• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

US to attack Syria in "unbelievably small, limited strike" if they don't give up chemical weapons

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
A variety of sources are saying that the "Friend of Syria", the coalition of the willing V2.0, will be bombing Syria within a couple of days. People who live on Cyprus are reporting a huge increase in air traffic at the British airbase there (Cyprus will probably be a main staging point as it is only 100km from Syria). Commercial aviation pilots in Europe are reporting seeing formations of jets in their radars deploying in the direction of Cyprus.

Western forces to strike Syria in days: sources
KHALED OWEIS
AMMAN, JORDAN — Reuters

Western powers told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces within days, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.

“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days, and that they should still prepare for peace talks at Geneva,” one of the sources who was at the meeting on Monday told Reuters.

The meeting at a hotel in downtown Istanbul was between senior figures of the Syrian National Coalition, including its president Ahmad Jarba, and envoys from 11 core “Friends of Syria” alliance members, that included U.S. envoy Robert Ford, the top U.S. official handling the Syria file, the sources said.

Facing Russian and Chinese disapproval that could dampen prospects for proposed peace talks in Geneva, Assad’s foes have vowed to punish a poison gas attack in some rebel-held districts of Damascus on August 21 that killed hundreds.

UN experts trying to establish what exactly happened in the attack were finally able to cross the frontline on Monday to see survivors - despite being shot at in government-held territory. But they put off a second visit until Wednesday.

from the Globe
Western forces to strike Syria in days: sources - The Globe and Mail
 

Chris

Well-Known TRIBEr
who benefits.........do we really believe that Asad would chem his own people knowing it would bring the wrath of the rest of the globe against him and his government?
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Yes - I do think Assad is capable of doing this.

A must-see for anyone who wants to know more about the Syrian cabal who have been running things for decades should watch the two part Al Jazeera special "The Reckoning", which goes back to the early days and ends just before the current crisis.

They have levelled entire cities of 30k plus civilians because the city - as a whole - was deemed to be in the pocket of their rivals.

To me it feels like a "Western Autopilot" leading us once again into a complex web that proves - again - how far short our ability to change things falls when compared to how much we THINK we can change things.

The last decade has been an object lesson in the futility of western intervention, but I guess "this time for sure" right boys??

Bullwinkle Foreign Policy
 

Chris

Well-Known TRIBEr
I love Kerry's "moral obscenity" comment. It's so hypocritical it hurts my brain.

How many wars, ahem, excuse me, "kinetic actions" are they engaged in at the moment?

Drone strikes?
Torture victims?
How many homeless because of a lack of banking regulations?

Moral Obscenity? Look in the mirror America.

praktik, your comment - The last decade has been an object lesson in the futility of western intervention, but I guess "this time for sure" right boys?? Rings so true. We should stay well clear of this. Besides, lets say we go in, airstrikes or boots on the ground, then what? How do you exit when there is no viable opposition who is solid to lead after. Yet, at the same time, doing nothing, cant be a real option if indeed chemical weapons were actually used. This, I am not so sure.
 

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Syria doesn't have oil. So where's this going.
They will eventually go to war with Iran, they have been isolating the area around them for 2 or 3 decades now. First Israel, India, Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, then Iraq, then Afghanistan and recently Egypt and Syria.

All these countries are on board or will be in the near future, call it democracy or whatever you want but it's about the boner they have for Iran and the need to control the flow of oil in the area and who gets it (ie not Russia, India or China).

A similar thing is happening in the Arctic except everyone is claiming to have ownership over the land, again all for oil.
 

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Oh right. Just like how Afghanistan worked out for them too.

They don't have the money to pull this off.
Afghanistan never worked out for anyone, it's not ideal fighting terrain no matter how many ops or sims you do in preparation. Money is not the issue unless China comes calling and even then I'm sure the Saudis will help bail out the USA.

Who's going to be able to collect a 16+ trillion dollar debt? nobody unless they invade the USA but lets be real here, Red Dawn will never likely happen and Patrick Swayze will save us all anyway.

Which bring me to your question that the USA doesn't have the money to pull it off. Whats another 10 trillion on a debt nobody can collect? not to mention the vested intrest of France, Germany and the UK in having access to cheap oil, I'm sure they're on board with the cause
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ipraktik, your comment - The last decade has been an object lesson in the futility of western intervention, but I guess "this time for sure" right boys?? Rings so true. We should stay well clear of this. Besides, lets say we go in, airstrikes or boots on the ground, then what? How do you exit when there is no viable opposition who is solid to lead after. Yet, at the same time, doing nothing, cant be a real option if indeed chemical weapons were actually used. This, I am not so sure.
Ya thats the issue right? The offense is grave, but is it anymore grave than destroying mosques with families hiding inside or using their air force to level a city that was "disobeying"?

In terms of numbers some of the earlier crackdowns were in the same league - but didn't cause us to intervene (at the time it was more of a Soviet client state anyway, and "out of reach" - but we didn't even really use it to shame them or the Soviets either, nobody cared).

So on the scale of things in terms of impact on human misery, I'm not sure this attack is really all that out of line with what they have been doing for decades and even before "using chemical weapons" they were devastating cities with conventional means, and I'm not sure a dead kid cares whether it was the collapse of his roof from a mortar or a chemical weapon that killed him...

So we back ourselves into rhetorical/philosophical corners with "red lines" like chemical weapons, and when you unpack those kind of "triggers", you realize that maybe the real trigger should have been some time ago, when the crisis started and civilians started dying - not now with so much blood already spilt.

And again this rests on the assumption that A) western power CAN make a difference and B) that it is appropriate for us to have "triggers" like that at all, when they can force us into open-ended messes w/ downstream consequences we can't identify or understand...
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
As for the alleged economic/geopolitical benefits from engaging in Syria, I see little examination in the circles propogating these theories to all the potential deleterious downstream consequences from invading Syria - its all about how the West will get a pipleine, or something...

They had the same rhetoric about Iraq - but there was little recognition that the American misadventure there was one of the most stupendous failures of American foreign policy EVER, draining blood and treasure in a futile war that only empowered Iran and the nexus of opposing asymmetric forces across the middle east that used the war to galvanize support and become stronger.

To me the benefits of intervention in Syria are slim indeed - with similar potential for unforseen and dramatic downsides as Iraq...

Now, do American planners *THINK* there are some upsides like a pipeline or geopolitics?

Sure... some of em do! but that doesn't mean those dreams will be realized...
 

kyfe

TRIBE Member
Now, do Members of the Military Industrial Complex *THINK* there are some upsides like a pipeline or geopolitics?

Sure... some of em do! but that doesn't mean those dreams will be realized...
just wanted to clarify this comment,

of course there is upside, take a look at all the development contracts the hiring of private mercenaries to get around laws, the introduction of western businesses to the region and the deployment of the military. from a monetary perspective there is certainly upside, Rome(the US economy) can burn to the ground, regardless someone will make a profit. When one percent of your population controls ~80% or more of your wealth then who really matters? the other 99% can rot, we've already seen that story start to unfold with LIBOR, recession (almost depression), mortgage scandals, banking scandals etc.
 
Top