| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > Paper Tiger? |
| Posted by: cnflyboy2000 April 17, 2012 05:07 pm |
| http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/africa/nato-sees-flaws-in-air-campaign-against-qaddafi.html?_r=1&hp who knew? |
| Posted by: Florin April 17, 2012 07:11 pm |
| If the French planes would not attack on their own when the British and the Americans did not yet wake up to reality, Gaddafi would still be in power now. |
| Posted by: lancer21 April 18, 2012 10:14 pm |
"Protect lybian civillians" huh? What a load of propagandistic crap.  Like Yugoslavia , like Irak , like Afghanistan, i'm sure the only reason they bombed that country to the stone age and killed thousands is " to protect the civillians". Yeah right . What's that saying " same Mary but with a different hat ". Or "We escaped the devil only to find his old man". Current world politics are utterly disgusting. |
| Posted by: Victor April 19, 2012 01:10 pm | ||
Can you please point out an age or a time frame when politics where not disgusting? |
| Posted by: 21 inf April 19, 2012 04:32 pm |
| Which would be legal basis for a foreign military intervention in Syria? |
| Posted by: contras April 19, 2012 08:58 pm | ||
No one that really works, which could be really without fault. Don't forget that only two interventions (wars) were made with the "blessing" of ONU: war in Korea (1950-1953) and war in Irak (1991). Pretext would be to stop the killing and to avoid the chaos to spread on entire Middle East. |
| Posted by: Radub April 20, 2012 08:11 am |
| We are constantly bombarded with news report about how wicked the Assad regime is when its army uses weapons to fight... Fight who? There are armed gangs on the "other side". Who are the guys who fight the government? Who arms them? Why are they given carte blanche? Why are all the demands for "cease fires" concentrate ONLY on the state's army and yet no such demands are made of the "other" armed faction? I have no idea what is gong on, but to me it sounds like this demand for the national army to "cease fire" is in fact "unconditional surrender". But surrender to whom? Who are "the other side"? Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf April 21, 2012 05:43 pm | ||||
In this situation, an intervention is ilegal. It is not democracy anymore in Occident, but the right of the force, instead the force of the right. Of course is tragical civilians are killed by a dictator, but to start an atack against a country without legal basis is extremelly dangerous, creating precendents. But above all, it is IMORAL and ILEGAL. |
| Posted by: Imperialist April 21, 2012 06:30 pm | ||
For the intervention to be illegal the UN would have to say it is. An intervention in Syria won't create precedents because the precedents already exist (remember Kosovo). |
| Posted by: 21 inf April 22, 2012 08:07 pm |
| What says the International Right (Dreptul Internaţional) about such situations as in Libya, Syria, Kosovo and other examples? Does it allow a foreign power to intervene in the internal affairs of an souveran state and if yes, under what conditions? |
| Posted by: hiolop July 13, 2012 09:57 am |
| That's really annoyed |
| Posted by: MMM August 26, 2012 05:20 pm |
| I can see three reasons for which no intervention will take place in Syria too soon: 1. No oil there, thus no immediate interest 2. The coming US elections - "peaceful Obama" is a better tune to play... 3. The support from the other "Axe of Evil" countries such as China / USSR (no mistake here!) IMO, at least! |
| Posted by: guina August 26, 2012 07:20 pm |
| The Syrian conflict is nothing more then an expression of the principal antagonism that is dominating the Islamic world,shia vs sunna.In a country where 70 % of the population are sunnis and they are ruled by an 12 % alawite minority,such conflicts,sooner or later,are bound to happen. |
| Posted by: MMM August 26, 2012 09:00 pm | ||
Oh, is it that simple? Isn't there a "stick which stirs the s**t", handled by someone from outside? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS August 26, 2012 10:50 pm |
| The Syrian Civil War and Big Power Rivalry : http://youtu.be/PuM9Kc2AfCI |
| Posted by: Florin August 27, 2012 06:23 am | ||
Real news, I agree. In America, the only source for real news is the Internet... and some newspapers, from time to time. The problem with the newspapers is that when they publish wrong information, they do not publish a correction or an appology. Example: The New York Times - again, again and again. But if you are (very) rich, you can buy even a whole page of "The New York Times", and then publish your point of view as advertise. Sometimes even the governments do this. Years ago, Nigeria bought a whole page, and in a huge article they criticized the newspaper. Their title was "Nigeria is not falling apart", and they said that in about two months "The New York Times" published 26 articles saying that Nigeria will collapse. That was some 7...8 years ago - it looks like Nigeria was right!  |
| Posted by: guina August 27, 2012 12:46 pm |
| Triple M, Of course nothing is simple in real life,but this is the core of the problem in Islamic world.Certanly Turkey, Emirates and Saudis ( sunnis )are suporting with arms,etc the multitude of groups that call themself SR Army.And of course US and some NATO countries back the sunnis. And Iran&Hezbollah (shia) are backing the alawite regime and,in turn are suported by RF&China.But you know this allready.What I'm trying to say is that the Syrian events were not started by superpowers strategig games,but by long existing internal conflict ( see Homs in the seventies,where Assad the father killed around 20 thousand suni insurgents ) anf the influence of " arab spring " The superpowers simply joined thr band when their strategic interests were in danger. I repeat,if one does not take into account the sunna-shia rift ,one does not understand islamic world (if its possible to understand it at all ) and will fall into conspiracy theories and ( so fashionable in our country now ) anti west propaganda. take care,Dan |
| Posted by: MMM August 27, 2012 05:59 pm |
| This centuries-old "rift" can appear only in the circumstances of weakening the central power and I'm not sure that only the "Arab Spring" was enough for the opening of the Syrian rift. |
| Posted by: guina August 27, 2012 06:59 pm |
| Oh,whatever. |
| Posted by: junior August 29, 2012 06:46 pm |
| There's one other element to add to the mix - specifically, Middle-Eastern racial politics. The Arabs and the Persians (i.e. Iranians) don't particularly care much for each other, and to the best of my knowledge never have. The Arabs - specifically the Saudis - currently have the upper hand in matters of Islamic prestige due to their control of Mecca and Medina, and the Iranian religious leadership has made no secret of the fact that they'd like to usurp that position (which is one of the likely reasons why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons... and why the Saudis have hinted that if Iran gets the bomb, the Saudis will get it as well in short order). Syria has been acting as Iran's gateway to the rest of the Middle East (i.e. funneling cash and supplies to groups like Hezbollah, and bringing members of those foreign organizations back to Iran to act for the government against protestors, people who act too "Western", and other "subversives"), and removing the Allawites from power in Syria will make it much more difficult for the Iranians to challenge the Saudis. As for Western responses, one of the reasons why so many in the US are against any sort of intervention is Syria is due to the question mark regarding who is going to end up in charge if the Allawite regime collapses. Replacing Assad with someone who favors al Qaeda might not necessarily be such a good thing. |
| Posted by: MMM September 09, 2012 07:42 pm | ||
The Americans have done clumsy moves like that in the past... but perhaps - just perhaps - if there was a Republican administration, there would've been a more "active" involvement there! BTW, I think Obama will remain at the White House.  |
| Posted by: C-2 September 10, 2012 04:06 am |
| Sure he will! Taking from those who are hard working and giving to the "poors" always had a great popularity... The question is what will be when the "cow" doesn't produce milk anymore. |