US intervention in Syria imminent. - Polidicks

[quote] [img]http://www.rt.com/files/news/syria-rebels-us-arms-028/aircraft-air-force.n.jpg[/img] [B]A delegation from Syrian opposition is reportedly in talks with US officials over the targets they want to attack to weaken the Syrian government and the arms they want America to provide to do it.[/B] A “Libya lite” operation in Syria may be imminent. The unnamed US official reportedly said that “the intervention will happen. It is not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’.” The delegation from the Syrian Free Army is meeting with US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and the State Department’s expert on Syria, Fred Hof, according to a report by debkafile, an Israeli news website, which is considered to have strong ties with the intelligence community. The Syrian rebels have brought with them two lists for American approval. One is that of targets in Syria they want to attack to hurt President Assad’s government. The second is a list of heavy weapons they need to carry out the attacks, which they want to get from the US, the report says. Debkafile says the Obama administration is very close to given the green light to shipping off the weapons, most of which have already been purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The US is also close to deciding on the format of its own military operation in Syria, which the site’s source described as “Libya lite” – a small-scale version of the no-fly zone and air strikes carried out by NATO forces in Libya, which resulted in the toppling of its leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Earlier top US military brass told American media that the Pentagon has finalized contingency plans for a possible operation in Syria. This follows the UN observers pulling out of Syria due to the renewed violence in the country. The mission head said neither side of the conflict was willing to observe the ceasefire any longer, which put the UN personnel at risk. Some reports suggest that the break in the warfare helped the Syrian opposition purchase new and better weapons with the money received from sponsors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. [B]Source:[/B] [url]http://www.rt.com/news/syria-rebels-us-arms-028/[/url] [/quote] Libya 2.0 incoming. :v:

While I wouldn't mind a "Libya lite" style of intervention, RT is likely making this shit up as they're laughably pro-Syrian/Russian.

This is excellent news, but I'm hesitant to admit that. With the Russian AA batteries and pledged support for the Syrian government, and the fact that the Syrian government seems intent on going all mass-murdery makes me feel a little worried about this. [editline]20th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;36411696]While I wouldn't mind a "Libya lite" style of intervention, RT is likely making this shit up as they're laughably pro-Syrian/Russian.[/QUOTE] This, too.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;36411696]While I wouldn't mind a "Libya lite" style of intervention, RT is likely making this shit up as they're laughably pro-Syrian/Russian.[/QUOTE] It's important to report on all sides of journalism, all news based on speculation is biased.

[QUOTE=Superwafflez;36411726]It's important to report on all sides of journalism, all news based on speculation is biased.[/QUOTE]While true, there are some news sites that are so absurdly far to one side it's better for all if they're just ignored. It's not like it's a choice between RT and Fox News, which we should smash together so their biases cancel each other out like a reaction between acid and alkali; there's plenty of less biased news sources. NPR, BBC, Al-Jazeera etc. Smaller biases are more manageable.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;36411746]While true, there are some news sites that are so absurdly far to one side it's better for all if they're just ignored. It's not like it's a choice between RT and Fox News, which we should smash together so their biases cancel each other out like a reaction between acid and alkali; there's plenty of less biased news sources. [B]NPR, BBC, Al-Jazeera[/B] etc.[/QUOTE] The first two are very hesitant to report on rumors, whereas Al-Jazeera will headline things straight from twitter.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36411952]Intervene. But dont turn this into fucking Libya.[/QUOTE] What was wrong with Libya? We did the job and left, no overstaying our welcome. It's not like it turned into Afghanistan.

You left indeed, although leaving higly unstable government and letting all go down the shitter.

Damnit.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;36412145]You left indeed, although leaving higly unstable government and letting all go down the shitter.[/QUOTE] The West can't fucking win, can it? We intervene - it's wrong. We don't intervene - it's wrong. We stay to support the new government - it's wrong. We leave as soon as possible so as to not piss people off - it's wrong.

Russia should just back the fuck off from Syria. Support a case where they're all killing each other? Russia, you idiots. I still don't understand why the US -has- to make a interception here, it's pathetic that only the US, or a first world country has to babysit this bullshit. Putting sons and daughters, families on the line dying over in some sandy place, where they behead and blow each other up anyway like freaking cavemen.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;36412145]You left indeed, although leaving higly unstable government and letting all go down the shitter.[/QUOTE] so what you'll bitch when the US acts like the world police and suddenly when they aren't the world police they're not doing it right hmmm ok

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;36412145]You left indeed, although leaving higly unstable government and letting all go down the shitter.[/QUOTE]It's calmed down quite a bit recently, and they've taken steps to prohibit parties playing on ethnic, religious or tribal divisions; better representation of women in government, and other rather progressive measures by regional standards. It's hardly went further down the shitter after the overthrow of Gaddafi; it's simply still trying to recover from the war, and to the best of my recollection there have not been any serious incidents of infighting since January.

The situation in Syria is getting worse by the minute. This is Rwanda genocide all over again

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36412404]Because you were supposed to only intervene to stop civilian slaughter. What you did instead was - siding and winning a civil war. This wasn't what you were given permission to do. Which is also why China and Russia are strongly opposing another intervention, by the way.[/QUOTE]Would letting the war drag on not have resulted in far more civilians being killed? There aren't many ways they could've stopped civilian areas getting bombarded by tanks and artillery without tipping the war in the rebels' favour, namely by destroying said tanks and artillery. And to suggest that's the main reason China and Russia oppose more intervention i.e. they don't support meddling in other countries' affairs is a rather shallow appraisal of it all. Russia had no compunctions about intervening in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, after all. Only 6 countries in the entire world recognize their claims of independence, namely Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. By comparison, Kosovo is recognized by 91 UN member states, and over 100 for the recognition of the NTC as Libya's sole legitimate government. Could've listed Russian business interests, geopolitical manoeuvring (i.e. creating/losing allies), Chinese (and indeed, Russian) fears of internal dissent being stoked and so on. Conversely, one could list Western leaders looking to score points for re-election (like what Sarkozy tried and failed to get by intervening in Libya), looking to create new allies and business partners and such. The idea that China and Russia hold dear the ideal of non-intervention is absolute bollocks, as is the idea that Western motivation is [I]purely[/I] humanitarian. But quite frankly, whatever plans Western leaders have for Syria are unlikely to entail nearly as much suffering as leaving Assad in power. Lesser of 2 evils and whatnot.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36412404]What you did instead was - siding and winning a civil war. This wasn't what you were given permission to do. [/QUOTE] What a convenient way to skew things. Who would have thought attacking military targets targeting civillians leads to rebels gaining an advantage? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=David29;36412214]The West can't fucking win, can it? We intervene - it's wrong. We don't intervene - it's wrong. We stay to support the new government - it's wrong. We leave as soon as possible so as to not piss people off - it's wrong.[/QUOTE] Baww Sleep in the bed you made and stop victimizing yourself.

[QUOTE=SatansSin;36412223]Russia should just back the fuck off from Syria. Support a case where they're all killing each other? Russia, you idiots. I still don't understand why the US -has- to make a interception here, it's pathetic that only the US, or a first world country has to babysit this bullshit. Putting [B]sons and daughters, families[/B] on the line [B]dying[/B] over in some sandy place, where they behead and blow each other up anyway like freaking cavemen.[/QUOTE] Put Al-Houla into youtube. It's not the only case of this, just the main example.

Skeptical because, as Starpluck has said, RT is indeed "laughably" pro-Syrian/Russian. It's a pretty good idea though and that's how I'd imagine any real intervention done by any other nation in this conflict.

About time.

[QUOTE=SatansSin;36412223]Russia should just back the fuck off from Syria. Support a case where they're all killing each other? Russia, you idiots. I still don't understand why the US -has- to make a interception here, it's pathetic that only the US, or a first world country has to babysit this bullshit. Putting sons and daughters, families on the line dying over in some sandy place,[b]where they behead and blow each other up anyway like freaking cavemen.[/b][/QUOTE] I know right, those dumb cavemen fighting for their freedom instead of submitting to their violent government. You wouldn't look so much like an idiot right now if you refrained from posting the bolded sentence. Also no one from intervening countries died in Libya's intervention.

hey Glorious American People in my country (Latvia) the government killing civilians too, can you please help?

well, it seems like it will happen. I just saw on the news of Obama meeting with Putin and... they looked pissed off at each other. Not even making eye contact. Go die Putin, I want the old guy.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36412404]Because you were supposed to only intervene to stop civilian slaughter. What you did instead was - siding and winning a civil war. This wasn't what you were given permission to do. Which is also why China and Russia are strongly opposing another intervention, by the way.[/QUOTE] The US took out tanks and military installations. It was the French and Italians that were sending spec ops and weapons to the partisans.

I certainly support a (very) limited operation to strike out military targets and whatnot.

Fucking finally.

[QUOTE=SatansSin;36412223]Russia should just back the fuck off from Syria. Support a case where they're all killing each other? Russia, you idiots. I still don't understand why the US -has- to make a interception here, it's pathetic that only the US, or a first world country has to babysit this bullshit. Putting sons and daughters, families on the line dying over in some sandy place, where they behead and blow each other up anyway like freaking cavemen.[/QUOTE] Heck yeah, I'm not the only one who thinks that way. I can understand our government though. They've chosen the wrong strategy (same happened with Libya), and now the only way they can manage to not loose an ally is to support current Syrian government. Because the new one would not be particularly friendly towards Russia now. I can't imagine why our government keeps making the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps, there's no particular reason - they're just idiots.

So there's job openings in the U.S. military?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36413229]So there's job openings in the U.S. military?[/QUOTE] Always is. Always hiring.

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36413302]Always is. Always hiring.[/QUOTE] good to know.