War With Syria

So, from what I am gathering the U.S. is going to do a military strike in Syria. No, it's not definite right now... but I can read between the lines and I can pretty much guarantee that this is what is going to happen.

I'm not happy about this at all. I'm afraid it's going to be another long, drawn-out war... which, of course, will involve Iran and Russia (and possibly China, as well)....
Just...not good. Not good at all.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions about this??

 

Assad used chemical weapons what did u expect

 

AmericanTerrorist

I think the phrase 'nothing off the table' has commentators deciding that because it isn't 'off the table' it is likely to occur. They are also 'reading between the lines' - in other words - sharing their prejudices/opinions.

 

Well, let's see...the first time Assad's regime used chemical weapons and the "red line" was crossed...nothing happened.

In any case, when you say "what did you expect"- I guess you didn't know that I made a thread many months ago in one of the politics forums here discussing how there WILL be a war with Syria (amongst other people, who will inevitably be involved as well), and then I went on in previous threads to talk about how it is MY opinion how this will be the start of ww3 (but that's neither here nor there..)....
so, yes, for me anyway, this has been expected for a long time.

However, my point is, it is starting in the next few days.

And I do think it's a bad idea. A very bad idea, as I stated in my OP.
The U.S. does not need to waste our money, which should be spent in this country, in another long war. We do not need to police the Middle East...
and if the U.S. didn't care about the slaughter that has been going on in Syria for quite a long time now.... enough to intervene when something could have possibly been done in more of a humanitarian fashion... then I really have to question the motivation of getting involved militarily now... The U.S. does not start wars in other countries because the U.S. just cares soo much about the people being killed over there.

 

Well, as I stated in my OP I know this is not definite...

Though I am speaking like it IS definite because, amongst other reasons, I just do not feel like they would be telling the public that a military strike is possible if it is not going to happen.

Do YOU recall that ever happening before? I mean, maybe it has... but I cannot recall that ever happening before. (so if it has happened it is not common.)

 

AmericanTerrorist

There are lots of options 'on the table' - they all can't be likely to occur.
So it seems it falls down to what people think they think is likely or not.
If you look back, I imagine military action has been 'on the table' regarding many issues, and it has never come to pass.
I suppose they have to do that 'just in case'.

It's safe to say WW3 is very unlikely.

 

It is really a complex issue involving many other countries.

There is also Lebanon who support them with Sunni Hezbollah fighters who are backed by Iran. Damascus also is supported by Russia and China.

China sells them nuclear and missile technology in exchange for concessions on oil.

China may support them behind the scenes but they will never arm them to a point that they are a threat to them.

The Syrian rebel army is supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

If they strike it could also take the form of civil wars between many of these countries and the grounds for those alliance are mainly religious.

 

Well, you know... not to say I agree with you, but I do hope you are right. I'm not exactly rooting for a world war.

Well, yeah, that's the thing. Very complicated and many players involved.
So, if there is a military strike... and it does not start a world war, there will be far reaching consequences, or should I say a broad spectrum of reactions. Put simply, it won't be simple.

 

So let me get this straight... Someone killed a bunch of people over there so we are going to go in there and kill some more people...


Okay...

 

WW3 has already started. Odon, sometimes I think you live in a bubble. Which I don't hate you for by any means but I think it skews your sense of reality.

 

In my mind, a world war involves the major powers fighting each other - as in, Russia, America, China and the for simplicity 'The E.U' and the 'Arab states'...
I think YOU should take that off your table and think of other outcomes first.
The majority of the world diplomatically being involved isn't the same as a 'world war', imho.

Does anybody know what the African nations think about this?

 

Yep.... many more people.
Say it this way.... this won't be Libya.

But, yeah, makes perfect sense, huh? An eye for an eye- that's how it goes.

 

Well, I've talked on that before on this forum.
I should have said this will escalate things. Escalate them very far and make things very much more public.

 

How has it already started?

 

I do not know what the African nations think of this..
I'd imagine it could vary quite widely in different countries/regions..

But, just wondering.... what would me "taking it off my table"- (which I assume, by that you just mean for me to stop jumping to conclusions to to think about all the other, feasible options that could be utilized instead...?), do you change the situation? Put simply, whatever I think or feel is going to happen has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going to happen.

 

Lybia supports to Syrian rebels. They have financing through Qatar. They supply them through Croatia borders.

 

AmericanTerrorist

I mean, it would be nice if the paradigm was not the worst case scenario straight out of the gate all of the time. I know that what you feel is going to happen has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going to happen.
It would be nice to start the conversation from a slightly different perspective. Too late now. :devil:

I doubt they matter!

 

Is this common knowledge?

 

As a strategy that would actually be a brilliant one. Do a strike and sit back and allow the fallout to happen between all the fractions already in play there.

There would be total civil unrest in most of those countries and the one strike could be enough to do it.

Divide and conquer?