What's going to happen in Syria???

[Slowhand]

The pretense is a lot less loss of life on our end. Stop being ostentatious.

The original point I was responding to was that we should be getting involved in everyone's shit, and my question was what that would have gained us in that situation; his response was a non-sequitur about how the methods were the issue and didn't address the question. Not getting involved in a conflict with a nearly non-existent benefit would have been the pretense on which to lose a lot less life on our end. Not sure how that's ostentatious.

And aside from that, were napalm and agent orange and carpet bombing all that politically correct and handholding?

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Well nam they told us they were stopping what....

communism?

If that was actually true then i can almost see helping IF the good side was going to lose for sure . Like take n.korea for instance . I like a crapload of stuff that come out of s.korea . Like samsung . Hundai has all but taken hondas place in the world . And to let scum like n.korea take over a good place that contributes to the world like s.korea... im not down with that . Again maybe let em fight it out but if s korea is going to lose, wipe n. korea from existence and let the south flood in and take it all much to the relief of the n. korea people

[ceyko]

And aside from that, were napalm and agent orange and carpet bombing all that politically correct and handholding?

If you can only point out these things as to what FF is pointing out in regards to Vietnam, I'm not sure how much you know. The military started out quite well and then was hamstrung by politicians for a variety of reason.

These wars generally are like trying to retrain a mean pitbull to lick people to death instead of actually biting them.

Anyway, truth be told in places like Bosnia we (not so much UN) did good. Then were there for waaay to damned long as the primary resource. To go along with your point there are two sides to these things...

1. Going in, breaking up the fight and maybe busting the aggressors ass a little. Even not being allowed to use complete and total warfare, we do this well.

2. Staying there to police the damned place. In my opinion THIS is where we get it wrong.

a. This is where the money just is drained primarily from the US. Other countries participate but I've never seen 1...not 1 statistic from other countries doing anything close to what we do. UK is kind of there.

b. Then we get entrenched, more or less and play the media war. Now our military has their hands REALLY tied because the enemy uses the local civilians as shields...etc..etc. So now more of our people really start dying.

Then we are there for years and years and US public opinion of it really drops. Politicians lie, lie, lie...but no one wants to hear the fucking truth! Oh, Obama will have us out in 3-6 months...poof, just like that! The war becomes just an election tool. They are too pussy to get out, but too pussy to actually lay down the law.

Somehow, the US takes all this on. Why not rotate different UN groups in for the WHOLE country?

...I'm going to stop on this one right now. Starting to babble and piss myself off.

[Forever_frost]

We should never be in theater for more than a month. MAX. You go in, level everything using everything in our stockpiles and then hand it over to the UN or anyone else who wants to play rebuilding. Our military is great on breaking things. We have no equal. We just suck at rebuilding.

[DON SVO]

The original point I was responding to was that we should be getting involved in everyone's shit, and my question was what that would have gained us in that situation; his response was a non-sequitur about how the methods were the issue and didn't address the question. Not getting involved in a conflict with a nearly non-existent benefit would have been the pretense on which to lose a lot less life on our end. Not sure how that's ostentatious.

And aside from that, were napalm and agent orange and carpet bombing all that politically correct and handholding?

You are the one that mentioned Vietnam, so I followed along. As for Vietnam, we were fucking that country in it's ass up to the point that our media machine and the hippies caused a HUGE backlash. The ability to stream video from the war has severely hampered almost any kind of real progress ever since.

Yes. Real progress... as in killing thousands upon thousands of our enemy and those who harbor our enemy. I'm relatively sure that, in Iraq/Afghanistan, we would have been done with any sort of conflict if we would have dropped a bunker buster into the middle of the Mosque that Muqtada al-Sadr commandeered. We weren't allowed to hit churches or Mosques, and him holing up in there allowed for a lot of sympathizers to organize and drag the Iraq war on even longer. They realized we had to play by a set of rules... kinda like the British when we fought for our independence centuries ago. An enemy with no Rules of Engagement changes things drastically.

[no4njnk]

We should never be in theater for more than a month. MAX. You go in, level everything using everything in our stockpiles and then hand it over to the UN or anyone else who wants to play rebuilding. Our military is great on breaking things. We have no equal. We just suck at rebuilding.

That's what the special forces are for. Go in behind enemy lines, train a resistance, teach them what they need to know, and get out. We almost won Afghanistan with minimal troops on the ground and then it became a peace making operation. Just like Vietnam as well.

Syria is dangerous because of who is backing them, mainly China and Russia. That and obama and Penetta have no idea what they are doing. They would be dumb enough to get suckered into a war against both. Syria is a terrorist playground, arm either side and you are arming our enemy.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

With a few exceptions, yes, we should have. The Syrians have had this guy in power for decades and obviously a huge part of their population is fine with that. Who are we again to go and tell them what to do in their country? We did the same shit in Iraq by taking out Saddam and how many people died because of it? Those people are best controlled by a brutal dictator because they act like animals.

This can't be overstated enough.

And the U.S. gov't loves dictators that play by our rules, too. The Arab Spring has got to be giving the Dept of State massive heartburn.

[Slowhand]

You are the one that mentioned Vietnam, so I followed along. As for Vietnam, we were fucking that country in it's ass up to the point that our media machine and the hippies caused a HUGE backlash. The ability to stream video from the war has severely hampered almost any kind of real progress ever since.

Yes. Real progress... as in killing thousands upon thousands of our enemy and those who harbor our enemy. I'm relatively sure that, in Iraq/Afghanistan, we would have been done with any sort of conflict if we would have dropped a bunker buster into the middle of the Mosque that Muqtada al-Sadr commandeered. We weren't allowed to hit churches or Mosques, and him holing up in there allowed for a lot of sympathizers to organize and drag the Iraq war on even longer. They realized we had to play by a set of rules... kinda like the British when we fought for our independence centuries ago. An enemy with no Rules of Engagement changes things drastically.

I'll give you all of that, but that still doesn't answer what we stood to gain from a successful conflict in Vietnam, or any of the other world policing activities we participated in the late 20th century.

[DON SVO]

I'll give you all of that, but that still doesn't answer what we stood to gain from a successful conflict in Vietnam, or any of the other world policing activities we participated in the late 20th century.

As for the Middle East, AL hit it. Their own internal conflicts move the price of commodities. Even sneezing on an oil pipeline in Sudan jacks the price up $5 a barrel instantly. As for Vietnam, I can't answer that since I wasn't alive then to form an educated opinion on reality.

[JP135]

BBC is reporting that the Brits screwed up plans for a civilian transport ship that transited the English Channel carrying Russian attack helicopters, missles, etc. The ship/cargo was insured by a London-based company. Once the Brits talked to the folks at the insurance company, the ship's insurance was suddenly canceled. End result, the ship-load of helicopters are headed back to Mother Russia.

Also, BBC reports that three Russian warships loaded with marines are supposed to be headed to Syria soon 'to protect Russian interests in Syria'. The easy story is that they're going to Syria to evacuate Russian military, civilians and ex-pats. Sounds like Russia is expecting things to go further downhill.

[Captain Crawfish]

Iran nuke talks were a joke nobody is budging. middle east will become a nuclear arms race if iran is not stopped. they will be shortly IMO.

[inline 6]

What does this all boil down too? Usually you just follow the money, or possibly oil in this case. I seriously want to know from someone here who is more plugged into this stuff. Why are all these countries all so interested in this and funding/arming the whole deal?

[sc281]

A Syrian pilot just defected to Jordan with his aircraft....... A Mig 21.


Probably donating it to their Air Museum.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

What does this all boil down too? Usually you just follow the money, or possibly oil in this case. I seriously want to know from someone here who is more plugged into this stuff. Why are all these countries all so interested in this and funding/arming the whole deal?

Russia likes paying customers, and al-Assad is a man in need.

China is a trade partner with Syria. Here's a2008 article about their relationship

DAMASCUS // The warehouse looks like an economic dead zone, with old tyres littering the forecourt, smashed windows and grimy cinderblock walls. The grim exterior, however, hides a flourishing, multi-million dirham business of shipping Chinese goods into Syria. "We import anything, from laser cutting machines to plastic toys," said Mohammed Jarah. "There's a lot of demand in Syria for good value, good quality products and that's what we have."

Mr Jarah and his partner, Ahmad Bustati, set up the company in 2001 with a modest budget and a plan to import textile machines. After a slow start, the business took off and by 2005 it was bringing in Dh5.5 million (US$1.5m) worth of high-technology industrial tools annually. The expansion mirrors a broader trend that has seen China's role in Syria booming, as Damascus looks east for trading partners and political allies. While the US has been hitting Syria with tougher economic sanctions and European trade agreements have stalled, China has opened its doors for business.

"There has been a real change in the market in the last few years," Mr Jarah said. "When we started, it was more unusual and difficult for Syrians to do business in China but now everyone is doing it. Today, Chinese goods are number one here, not things imported from America or Europe." Syria and China have had diplomatic ties since the Chinese revolution in 1949. It is only since Bashar Assad, the president, visited Beijing in 2004 - the first Syrian premier to do so - however, that their economic relationship blossomed. Protective tariffs and red tape were slashed and trade grew sharply, from Dh36.7m in 2000 to Dh5.5 billion in 2007.

The true value of imports is higher, according to Syrian economists, who say that significant volumes of Chinese goods enter the country via Jebal Ali in the UAE, having been reboxed and relabelled with a different origin destination. Imports to Syria from within the Arab world are not subjected to high customs duties. "There are a lot of unofficial, off-the-books imports that are not counted as Chinese," said a Syrian trade analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

From being a relatively small-scale exporter to Syria, China is now the country's largest supplier of imported products, ahead of Egypt, South Korea and Italy. Chinese direct investments in Syria have also expanded, including a joint Chino-Indian purchase of a Dh2.1bn stake in Syria's al Furat oil and gas company. The European Union remains Syria's largest single trading partner. With Damascus facing increased pressure from the West, however, that may be set to change. The United States and European Union accuse Syria of supporting terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Syria denies the allegations.

"Trade between Syria and China has not reached really big numbers yet, but we are just at the beginning," said Safi Shuga'a, executive director at the Syrian Economic Centre (SEC). "Syria has been depending quite heavily on Europe but now Chinese goods are beginning to compete." Efforts by the Syrian authorities to move from a centralised, Soviet-style economy to a more free-market model, while retaining a strong grip on political power, have added to the close relationship. China's economy has changed radically in recent years without domestic political upheaval, a model Syria appears to be following.

"China is a socialist state and Syria has long adopted socialist ideas and the economies have been moving in similar directions," Mr Shuga'a said. "For that reason, there are close political and strategic ties between Damascus and Beijing." It is a policy that is paying off for Syria, according to Mr Shuga'a. "The balance of power shifts through time," he said. "It used to be the British, now we have America ... perhaps soon China and India will be the key powers so it's good for Syria to have strong ties with them.

"Surely the 'look east' policy has helped. If the US and its allies cut investments in Syria, Chinese investments will fill the gap." China maintains a permanent economic mission in Syria, with staff monitoring trade flows and organising business networks. "They are very active," said Firas Jijakli, deputy general director at the Syrian Chamber of Commerce. "If they see imports in a certain product are falling, they're on the phone straight away to find out why and to see if there is anything they can do to reverse it."

Mr Jijakli predicted further growth in Syria's imports from China, something he warned may hurt domestic firms. "Growth will bring advantages and disadvantages," he said. "We don't want to just be importing finished goods, we want to be entering partnerships with Chinese firms so they are manufacturing products here." Liu Bo, second secretary at China's Economic and Commercial Counsel in Damascus, said she expected "significant" increases in Syrian Chinese trade, with a change in product types. "At the moment we largely export low price, low value goods," she said. "We want to export more high technology products and services."

However, here's a2012 WSJ article that might explain better:

BEIJING—China rejected accusations it was obstructionist after its veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution against Syria, and said it was forced into a veto after some members pressed for a vote before disagreements had been resolved.

WSJ's Charles Levinson reports pressure is mounting to force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from office. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is calling on an international coalition to help drive al-Assad fron office. AP Photo

The veto by China, together with fellow Security Council member Russia, risks alienating it from Arab states with whom it has worked to cultivate better relations in recent years. The decision stands in stark contrast to an earlier decision by Beijing last March not to veto a resolution against Libya, which paved the way for the toppling of Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

China's economic interests in Syria are much smaller than in Libya, where it appears to have made a decision to get out of the way of the Security Council vote not to antagonize Libya's likely new leaders and jeopardize Chinese investments there.

Additionally, the veto appears to underscore Beijing's growing concern that unrest directed at authoritarian regimes in the Arab world and elsewhere could continue to spread if aided by the international community.

"China does not have selfish desires in the Syria issue," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin during a daily press briefing on Monday. "As a responsible large country, China will join together with the international community to continue playing an active and constructive role on the Syria issue."

Mr. Liu didn't offer specifics on how China proposes to end the violence in Syria in the absence of a U.N. resolution.

The Security Council voted over the weekend as Syrian forces cracked down harshly on the opposition, including shelling that activists said left more than 200 dead.

Beijing's veto of the resolution, which called for the resignation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was a stark return to its long-standing foreign policy of noninterference in the internal affairs of other countries. After China chose to abstain from, and not veto, the Libya resolution, many analysts said it was a sign that China's foreign policy was becoming more pragmatic in international affairs as its business interest had grown more globally diverse.

China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has veto power over any resolution it disagrees with, which it has used previously to block or dilute resolutions that deal with humanitarian issues alone.

The outright veto by China is somewhat surprising, given the resolution's strong support from the Arab League, whose mission in Syria has been supported by China in recent weeks. It comes just as China is scrambling to boost energy ties with pro-Western governments in the region amid growing uncertainty over the reliability of oil supply from some of its major suppliers in the Arab world, including Iran and Sudan.

Trade between China and Syria was $2.5 billion in 2010, while trade between Libya and China was $6.6 billion, according to Chinese customs data.

China was spooked last year by online calls for a "Jasmine Revolution," and has since then embarked on its most severe crackdown on political dissent in more than a decade as a result.

Its veto of the Syria resolution shows its desire to stand alongside Russia, which has also increasingly seen protests at its regime, against such unrest even if it draws the ire of the West and its allies in the Middle East.

In a commentary on Monday, the Communist Party's flagship People's Daily argued the U.N. resolution was illegal since it was aimed at a leadership change in Syria. Commentaries in the paper are often a reflection of high-level government thinking, though they aren't always an endorsement of policy.

"The United Nations can stop aggression, but it cannot force a country to replace its regime," the commentary read. "As long as there is a 1% hope for peace, we must pay it a 100% effort."

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Here's an interesting article:

Is Syria Becoming a Proxy War Between U.S. and Russia?

Russian state-owned firms are supplying regime with weapons. The CIA is reportedly helping vet recipients of foreign-provided arms for opposition forces. But this isn't the Cold War. It's present day Syria.

Reports surfaced Thursday that a small number of CIA officers have been deployed to southern Turkey to assist U.S. allies with the tough task of deciding which Syrian rebel elements should receive weapons in their fight against Syrian President Bashir al-Assad's loyalist military.

Moscow, a longtime Syrian ally, has provided the country with heavy combat weapons for years. It remains unclear whether Russian officials will bend to Western pressure and cease those shipments as the year-old battle that has killed around 14,000 people wages on.

A CIA spokesman declined to directly address allegations that agency personnel are helping to vet rebel factions in order to ensure weapons do not fall into al Qaeda hands. The spokesman did not deny such an effort is underway, but said the original report contained inaccuracies. A Syrian opposition source reached Thursday says "there is no U.S. involvement at this moment."

The source says the weapons are being supplied by Washington's regional allies, like Saudi Arabia. What's more, "we are seeing a shift in the Russian position on the ground," the opposition source says.

A rebel "military council is distributing military equipment and making sure that is received by the correct people," the opposition source says. "The council makes sure it gets into right hands.

"When U.S. makes that decision" to assist with vetting rebels "other countries will follow," the opposition source says. "But the U.S. has not made that decision."

Still, many in Washington are increasingly uneasy about growing U.S.-Russian tensions.

Asked by U.S. News & World Report if the Syrian conflict is becoming a proxy fight between Washington and Moscow, California Republican Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon said: "It sure looks like it's headed in that direction."

McKeon, the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, expressed concern about a proxy war, and called for President Barack Obama to explain U.S. goals for Syria.

"We've heard very little from the president about what we should doing there, what our national interests there," McKeon said during a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington. "I understand the humanitarian part. But my understanding is we don't know who the good guys and bad guys are, who's leading the effort. I don't know who we're arming, if in fact we're arming or helping arm some of the rebels," McKeon said.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a Ranking Member of Senate Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that Assad appears to be trying to "partition" Syria into three "splintered" regions, and that Moscow could be the major backer of one.

"We might end up with one Alawite state supported by and protected by the Russians, and a multiplicity of [ethnically-based regions] across the country." Assad is from the Alawite sect.

"This is why a plan must be implemented now," McCain said.