• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

the dza said:
You say this sh1t every time and every time it's wrong. A certain irony that you only say it to play politics yourself and are totally ignorant about this subject.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to get Scara's narrative. He thinks Labour are still in government, so according to his skewed logic everything can be slated on them, they are to blame for everything that goes wrong, anywhere.
 
the dza said:
You keep babbling on about Isis but forget about Al Qaeda/Al Nusra. There was no "clear difference" between them and "moderate" rebels, you may remember a video from the time of a "moderate" rebel eating the heart of someone he had killed and reports of other war crimes as well. It's always worked out so well, supporting these people.

It's not as if British bombs have any relevance at all, like bringing a sparkler to a fireworks display. Our politicians just like to feel important, but we are a second rate military power. Obama went to congress and knew he would lose the vote for military action, so didn't push it, then took the diplomatic offer for Syria to remove their chemical weapons.

And if you think Russia and Iran would have just sat back and let Assad fall to Saudi backed factions (among others and before Isis) then I think you are very much mistaken.
Click to expand...
I don't forget them at all. Just because their ideals at that time were in line with ours, it's no reason to ditch what was best for Syria and the rest of the world.

And I know you want to bring this down to simple things like bombs and boots on the ground all the time, but a no fly zone being enforced over Syria before the Russians started flying there would have made a massive difference to the outcome IMO.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't forget them at all. Just because their ideals at that time were in line with ours, it's no reason to ditch what was best for Syria and the rest of the world.

And I know you want to bring this down to simple things like bombs and boots on the ground all the time, but a no fly zone being enforced over Syria before the Russians started flying there would have made a massive difference to the outcome IMO.
Click to expand...

For Syria, boots on the ground and a no fly zone amount to one and the same thing, and that was before direct Russian involvement. There was never a snap your fingers solution to this conflict.
 
the dza said:
For Syria, boots on the ground and a no fly zone amount to one and the same thing, and that was before direct Russian involvement. There was never a snap your fingers solution to this conflict.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure we could enforce a no fly zone from carriers and neighbouring countries. It's been done before.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm fairly sure we could enforce a no fly zone from carriers and neighbouring countries. It's been done before.
Click to expand...

Not for Syria, or I think Obama would have pushed for it. The analysis was different:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slide-show presentation in the Situation Room in early 2012 that helped take any military option off the table. Imposing a no-fly zone, he said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.
 
the dza said:
Not for Syria, or I think Obama would have pushed for it. The analysis was different:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slide-show presentation in the Situation Room in early 2012 that helped take any military option off the table. Imposing a no-fly zone, he said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.
Click to expand...
Clinton seemed to get different advice - she was pushing heavily for it.

Then there's always the option of just taking out their airfields.
 
scaramanga said:
Clinton seemed to get different advice - she was pushing heavily for it.

Then there's always the option of just taking out their airfields.
Click to expand...

Clinton never saw a war she didn't like, she would commit to another Iraq, no doubt about it. I don't think the General was over-egging it there, if there was a low-risk option I think they would have taken it.
 
the dza said:
Clinton never saw a war she didn't like, she would commit to another Iraq, no doubt about it. I don't think the General was over-egging it there, if there was a low-risk option I think they would have taken it.
Click to expand...
I think there is a low(er) risk option - but it wouldn't play well with the public.

It would have meant a lot of range missiles and probably a lot of drone work and that never plays well to the public.
 
scaramanga said:
I think there is a low(er) risk option - but it wouldn't play well with the public.

It would have meant a lot of range missiles and probably a lot of drone work and that never plays well to the public.
Click to expand...

I think the reason they don't think they can enforce a no-fly zone in Syria without a big ground operation is because the Syrian anti-aircraft defences are pretty good and they are located around chemical stockpiles and more densely populated areas. So I don't think they can risk a mistake (and mistakes always happen).
 
the dza said:
I think the reason they don't think they can enforce a no-fly zone in Syria without a big ground operation is because the Syrian anti-aircraft defences are pretty good and they are located around chemical stockpiles and more densely populated areas. So I don't think they can risk a mistake (and mistakes always happen).
Click to expand...
It certainly would be difficult politically, but in the long run a better solution IMO. Especially if it kept the Russians' filthy noses out of it.
 
scaramanga said:
It certainly would be difficult politically, but in the long run a better solution IMO. Especially if it kept the Russians' filthy noses out of it.
Click to expand...

I think the big political problem is that America has wanted Assad out before chemical weapons was even an issue, and they have not deviated from that. An unpalatable political settlement might have been achievable if they were willing to let him stay in charge, meaning a lot less death overall.

So they want him gone, but to do that requires basically another Iraq. And congressman want to get re-elected. Now the Russians are involved so it's a circle that can't be squared at the minute.

Doing another Iraq would get rid of Assad, but who/what comes next? Those groups we mentioned earlier, whose interests temporarily aligned with America's may then try to fill the void (see Iraq). Many more dead, another $trillion spent and no guarantees that the situation gets any better, the reluctance to do it is logical.

The mistake, imo, was to prize regime change above everything else -- and as I say, that has nothing to do with chemical weapons, as much as they are trying to sell that as the reason.
 
the dza said:
I think the big political problem is that America has wanted Assad out before chemical weapons was even an issue, and they have not deviated from that. An unpalatable political settlement might have been achievable if they were willing to let him stay in charge, meaning a lot less death overall.

So they want him gone, but to do that requires basically another Iraq. And congressman want to get re-elected. Now the Russians are involved so it's a circle that can't be squared at the minute.

Doing another Iraq would get rid of Assad, but who/what comes next? Those groups we mentioned earlier, whose interests temporarily aligned with America's may then try to fill the void (see Iraq). Many more dead, another $trillion spent and no guarantees that the situation gets any better, the reluctance to do it is logical.

The mistake, imo, was to prize regime change above everything else -- and as I say, that has nothing to do with chemical weapons, as much as they are trying to sell that as the reason.
Click to expand...
I don't see how we could have left a dictator in place after pushing the value of democracy for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back