'Bodies in the streets' as Syrian tanks storm Daraa
46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=torero;29423847]The American infidels are trying to stop us from killing you! They are DEVILS!
Would they listen to propaganda by the same regime that killed their family and friends?[/QUOTE]It would damage the growth of rebel support, so long as the government's grip on the media remains tight enough. In places that see little to no protesting, or at least not significant bloodshed (or simply utilising disappearances more), support for the regime may remain strong.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29423616]Nope. The Syrians never defeated Israel or made it retreat anywhere, actually - no country did. Theoretically - Israel could've occupied entire Syria and Egypt in both the 6 Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. It was international pressure, especially American, which made the Israelis stop and not continue taking more and more territory.
The War of Attrition was the Syrians and Egyptians pissing the Israelis off basically. It was from 1967 to 1970 - and basically, Egypt and Syria (Egypt was the dominant force among the two) launched rockets and mortars into Israeli territory and committed other small-scale action in order to piss them off and make them 'desperate'. Basically, physiological war. Nothing was gained by the Syrians and Egyptians though.[/QUOTE]
In the Yom Kippur War, Israel managed to secure a military victory, but Egypt ultimately "won" by getting the Sinai back.
Oh, and the increased competence of the Egyptians in that conflict plus the devastation of IDF tanks by ATGMs and the effectiveness of Egyptian SAMs (until the Syrians eventually pushed the Egyptians to move their forces out of the SAM umbrella) warrants merit.
[QUOTE=Random94;29425934]Actually the Egyptians recaptured sinai from the Israelis so there were some gains from these wars, also in the beginning of the yom kippur war the Egyptians and Syrians were making rather excellent progress, the Israelis were retreating but if it wasn't for operation nickel grass that gave them weaponry to counter the equipment the arab armies had, the Syrians and Egyptians would have won the war, also the land gains the Israelis made in that war was a counter attack after being resupplied.[/QUOTE]
What? The Egyptians never re-captured Sinai.
And yes, at the beginning Syria and Egypt did gain territory, but then got pushed back, and the Israelis got even more territory than they had before the war, but were forced to retreat by the US.
[quote]In the Yom Kippur War, Israel managed to secure a military victory, but Egypt ultimately "won" by getting the Sinai back.[/quote]
That happened 6 years later - it might be a long term result, but tactically and strategically Israel has won.
[quote]Oh, and the increased competence of the Egyptians in that conflict plus the devastation of IDF tanks by ATGMs and the effectiveness of Egyptian SAMs (until the Syrians eventually pushed the Egyptians to move their forces out of the SAM umbrella) warrants merit.[/quote]
Egypt was indeed having some success at the beginning. Undoubtedly though, the Israelis have won, destroying much more than they have lost.
Why is the Middle East run by such shitty and terrible leaders?
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29427769]That happened 6 years later - it might be a long term result, but tactically and strategically Israel has won.
Egypt was indeed having some success at the beginning. Undoubtedly though, the Israelis have won...[/QUOTE]
War is an extension of politics, and the strategic effect was that Egypt regained the Sinai, and the myth of Israeli invincibility was dispelled.
[quote]destroying much more than they have lost.[/quote]
Elaborate. Kill ratios are not a useful indicator, unless you're trying to pick out a Rambo.
No wait, enough of this. We're talking about Syria, not some bygone war.
Israel returned the Sinai as apart of the peace deal.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29427769]What? The Egyptians never re-captured Sinai.[/quote]
they did, while indeed not militarily, but diplomatically they have Sinai under their control again
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;29427973]Why is the Middle East run by such shitty and terrible leaders?[/QUOTE]
I think it had something to do with European powers putting crappy leaders into power after they retreated from their colonies. Then either the one group stays in power and slowly encroaches on the rights of the people to consolidate their rule or several revolutions/counter-revolutions occur and then you get authoritarian governments.
Sort of why Africa is pretty messed up too.
[QUOTE=Random94;29428723]they did, while indeed not militarily, but diplomatically they have Sinai under their control again[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the argument was about whether they took using their military or not.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29429338]Yeah but the argument was about whether they took using their military or not.[/QUOTE]
Yep... you can't say "capturing" when it was basically given to them... Just like the US didn't capture Alaska from the Russian Empire.
[quote]War is an extension of politics, and the strategic effect was that Egypt regained the Sinai, and the myth of Israeli invincibility was dispelled.[/quote]
Egypt regained the Sinai while stopping the constant attacks on their behalf, stopped sponsoring Fedayeen and other groups. In the war itself, Israel has won, gained more land than it used to have and destroyed much of the Egyptian army. I think you're missing the point here - Israel didn't decide "Oh, damn, they hit us hard - we better give them Sinai back", not at all. The decision was purely made because Begin - Israeli PM at that time, honestly believed peace is to be achieved, and what's better than peace with the leader of the Arab world?
You know, just because Egypt, years later, got what it initially wanted - doesn't mean it won the war. In fact, I can't see how it did.
[Quote]Elaborate. Kill ratios are not a useful indicator, unless you're trying to pick out a Rambo.[/quote]
Kill ratios and amount of equipment destroyed, as well as the amount of territory taken by the sides and overall result (as in, right after the war ended) are quite a good indicator of who had the upper hand at the aftermath.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29429796]Yep... you can't say "capturing" when it was basically given to them... Just like the US didn't capture Alaska from the Russian Empire.[/QUOTE]
The US *bought* Alaska from the Russian Empire.
Uh, THAT'S THE POINT.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29429796]Egypt regained the Sinai while stopping the constant attacks on their behalf, stopped sponsoring Fedayeen and other groups. In the war itself, Israel has won, gained more land than it used to have and destroyed much of the Egyptian army. I think you're missing the point here - Israel didn't decide "Oh, damn, they hit us hard - we better give them Sinai back", not at all. The decision was purely made because Begin - Israeli PM at that time, honestly believed peace is to be achieved, and what's better than peace with the leader of the Arab world?
You know, just because Egypt, years later, got what it initially wanted - doesn't mean it won the war. In fact, I can't see how it did.[/quote]
Don't kid yourself with all that "Israel rolled over the Arabs all the time, Arab efforts had [i]no[/i] bearing on the Israeli peace offers". The Yom Kippur War made the Egpytians in an equal position in the postwar peace bargaining table.
I'll say this again: A *tactical* military defeat does not mean that Egypt did not ultimately gain from the Yom Kippur War.
[quote]Kill ratios and amount of equipment destroyed, as well as the amount of territory taken by the sides and overall result (as in, right after the war ended) are quite a good indicator of who had the upper hand at the aftermath.[/QUOTE]
You were talking about kill ratios. Now you are introducing the obvious?
[editline]25th April 2011[/editline]
Anyways, I don't see what this has to do with the current situation in Syria at all. Switch to PMs if you want to continue driveling.
[quote]Don't kid yourself with all that "Israel rolled over the Arabs all the time, Arab efforts had no bearing on the Israeli peace offers". The Yom Kippur War made the Egpytians in an equal position in the postwar peace bargaining table.[/quote]
Actually, I'm not saying it had no effect - I'm just saying what's a plain historical fact: Israel has won the Yom Kippur war.
[quote]I'll say this again: A *tactical* military defeat does not mean that Egypt did not ultimately gain from the Yom Kippur War.[/quote]
I didn't say it didn't gain anything from it. The Egyptians gained from it [i]indirectly[/i], just like they did from [b]everything[/b] that ever occurred. Again, just because eventually Egypt did gain whatever it wanted (but partially), doesn't mean it won the war. That's like saying Poland won the war against Nazi Germany, because eventually it did get the territories it demanded from Germany pre-WWII. That makes no sense.
[quote]You were talking about kill ratios. Now you are introducing the obvious?[/quote]
No, I wasn't talking about kill ratios - I was talking about "How much damage was done" - you might want to go to page 1 and look it up.
Alright back on topic...
[editline]25th April 2011[/editline]
[quote][b]US raises prospect of sanctions in Syria after brutal crackdown[/b]
THE US hardened its tone on Syria's political crackdown on Monday, raising the prospect of targeted sanctions, but still declined to call for President Bashar al-Assad to go.
Washington also defended the presence of a US ambassador in Damascus, who only arrived after a six-year absence in January, as Assad's security forces deployed tanks and snipers, [b]killing at least 25 people in a key town.[/b]
"The brutal violence used by the government of Syria against its people is completely deplorable and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms," said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.
"The United States is pursuing a range of possible policy options, including targeted sanctions, to respond to the crackdown and make clear that this behavior is unacceptable.
"The Syrian people's call for freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and the ability to freely choose their leaders must be heard."
Washington has issued repeated statements by senior officials including President Barack Obama calling for an end to violence and political reform in Syria, but has faced criticism for not taking more concrete steps.
But yesterday's crackdown appeared to mark a point at which the administration - which has sought to engage Syria as a key regional power player - had little choice but to be seen to act more robustly.
[b]As well as the crackdown in the town of Daraa, a focal point of protests, Syrian troops also yesterday launched assaults on the Damascus suburbs of Douma and Al-Maadamiyeh, witnesses said.[/b]
New US sanctions would have a strong symbolic element but the Wall Street Journal reported they would not have much impact on Assad's inner circle as few regime kingpins have substantial holdings in the US.
But should similar measures be adopted by Europe, they could have more bite, given more substantial holdings in the continent by the Assad family, the paper said, adding the US move could pressure European governments for action.
[b]Syria is already subject to American sanctions, aid restrictions and export bans, due to its presence on Washington's list of state sponsors of terrorism.[/b]
So far, Washington has not threatened to recall its ambassador to Syria, a post filled in January after a six-year absence, as Obama sought to court Damascus as part of a broader Middle East diplomatic push.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the presence of the ambassador had allowed Washington to make its stance clear to the Assad government.
"Having an ambassador in Syria has allowed us to be in Syria, basically, in the presence of the government to make our views known directly and not be a long distance (away)."
Carney was also pressed on why Obama had not personally called for Assad to heed calls of protestors and leave - raising an apparent contradiction with US policy in Libya, which has seen the president call for Muammar Gaddafi's ouster.
[b]"Libya was, again, a unique situation," Carney said.[/b]
"We had large portions of the country that were out of the control of Muammar Gaddafi, we had a Gaddafi regime that was moving against its own people in a coordinated military fashion and was about to assault a very large city."
Carney also argued that there had been an international consensus to act in Libya.
The crackdown in Syria poses a dilemma for the Obama administration, which has found its regional policy repeatedly challenged by unrest in the Middle East.
On the one hand, Washington could stand to profit from a fall of Assad's minority Alawite regime, which is allied to Shiite Iran, a longtime US foe, and which wields power detrimental to US goals in Lebanon.
On Friday, Obama accused Syria of blaming outsiders for its troubles, and specifically said it was seeking Iranian help to suppress its citizens.
[b]But though it may welcome a weakening of Syrian ties to Iran, Washington also appears concerned about the uncertainty of what could follow a fall of the Assad regime amid fears of an even more radical government.[/b]
The US had appeared to hope that eventual Syrian talks with Israel could help pave the way for a future Middle East peace compact and that Assad could be coaxed towards reform and dialogue.
[b]About 390 people have been killed in security crackdowns since protests erupted in Syria in mid-March, according to rights activists and witnesses[/b].[/quote]
[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-raises-prospect-of-sanctions-in-syria-after-brutal-crackdown/story-e6frg6so-1226044825080[/url]
[QUOTE=Miskatonic;29420307]:words: Obligatory what-if statement.[/QUOTE]
Way to be an ignorant fuckbag, cunt.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;29422740]much stronger than libya however, because they are near israel and need to be prepared[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Israel and Syria have bad relations with each other?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.