Well it looks like it's all officially gone to hell in Syria. As expected, the Useless Nations have done jack-all and Kofi Annan has been about as useful as he was during the genocide in Rwanda. Meanwhile, Russia and China are backing Syria and making a healthy profit off small arms trafficking and heavy weapons sales.
I wonder how long before this spill over into Lebanon and Iraq?
Thoughts?
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2083 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1189 times:
To the UN:
Since the rebels and government started fighting and the government sent in tanks to quell the rebellion, it should have been declared a civil war.
How true are Russia's claim that should NATO enter the scene (a la Libya or invasion) a full scale war could be ignited? Could Russia be bluffing or will it actually follow through?
One thing is certain: the actions of Russia and China to turn a blind eye to the Syrian people are bad enough, but to actually sell weapons to the government (which washes its hands by saying that groups "not related" are the ones that carry out the attacks) is just despicable.
Quoting TheCol (Thread starter): I wonder how long before this spill over into Lebanon and Iraq?
Lebanon is far more vulnerable than Iraq owing to how deep Syria is in Lebanese affairs. My bet is that if this goes on, before the end of the year, Lebanon will also be in crisis. Iraq has managed a degree of stability and throughout the Arab Spring has maintained it without serious conflicts.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
TheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2012 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1151 times:
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 1): How true are Russia's claim that should NATO enter the scene (a la Libya or invasion) a full scale war could be ignited? Could Russia be bluffing or will it actually follow through?
I doubt Russia and China would do anything other than bitch and moan. I'd be more concerned about how Iran would react to Western intervention. They do have a mutual defense agreement with Syria, and Assad would likely use that trump card to avoid a foreign military presence on Syrian soil. Without a UN sanctioned mission, NATO would need the cooperation of the Arab League. Going in alone will make it a full blown war.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week ago) and read 1137 times:
According to an article in this week´s Spiegel magazine the Syrian army is disolving itself. Apparently the latests massacres against civilians (mostly committed by militias made up of organised criminals, who have been financially profiting from the Assad regime through corruption, and who would lose their income in case of a government change) caused Syrian soldiers to desert en masse and join the Syrian liberation (rebel) army.
It also seems that while before the Syrian secret police took the families of deserters as hostage, but now they get overwhelmed by the numbers.
What props up Assad´s forces is their monopoly on heavy weapons (tanks, aircraft, the rebel army is mostly armed with light infantry type weapons), though they are running out of staff to keep the assets maintained and running and are now using technicians from Russia and China to provide maintenance and repair.
Also the Alawit minority, of which the Assad clan are members and who are overrepresented in the military´s higher ranks and secret police, are afraid to lose their privileges and to get persecuted by the majority Sunni Muslims should the rebels win.
Apparently the rebels are not yet strong enough to take control over the whole country, but they already can deny control to the government.
Russia´s main interest in the region (besides trying to curb NATO influence in the region) is the naval base they have in Syria. It is their only base in the mediterranean region. Access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea can be easily cut off by both Turkey and Greece.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1078 times:
Quoting TheCol (Thread starter): As expected, the Useless Nations have done jack-all and Kofi Annan has been about as useful as he was during the genocide in Rwanda
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2): No sh*t. The situation needs to be taken care of. Now.
The UN could'nt do anything as long as it is unarmed and sent there only to observe and negotiate. The world powers, including the USA and the major European countries don't really want to get into another war. The economy is'nt at it's best at this point.
So it's more the countries that make the UN that is useless in this situation not the organisation and Kofi Annan as such.
The situtation should have been handled by force by the world a long time ago, but it seems that no one is prepared to actually do it, therefore we are stuck with a UN without the nessessery powers to do anything...
I like to remind everyone that the UN is not a millitary organisation. If we want to topple Assad, we need to send NATO.
Alot of people on this forum seems to have a grudge against the UN. But again it is it's members that make out the UN that is to blame for it's lack of powers.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3614 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
Quoting TheCol (Thread starter): As expected, the Useless Nations have done jack-all
Yeah, because the *last* "Useless Nations" action has certainly resolved the situation in Libya - I mean, Gaddaffi is gone, yay and all that, but now we have the situation where pro-Gaddaffi tribes are being evicted from their towns and being forced to become transient refuges in their own country, we now have the situation where tribe factions take over major airports because all of a sudden they've been cut out of decisions, we now have the situation where rocket attacks can be carried out on the British Ambassador...
Military action may remove Assad from power, but dont delude yourself that it will stop anything else going on in Syria.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4992 posts, RR: 38 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1066 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): The situtation should have been handled by force by the world a long time ago, but it seems that no one is prepared to actually do it, therefore we are stuck with a UN without the nessessery powers to do anything...
I like to remind everyone that the UN is not a millitary organisation. If we want to topple Assad, we need to send NATO.
Alot of people on this forum seems to have a grudge against the UN. But again it is it's members that make out the UN that is to blame for it's lack of powers.
Dont forget that western nations have been pushing for tougher actions on Syria for quite some time now, however Russia has veto'd every such proposal. The decision to send observers and Kofi Annan to Syria was the best compromise that could be achieved with Russia.
SOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3082 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1067 times:
While Russia is supplying the regime in Syria with arms, Iran with men and fuel so is Venezuela, the west is doing next to nothing but lip talk. We heard few times about safe zones, but nothing materialized. I am not one asking for a military intervention, but at least some human aid needs to be supplied.
I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
The whole situation concerns me deeply. It seems that it has been left too late to take any really decisive action without risking some serious international brinksmanship. We should be in no doubt as to the potential for these situations to spiral out of control, dragging everyone into an avoidable war that, in the worst case scenario, would kill us all. I am not comfortable with yet more military action from any quarter, but will confess I am not sure what the answer really is here. I am not sure bashing the UN as an entity really helps, as it cannot really act when the Security Council is so seriously at odds on the matter.
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2083 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10): as it cannot really act when the Security Council is so seriously at odds on the matter.
The bashing is not directed towards the UN as a whole, but more towards the countries that have either blocked any action or have refused to act. The UN bashing comes because it took them over a year to declare Syria under a civil war when it was obvious that Syria was already under one.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
TheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2012 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 960 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): The UN could'nt do anything as long as it is unarmed and sent there only to observe and negotiate.
There is no point risking the lives of various military personnel, just so they can sit there and watch both sides slaughter each other.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): The world powers, including the USA and the major European countries don't really want to get into another war.
The West has been pushing for action, but Russia and China are the brick wall.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): The economy is'nt at it's best at this point.
The economy has nothing to do with it. A chapter 6 mission would have likely been in place a long time ago if certain powers on the security council didn't veto all the resolutions that have been tabled.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): not the organisation and Kofi Annan as such.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10): I am not sure bashing the UN as an entity really helps, as it cannot really act when the Security Council is so seriously at odds on the matter.
The organization has consistently failed to protect the vulnerable, which defeats it's main purpose. Kofi Annan has been, and always will be, a useless diplomat and administrator. Just look at his track record, especially in 94.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): I like to remind everyone that the UN is not a millitary organisation. If we want to topple Assad, we need to send NATO.
The security council may use force, via NATO or a chapter 7 mission, as a tool to enforce UN resolutions when they see fit.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 6): But again it is it's members that make out the UN that is to blame for it's lack of powers.
You don't say...
Quoting moo (Reply 7): Yeah, because the *last* "Useless Nations" action has certainly resolved the situation in Libya - I mean, Gaddaffi is gone, yay and all that, but now we have the situation where pro-Gaddaffi tribes are being evicted from their towns and being forced to become transient refuges in their own country, we now have the situation where tribe factions take over major airports because all of a sudden they've been cut out of decisions, we now have the situation where rocket attacks can be carried out on the British Ambassador...
The UN was just a tool that the West used to protect their interests, not the people, in Libya. All the more reason to call the organization useless.
Quoting moo (Reply 7): Military action may remove Assad from power
Taking sides isn't going to work, so there's no point going that route again.
Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 9): the west is doing next to nothing but lip talk.
The ball is in the Arab League's court. Unilateral action by the West will inflame the situation further.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2083 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 927 times:
Quoting TheCol (Reply 12): The ball is in the Arab League's court. Unilateral action by the West will inflame the situation further.
IIRC, the Arab League has already appealed for action. Since the Arab League is just a regional forum, they don't have the power to organize an army and invade (for peacekeeping purposes). All they can do is go to the UN and seek action from them. It happened with Libya.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
The Arab League has enough military strength to threaten Assad into a permanent ceasefire. But I doubt certain client states in the Arab League will bite the hands that feed them: Iran, Russia, and China.
Unfortunately NATO can't touch Syria without starting a war with Iran, which would automatically put Israel in the line of fire as well. Supplying the rebels, which would turn the whole thing into a proxy war that might bite us in the ass later, is also not an option.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 884 times:
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 13): IIRC, the Arab League has already appealed for action. Since the Arab League is just a regional forum, they don't have the power to organize an army and invade (for peacekeeping purposes). All they can do is go to the UN and seek action from them. It happened with Libya.
Why can't they as a collectivity just declare war?
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 867 times:
Quoting TheCol (Reply 14): But I doubt certain client states in the Arab League will bite the hands that feed them: Iran, Russia, and China.
Beyond Syria I am not too sure how many "client states" in your terms there are. Syria's membership of the League was suspended in November last year. The countries with the largest military forces in the region tend to be more aligned to the US: Saudi Arabia and Turkey for example.
Of more concern than Iran, Russia or China may be the fact that some of the Arab League states are not in a position to do much. Has not the GCC been assisting Bahrain with its internal problems? Is Egypt ready to become involved? What about Tunisia where the Arab Spring commenced? Iraq, well. Sudan is divided... The list goes on.
The Arab League is too fractured to be of much practical use, although some individual States are in a better position than others.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2083 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 818 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 15): Why can't they as a collectivity just declare war?
In theory, they could. But in reality, it won't happen. So you declare war. What next? Stay on the sidelines and let another person do the fighting for you?
Quokkas pretty much covered why the Arab League (right now) won't organize an army. If they didn't do it back when Iraq invaded Kuwait, they won't do so now either. Besides, it would seem very hypocritical of the Arab League members (not that they've cared before) to invade Syria to stop a government crackdown when the Sunni monarchies in the Gulf assisted Bahrain in quelling the rebellion and many others stayed silent when Iran also cracked down on opposition in 2009 (I know, Iran is not an Arab League member, but you get the point).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2012 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2083 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5102 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3237 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3614 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4992 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3082 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6348 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
