The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Divair]

So who wants to bet that the Americans are gonna construct a Kurdish puppet state?

$10 on "not happening".

[CTALNH]

So who wants to bet that the Americans are gonna construct a Kurdish puppet state?

$10 on "not happening".

$10 its gonna happen.

[Divair]

$10 on "not happening".

$10 its gonna happen.

I look forward to your contribution towards my survival abroad.

[Imperializt Russia]

$10 on "not happening".

$10 its gonna happen.

The Americans don't give a shit about the Kurds, why would they care or even attempt it?

[Rio Cana]

One way to end the civil war would be to split Syria up into three nations. Alawite, Kurds and Sunni. Problem is the Alawite are concentrated on the coast which would most likely mean that the Kurds and Sunni would be landlocked.


Chances are Syria would separate into something like this. Antioch , the region where Antioch is located on the following map is today part of Turkey.

[CTALNH]

$10 its gonna happen.

The Americans don't give a shit about the Kurds, why would they care or even attempt it?

http://1.1.1.2/bmi/www.whiteoutpress.com/files/cache/1c44aadf2559d60119e6bde057f0d51c.JPG

Published by Ralph Peters 5 or 6 years ago.

[Castille de Italia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -camp.html

Syrian refugees angry because Obama delays intervention until Congressional approval.

"America has a responsibility to launch strikes to prevent the killing by Assad. Obama has a Nobel Prize but he does not deserve it because he has not responded to so many deaths," says Mohammad Dallah, a refugee at the Zaatari refugee camp.

[Imperializt Russia]

The Americans don't give a shit about the Kurds, why would they care or even attempt it?

http://1.1.1.2/bmi/www.whiteoutpress.com/files/cache/1c44aadf2559d60119e6bde057f0d51c.JPG

Published by Ralph Peters 5 or 6 years ago.

I don't think his opinion carries much political clout.

[Rio Cana]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/10280746/Barack-Obama-does-not-deserve-his-Nobel-peace-prize-say-angry-Syrian-refugees-in-Zaatari-camp.html

Syrian refugees angry because Obama delays intervention until Congressional approval.

Give them a visa to Europe and or the US and they will be happy. Wonder what are the chances of that happening.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/jordan/10280746/Barack-Obama-does-not-deserve-his-Nobel-peace-prize-say-angry-Syrian-refugees-in-Zaatari-camp.html

Syrian refugees angry because Obama delays intervention until Congressional approval.

"America has a responsibility to launch strikes to prevent the killing by Assad. Obama has a Nobel Prize but he does not deserve it because he has not responded to so many deaths," says Mohammad Dallah, a refugee at the Zaatari refugee camp.

Uhmm... Well, that's typical cultural dystopia lol.

The reason we cannot send strikes out yet is because the president is not the absolute ruler of the nation. Dallah needs to get off his high horse.

Although it wouldn't surprise me if his opinion is shared by plenty of NSG regulars.

[CTALNH]

http://1.1.1.2/bmi/www.whiteoutpress.com/files/cache/1c44aadf2559d60119e6bde057f0d51c.JPG

Published by Ralph Peters 5 or 6 years ago.

I don't think his opinion carries much political clout.

Hey America attacked Iraq and Libya and now is gonna attack Syria.

Hands up for the dude that called it.

[Republic of Greater America]

If we intervene, we should do it either against the terrorists and/or in favor of Assad. Assad is secular, whereas the rebels are anti-American terrorists. Otherwise, we should stay neutral.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't think his opinion carries much political clout.

Hey America attacked Iraq and Libya and now is gonna attack Syria.

Hands up for the dude that called it.

There will still be no unified Kurdish state.
Because it doesn't serve any possible interests the US has.

[CTALNH]

Hey America attacked Iraq and Libya and now is gonna attack Syria.

Hands up for the dude that called it.

There will still be no unified Kurdish state.
Because it doesn't serve any possible interests the US has.

Well I don't know the future thats why I bet.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you can't even make educated guesses at the future, betting is not a financially wise option for you.

[New Chalcedon]

Syria was in economic downturn before the civil war started. At least there infrastructure was intact. This civil war has manage to destroy much of there infrastructure and economy. And then all those weapons they are buying are increasing there debt. Which means, after this civil war ends there economy will be in shambles. There will be construction work to rebuild but chances are they will have to take foreign loans, if nations loan to them, at very high interest. In the end, however wins, the regular Syrian citizen will be paying for it. Chances are many will migrate to Europe.

If Assad remains in power then he will recieve trillions of dollars for free from Russia, Iran and China. So even in economic view its better for Assad to stay

Do your research.

Russia's total - total! - Federal budget was $419.6bn for FY 2013. Russia's total foreign aid was $470m in 2010 (with Syria not even hitting the top 10 recipients thereof), and is unlikely to have gone up by that much since.

If Syria's receiving more than US$20m per year in non-military (i.e., non-armaments) financial assistance from Russia, I'll eat my second-best hat. Without hollandaise sauce.

China's total budget for FY 2013 is about US$2.5 trillion at official exchange rates; somewhat more by purchasing power parity. Of that, China's direct foreign aid is a small percentage - about US$2bn in 2012.

And not only has Beijing distanced itself from Damascus (signaling that it's interested in a transition period between Assad and a non-Baathist government), but it's also not giving a lot to Syria....and somehow, I don't see it being willing to pony up serious amounts of money even if Assad wins.

And as for Iran, Iran needs aid itself to deal with its ailing economy - it has little to give in the first place.

While there are some valid reasons to keep Assad on, the expectation that his presence will open the floodgates of foreign aid is not one.

All of which presumes that Asma al-Assad doesn't just spend the aid on Parisian clothes for herself, anyway.

[Rio Cana]

I would consider Pakistan a real problem for the US not Syria. Why do you think the US and NATO have been having so many problems in Afghanistan. Today they even had on the news about a US base being attacked in Afghanitan. The US and its Northern alliance allies in the beginning had largely destroyed the Taliban but the Taiiban rebuilt itself in Pakistan. Documentaries from the UK. even have reported that the Pakistanis were training, arming and giving them intel . But the West does nothing. Nukes ,do you think it could be because they have nukes.

Edit - Forgot to mention that in that UK. documentary they mentioned that some Taliban want to negotiate with the West. But these Taliban leaders cannot without Pakistani approval. And it seems they are not ready to give it.

[Danhanjeedh]

I would consider Pakistan a real problem for the US not Syria. Why do you think the US and NATO have been having so many problems in Afghanistan. Today they even had on the news about a US base being attacked in Afghanitan. The US and its Northern alliance allies in the beginning had largely destroyed the Taliban but the Taiiban rebuilt itself in Pakistan. Documentaries from the UK. even have reported that the Pakistanis were training, arming and giving them intel . But the West does nothing. Nukes ,do you think it could be because they have nukes.

Edit - Forgot to mention that in that UK. documentary they mentioned that some Taliban want to negotiate with the West. But these Taliban leaders cannot without Pakistani approval. And it seems they are not ready to give it.

They didn't they only chased the Taliban into the mountains (bordering Pakistan). The taliban wasn't close to defeat, however the coalition didn't do anything to defeat them. they only chased them into the mountains. They should have surrounded the Taliban.

[Shofercia]

Finally, this is NSG: We have had the argument over the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki about a billion times, and will have it a billion more in times to come. Without reopening it, I fail to see why the bombing of Tokyo was somehow any better; and I seriously question whether any of the usual anti-nuclear suspects would be bitching in retrospect if the Russians have been the first to build the bomb and had then used it on Berlin to end the Great Patriotic War.

My issue with Nagasaki, was that it was unnecessary.

Now that I think about it, punting it to Congress was a smart move by Obama. If Congress fails to authorize, they cannot blame Obama.

You know damn well that when I said "they cannot blame Obama", I meant "they cannot effectively blame Obama". I'm not responsible for Congressional Stupidity. So yes, ASB, you're right, they can blame Obama, but it'll be just about as effect as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

This is legal posturing for the sake of the ongoing argument between those who assert that Presidents can use force without the approval of Congress.

Every modern President has asserted that Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 gives him authority to send troops into combat without the prior approval of Congress; this is largely because no President wants to be seen as having handed a "diminished office" to his successors. Yet that doesn't mean that Presidents are immune to political problems if they fail to consult with Congress — or, worse, openly defy the will of Congress in attempting to wage a war Congress has directly refused to support.

Indeed, only one American President — Ronald Reagan — has ever gone so far as to try and circumvent a direct Congressional order not to engage in military (or, more precisely, paramilitary) operations. That was what the Iran-Contra Scandal was all about, and Reagan got a serious black eye from it. Given that Democrats were on the other side of that kerfuffle, it seems highly unlikely (and here, I'm really hedging: "Utterly impossible" is closer to the mark) that Barack Obama would dare follow Reagan in those footsteps.

In gets worse. If Obama defies the will of Congress, he'd be begging the House to impeach him, and they would. Hell, they want to today; they just don't have a sufficient excuse. To be sure, Obama would survive: But Democrats would have a hard time explaining their votes not to impeach (in the House) or to acquit (in the Senate), and it would severely cripple the Party going forward in the foreign policy debate with Republicans, who strongly support the doctrine of unfettered executive action (which essentially says that Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 is essentially both anachronistic and moot, and that the President has unlimited power to wage war any time he pleases without limit). Essentially, Democrats would be capitulating to Republicans on a key point of Constitutional doctrine, and I can't seem them swallowing that even for the sake of Party unity.

So no: What you are seeing here is posturing; the Administration is seeking to assert a right it has absolutely no intention of exercising.

Essentially, this. To be perfectly honest, if Iran-Contra had happened in, say, 2007, the Democrats would have attempted an impeachment: the legendary civility between Congressional Democrats and Ronald Reagan was about the only reason that Democrats bought Reagan's threadbare excuses about "not knowing what his Administration was doing".

If President Obama had launched operations without first consulting Congress (see: Libya), the Republicans would have howled to the skies and squealed like stuck pigs. But they'd do that anyway, so it's essentially irrelevant - mostly because the Democrats (who can stop impeachment well short of conviction in the Senate) have made it clear that they're not interested in impeaching the President without a damned good reason (and then, only maybe).

However, if President Obama - having asked Congress for approval and been denied - should openly defy Congress in an area in which Congress holds clear Constitutional right-of-way....that changes everything. If President Obama should launch war against the expressed will of Congress, the following would be willing to assist impeachment efforts:

Republicans (because Obama's a Democrat);
Anti-War Democrats (because he launched a war after Congress said "no");
Conservative Democrats (it polishes their centrist bona fides); and
Traditionalist "pro-Constitution" Democrats (because, let's face it, Obama would be acting in open defiance of the Constitution at that stage).

And with that coalition of interests against him, the numbers to sustain an impeachment vote in the Senate (two-third required, or 67 Senators assuming full attendance) would be found, fairly easily.

And President Obama knows all of this: should Congress say "no", he'll pay attention....and restrict himself to using means short of committing US troops to ousting Assad.

This ^

[Shofercia]

Seems the ones really pushing for intervention in Syria are the Arabians.

Read this news from 16 hours ago - http://news.msn.com/world/arab-states-u ... government

We knew that Saudi Arabia is pushing for this from day one. It's their pet project.

"The Syrian Armies have the initiative and are attacking. In several regions, they have insurgents surrounded. In these conditions, giving those who love intervening in other countries a trump card, is absolute cretinism" - Vladimir Putin, today or yesterday.

Putin would say that, though, wouldn't he?
Reminiscent of Nazi Germany's absolute denial of military defeats to its own people, only on a smaller scale.

Except I just quoted General Dempsey and General Richardson implying the same thing. But go ahead and make those faux comparison if it makes you feel better.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Hey look France has reasons for believing the Syrian gov't used chemical weapons against the rebels:

A report presented to parliament by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the assault on 21 August involved the "massive use of chemical agents".

...

The nine-page report drawn up by France's military and foreign intelligence services states: "Analysis of the information we have today leads us to conclude that, on 21 August 2013, the Syrian regime launched an attack on certain districts on the outskirts of Damascus held by opposition units that combined conventional means and massive use of chemical agents."


Syria's deputy foreign minister said terrorism will flourish everywhere if Syria is attacked
French MPs are due to debate the issue in an extraordinary session of parliament on Wednesday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23928871

Report

French->English Translated Report

Additionally, the report details the possible motive of Assad's government for administering a chemical weapons attack:

Conventional aerial bombing and artillery took place between three and four o'clock in the morning on the East Ghouta. In parallel, communities Zamalka, Kafr Batna and Ain Tarma were affected by chemical attack. At six in the morning, plan a ground offensive was launched on the locations.

Several sources have reported using different artillery rockets, those of the best known stock (missiles and bombs) munitions. Our analyzes Technical confirm that the remains of rockets observed on this occasion, as in some previous point, lend themselves to the use of agents chemical.

The regime then conducted major land and air strikes on areas of the attacks. It sought to delay the arrival of inspectors for several days. This confirms a clear commitment destruction of evidence afterwards. In addition, soldiers triggered fires, which presumably were intended to purify the atmosphere through air movement generated.

Our information confirms that the regime feared an attack of scale of the opposition in Damascus this period. Our assessment is that the regime sought by this attack to loosen the grip and secure strategic sites for control of the capital. For example, the district is Moadamiyé located near the military airport of mezzeh, hold services Intelligence Air Force.

Moreover, it is clear from the study of the application points of the attack, that no other than the regime could be lashing out at strategic positions for the opposition.

Finally, we believe that the Syrian opposition does not have the capacity to lead an operation of such magnitude with chemical agents. No group belonging to the Syrian insurrection has, at this stage, the ability to store and use these agents, let alone in a proportion similar to that used on the night of August 21, 2013 in Damascus. These groups have neither the experience nor the know-how to implement them, in particular by vectors such as those used in the attack on 21 August.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I would consider Pakistan a real problem for the US not Syria. Why do you think the US and NATO have been having so many problems in Afghanistan. Today they even had on the news about a US base being attacked in Afghanitan. The US and its Northern alliance allies in the beginning had largely destroyed the Taliban but the Taiiban rebuilt itself in Pakistan. Documentaries from the UK. even have reported that the Pakistanis were training, arming and giving them intel . But the West does nothing. Nukes ,do you think it could be because they have nukes.

Edit - Forgot to mention that in that UK. documentary they mentioned that some Taliban want to negotiate with the West. But these Taliban leaders cannot without Pakistani approval. And it seems they are not ready to give it.

They didn't they only chased the Taliban into the mountains (bordering Pakistan). The taliban wasn't close to defeat, however the coalition didn't do anything to defeat them. they only chased them into the mountains. They should have surrounded the Taliban.

Explain to me how the US would go about convincing Pakistan to allow US troops to position themselves in Pakistani territory in order to surround the Taliban.

[Danhanjeedh]

They didn't they only chased the Taliban into the mountains (bordering Pakistan). The taliban wasn't close to defeat, however the coalition didn't do anything to defeat them. they only chased them into the mountains. They should have surrounded the Taliban.

Explain to me how the US would go about convincing Pakistan to allow US troops to position themselves in Pakistani territory in order to surround the Taliban.

I meant that they should have surrounded the Taliban at the moment they invaded, at that time they could have gotten permission from Pakistan to get control over the Afghan mountains there. And otherwise they could have gone there from the beginning. Now they only moved the problem to another country.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Explain to me how the US would go about convincing Pakistan to allow US troops to position themselves in Pakistani territory in order to surround the Taliban.

I meant that they should have surrounded the Taliban at the moment they invaded, at that time they could have gotten permission from Pakistan to get control over the Afghan mountains there. And otherwise they could have gone there from the beginning. Now they only moved the problem to another country.

That would have been a devastatingly bad military choice, and might not have changed a thing to boot. From an air support and supply standpoint, you would create a vastly larger chunk of land that the USAF would've needed to cover in a region where they don't have nearby air bases, and supply lines to the eastern portion of Afghanistan would've been very difficult to create. From a ground troop standpoint, the vast area you would need to cover would stretch troops thin enough for the Taliban to be able to pierce the entrapment with a strong enough counterattack.

[Divair]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 5G20130902
Syria asks the UN to stop the US.