Will there be American invasion in Syria?

[Stoked]

Back when they were flexing their muscle invading Iran, Kuwait, etc. and using chemical weapons both at home and against their foreign enemies they had a very large standing military. The first gulf war greatly reduced their military and the sanctions that followed made it difficult to build it back up again. I'm not talking about how powerful they were in 2003, but in the late 80s.

Two man differnces I see.

Syria is one of the worlds largest holders of chemical and biological weapons. More than Iraq

Syria has a much more advanced air defense than Iraq did. Such as Russia currently supplying them with advanced surface to air missile batteries.

 

[Gameface]

We all lose is correct. But is Russia willing to let it's only real direct partner int he middle east, Syria (only naval post Russia has access to in the mediteranean is in Syria) be taken away by its biggest rival?

Can America resist its historic desire to protect Israel?

Can China resist the chance to reclaim taiwan which it view as a rebel province?

Can North Korea resist the chance for, as it sees it, freedom and to end the suffering of its people?

Can India keep the already heating up boarder with Pakistan form full on conflict?


As Duck Rogers said to many sides, pieces in place and tensions for nothing to happen. Once something does how far does it spiral? I doubt my above scenario is likely. In fact it is very unlikely. But as I said the pieces in my scenario are already all in place. The events in my scenario require no moving of forces or build up. They are already in place and waiting.

Russia will take the loss of a satellite alliance over war with the U.S., yes.

Israel can defend itself.

China is patient. They haven't taken Taiwan yet, they aren't going to take it unless they can do it without creating a larger conflict. They need their partnership with the U.S., at least for now.

North Korea has nothing to gain unless WWIII actually breaks out. Anything less and all they can do is break South Koreas toys and kill people. They would quickly be smacked back into their place and all the worse for wear.

The India Pakistan thing, I'm not familiar with current events there if things have changed considerably, but I don't think they are going to take unnecessary chances.

For all this to happen the dominoes have to start falling. I think the U.S., Russia, China, and European powers are going to prop up those dominoes as much as possible. For the larger conflict to break out one of those majors powers needs to want it to break out. They have to see an opportunity for gain. Right now there is nothing but loss to be had.

 

[ema]

The worst thing about this kind of wars is, it really really feeds the terrorism. It creates and feeds it. So many people will do suffer during the war but so many will do too after the war.

 

[leftyjace]

My question is, where are the arab nations in this? They're Syria's next door neighbors. Why aren't they stepping in? Why does it take western powers to jump in? Sheesh.

 

[ema]

In this scenario can you guarantee that the Kurds won't see an opportunity to carve out a small country of their own? Or that Turkey will not see a chance to once and for all remove a long time thorn in its side?

Actually it kinda depends on USA. Because the funny fact is US is ally both with Turkey and Kurds.

Turkey won't dare to expend the territories for sure, and also knows cannot do anything about the Kurds outside of Turkey, because they are tens of millions. A real Turkish-Kurdish war is the last thing both sides want because the Middle East is full of Turkish and Kurdish people without certain territories. Only in Iran there are almost 20 M Azeri Turks for instance. Iraq is another story, lots of Kurds and Turkmens live there.

As long as US doesn't fully back up Kurdish people they will settle with Northern Iraq and some around-areas they are currently living in.

 

[Stoked]

Russia will take the loss of a satellite alliance over war with the U.S., yes.

Israel can defend itself.

China is patient. They haven't taken Taiwan yet, they aren't going to take it unless they can do it without creating a larger conflict. They need their partnership with the U.S., at least for now.

North Korea has nothing to gain unless WWIII actually breaks out. Anything less and all they can do is break South Koreas toys and kill people. They would quickly be smacked back into their place and all the worse for wear.

The India Pakistan thing, I'm not familiar with current events there if things have changed considerably, but I don't think they are going to take unnecessary chances.

For all this to happen the dominoes have to start falling. I think the U.S., Russia, China, and European powers are going to prop up those dominoes as much as possible. For the larger conflict to break out one of those majors powers needs to want it to break out. They have to see an opportunity for gain. Right now there is nothing but loss to be had.

I think if it were straight up than yes you would be right. I am not saying that what I offered up will happen just that it a a possible fallout from the moves already made.

Syria is not just a satellite. It is their only satellite in the area and the only one that proveds them naval access to the mediteranean. That is important to them.

 

[Stoked]

My question is, where are the arab nations in this? They're Syria's next door neighbors. Why aren't they stepping in? Why does it take western powers to jump in? Sheesh.

Actually they are very involved. Just covertly.

Turkey is pissed at Assad and has American, German and Dutch forces (couple hundred men total and a half dozen patriot missle batteries) along the Turkey/Syrian boarder.

Iran and Hezbollah are providing training, men and materiels to Syria. Saudia Arabia and Qatar are providing money and weapons to the rebels.

The Arab League denounced the chemical attack but does not back a military strike by the west. They fear full blown war int he middle east.

Syria is already a proxy war between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia).

 

[BTP]

I think if it were straight up than yes you would be right. I am not saying that what I offered up will happen just that it a a possible fallout from the moves already made.

Syria is not just a satellite. It is their only satellite in the area and the only one that proveds them naval access to the mediteranean. That is important to them.

Was thinking about joining this conversation, but finally decided that it's not worth the time invested.
I'll leave it at: I think most of you are way out of proportion about this topic and Russia has about 500 miles of coast at the Black Sea. So if they really need a fleet there I'm sure they'll find a way to pass the Bosporus
Just think about it: This is a NATO vs UN affair or about taking sides vs civil rights and Stalinism...

 

[ema]

My question is, where are the arab nations in this? They're Syria's next door neighbors. Why aren't they stepping in? Why does it take western powers to jump in? Sheesh.

Because Arabs are not united. They DO NOT trust each others in any way.

 

[ema]

Was thinking about joining this conversation, but finally decided that it's not worth the time invested.
I'll leave it at: I think most of you are way out of proportion about this topic and Russia has about 500 miles of coast at the Black Sea. So if they really need a fleet there I'm sure they'll find a way to pass the Bosporus
Just think about it: This is a NATO vs UN affair or about taking sides vs civil rights and Stalinism...

Are you serious?

 

[Stoked]

Was thinking about joining this conversation, but finally decided that it's not worth the time invested.
I'll leave it at: I think most of you are way out of proportion about this topic and Russia has about 500 miles of coast at the Black Sea. So if they really need a fleet there I'm sure they'll find a way to pass the Bosporus
Just think about it: This is a NATO vs UN affair or about taking sides vs civil rights and Stalinism...

This is a power play America, Britain and France v. Russia, China and Iran.

Please do get involved. No one is angry here. All of us want nothign to do with this mess.

How do you read the evolving situation? There are so many different twists that it really is interesting.

Such as the tension and war of words between Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah (Shia) has men in Syria fighting and Hamas (Sunni) supports, vocally, the rebels. A couple car bombs went off in Lebanon that targeted Hezbollah. Hezbollah pointed the finger at Hamas. They used to be friends.

Turkey and Israel likely being on the same side in any major conflict but being in a war of words themselves. Tension over the killing of Turkish citizens over the Israel raid of a boat trying to break their palastine naval blockade.

The route from the Black Sea to the Meditteranean Sea is directly thru NATO controlled territory. Russia wants direct access. That is why there are up to 12 Russian warships floating just off Syria.

 

[The Thriller]

My question is, where are the arab nations in this? They're Syria's next door neighbors. Why aren't they stepping in? Why does it take western powers to jump in? Sheesh.

Would you get involved if you were an Arab leader knowing that unkie Sammy was going to take care of everything and pay the bulk of the cost? Why risk the lives and treasury of your own nation when Americans can die and pay for it?

 

[fishonjazz]

Would you get involved if you were an Arab leader knowing that unkie Sammy was going to take care of everything and pay the bulk of the cost? Why risk the lives and treasury of your own nation when Americans can die and pay for it?

This :-(

 

[BTP]

I would approach this from a lawyer's perspective:
There's a precedent where an war of aggression against a former CSSR country by the NATO was unresponded by Russia. Kosovo anyone? Ye...
I look at this in a similar fashion. As long as the UN has those oligarchic, Stalinist influence named Putin, it'll be a farce. Same counts for Chinese interests.
So NATO should make it their duty to intervene infraction of civil rights in a land at the border to a member(Turkey) thus threatening Turkey's border regions safety. Also there were already missiles landing in Turkey which can be counted as an attack on that country and are a valid reason to defend that country in the limits of the NATO statutes.
It's of course a gamble, but
1) Israel is no member of the NATO, thus it's not responsible for this attack.(This won't mean it won't experience the backlash of Terrorist organisations. But such actions seldom find support with the sane population)
2) Under NATO statutes there's valid reason to intervene.
3) Negotiations have all failed in former cases when discussed at the UN security board(Iraq?).
4) This is a good example to remind other countries how things should run when civil rights are infracted, potentially lowering the willingness for others to act the same.

 

[Stoked]

I would approach this from a lawyer's perspective:
There's a precedent where an war of aggression against a former CSSR country by the NATO was unresponded by Russia. Kosovo anyone? Ye...
I look at this in a similar fashion. As long as the UN has those oligarchic, Stalinist influence named Putin, it'll be a farce. Same counts for Chinese interests.
So NATO should make it their duty to intervene infraction of civil rights in a land at the border to a member(Turkey) thus threatening Turkey's border regions safety. Also there were already missiles landing in Turkey which can be counted as an attack on that country and are a valid reason to defend that country in the limits of the NATO statutes.
It's of course a gamble, but
1) Israel is no member of the NATO, thus it's not responsible for this attack.(This won't mean it won't experience the backlash of Terrorist organisations. But such actions seldom find support with the sane population)
2) Under NATO statutes there's valid reason to intervene.
3) Negotiations have all failed in former cases when discussed at the UN security board(Iraq?).
4) This is a good example to remind other countries how things should run when civil rights are infracted, potentially lowering the willingness for others to act the same.

Interesting and some good points to think about. As for retaliation I do not look to russia for that. I look to Hamas and Hezbollah. To a lesser extent Syria and Iran directly. Any American/Russian conflict would be the result of multiple things happening till one side no longer felt they have any other viable choice. They are not at that place now. Thank goodness.

 

[The Thriller]

The possession of WMDs has made world powers be a lot more cautious in going to war. In many ways, it is the best deterrent we have. They all know, even wackos like N Korea, that pushing the red button essentially means the end of the world for them. You don't gain anything by using it. The Soviet Union and the USA probably would have gone to war against each other a long time ago had the atomic bomb never been invented. I'm more fearful of our own lack of accountability in managing and maintaining our own WMDs than of Russia or N Korea using WMDs against us. It might startle many Americans how few people our maintaining our supply of nukes and how quickly these weapons are decaying. I say the chances of these detonating accidently or being stolen by a domestic terrorist are much higher than us going to war with a former super power.

 

[The Thriller]

Anyone else wonder if once our country is in the crapper that all these countries who we have handed out foreign aid to will treat us charitably and give us foreign aid too? I'm sure Afghanistan and Iraq will run shipments of billions to help us out. Just out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[BTP]

Honestly I couldn't care less for terrorist organisations. They're so twisted with their morals. They use them like they want to.
Look at Syria's situation:
Right now they go recruit orphan kids from Assad's followers. Next day the same recruiter go to refugee camps of the rebels and talk to the orphan kids how the Assad regime is acting wrongful.
So if you leave them alone it'll also result in civilian assasinations by terrorists. If you negotiate with them or not won't change how they operate. If you can maintain a stable situation with people respecting each other you can provide a solution. I'm not even sure it's possible.
But if you let them do what's happening right now and tolerate the actions they're going to push the limits even further and the supplier from China and Russia will do the same.
That's why I'd say power play. Russians/Chinese and NATO soliders would never attack each other. There's way too much on the line. And both know that.
It's about finding a way to classify the act as unavoidable under NATO statutes.
Russia has an interest to maintain the Egypt and Syria conflict. It affects the strength of the $ and oil price and at the same time their supplies are not affected. Gas and oil price are connected with each other. And having higher market price while your production isn't going more expensive by risk to cross the Suez or having an international crisis at the door together with burning oil platforms.
Plus Russia has agreements to disarm parts of their Military equipment. And what better way to do this than selling it to countries who also strengthen their economy by doing so?
But I'm sure they wouldn't risk a war by attacking US/European military forces. The same way the US wouldn't touch Russians. That would mean way too many repercussions.
I'm just disappointed they take so long to take a stance for civil rights in Syria's favor.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe you don't really understand how massively dominant the U.S. military is, in pretty much every way.

WE spend something like 45% of all the military spending in the world, more than the next 16 nations combined. We're dominant compared to everyone.

 

[Stoked]

WE spend something like 45% of all the military spending in the world, more than the next 16 nations combined. We're dominant compared to everyone.

1 United States
2 China
3 Russia
4 United Kingdom
5 Japan
6 France
7 Saudi Arabia
8 India
9 Germany
10 Italy
11 Brazil
12 South Korea
13 Australia
14 Canada
15 Turkey


That is the top 15. We are number 1. Nato members account for 7 of 15 and we are formal allies of 9 of 15. Only 2 on that list are turly rivals. Russia and China.