lybia why not for Iraq? You must be the only person who actually thinks Iraq had WMD when invaded in 2003. Even president Bush said in retrospect, the intelligence was "flawed". If we'd found WMD in Iraq during or after the invasion, I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it! Here's Bush admitting the intelligence was flawed (and by implication, there was no WMD in Iraq when invaded in 2003): Bush: My Biggest Regret 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 You must be the only person who actually thinks Iraq had WMD when invaded in 2003. Even president Bush said in retrospect, the intelligence was "flawed". If we'd found WMD in Iraq during or after the invasion, I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it! Here's Bush admitting the intelligence was flawed (and by implication, there was no WMD in Iraq when invaded in 2003): Bush: My Biggest Regret Jesus, ok I just knew you where going to awnser like this, please READ what poeple post!! First, I did not say Iraq had a Nuke or a WMD. Second, you wrote: "It's funny that several secret stashes of chemical weapons have now been found in Libya, so WMD would actually have been a legitimate excuse, unlike in Iraq!" Here you call or classify chemical weapons as a WMD. Henceforth I said, if a chemical weapon is considered a WMD (by you or whoever), then Iraq did have WMDs since it possesed chemical weapons. Understand the logic? DISCLAIMER: I personally do consider chemical weapons a class of WMD (im y eyes for obvious reasons), where the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq false and wrong? I think so. But in the end its not my call to make, its done and in the history books. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 17, 2011 Author Share Posted November 17, 2011 Jesus, ok I just knew you where going to awnser like this, please READ what poeple post!! First, I did not say Iraq had a Nuke or a WMD. Second, you wrote: "It's funny that several secret stashes of chemical weapons have now been found in Libya, so WMD would actually have been a legitimate excuse, unlike in Iraq!" Here you call or classify chemical weapons as a WMD. Henceforth I said, if a chemical weapon is considered a WMD (by you or whoever), then Iraq did have WMDs since it possesed chemical weapons. Understand the logic? DISCLAIMER: I personally do consider chemical weapons a class of WMD (im y eyes for obvious reasons), where the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq false and wrong? I think so. But in the end its not my call to make, its done and in the history books. In my book chemical weapons ARE WMD - no argument here. However, you continue to be under the assumption that Iraq in 2003 had chemical weapons. Not according to the CIA. Quote: "military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War" CIA's Final Report: No WMD Found in Iraq It's all water under the bridge now, as you say, but let's not rewrite history. If the CIA says the only weapons found were degraded chemical weapons most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before 2003, why say there were actual chemical weapons in 2003. All that was found was old, forgotten or partially destroyed gas shells or the like. It's stretching it a bit to say that represents actual WMD, chemical or otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Ah right,well fair enough, I was unaware that the chemical weapons had been gotten rid of by 2003. Not to argue anything else, but, as far as im aware of US troops where sent into Iraq with MOPP gear, I suppose this wasnt done on a whim so did commanders think Iraq still had a couple of scuds around? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well of course they had to have MOPP since WMD was the whole rationale for invasion. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 other than having lunch or somesuch with known Al Q. types. But, suppose we were all liable to getting arrested/killed for people we had lunch with/associated with... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SelfLoadingRifle Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Sticking head gingerly above parapet... I think former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan summed it up perfectly when he said that the only thing that you could predict about the Arabs was that they were completely unpredictable!! SLR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noxnoctum Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 It's happening...: http://rt.com/news/syria-intervention-us-warship-229/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 It's happening...: http://rt.com/news/syria-intervention-us-warship-229/ Is it me or is it just too darned weird that it just happens to be a Carrier named for a Bush..... 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.