It's sounding pretty serious. You know shit hits the fan when the German foreign ministry (yeah, historical jokes aside--they're pretty dovish) starts talking about "consequences" and "punishment" in response to something.
Turkey, France, and the UK have more or less already signed on to join the US in a possible intervention. Turkey would be most important, they have the ability to invade and completely overwhelm Syria by land if provided with air support from NATO allies. Given how weak Syria's military has become and how it's been deployed to fight insurgents rather than defend borders, and given the size of the Turkish military, they could probably defeat the Syrian Army in a matter of weeks. The ensuing occupation and reconstruction would be less easy to say the least.
I don't really understand the argument that intervention at this point will make things worse. The hornet's nest has already been kicked over, now Russia and China are saying "don't use the wasp killer--that will make things worse!"
It's not just about spiting the US. For Russia, Syria represents an opportunity to show that Russia still has a superpower's reach. For China it's an opportunity to show that China can't be bullied into acceding to the USA's foreign policy vision.
Russia is also terrified of a post-Assad Syria as a breeding ground for terrorists that might go on to attack Russia, but ironically Russia's hardline stance in support of Assad has prompted Islamists in Syria to vow that Russia is "next." In a sense, they now have their very own "Israel" that makes them a target.
I don't often agree with Peter Hitchens but I did with this article.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/before-we-bomb-syria-shouldnt-we-seek-proof-of-guilt-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Originally posted by Lestov16Not that I know specifics, but I'd say Syria's a more chaotic mess than Libya ever was.
Maple bacon isn't bad, although I could imagine that it wouldn't taste good in a soup.Back on topic, what if Syria does turn into another chaotic mess like Libya or Iraq? Is it worth the risk in your opinion?
Originally posted by Lestov16lawl?
I thought the US had undeniable proof. Am I mistaken about this? I would think after something like Iraq, we wouldn't attack a country regarding WMDs unless indisputably sure.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I thought the US had undeniable proof. Am I mistaken about this? I would think after something like Iraq, we wouldn't attack a country regarding WMDs unless indisputably sure.
Then there's this from earlier this year.