Welcome to PatsFans.com

is a "no fly" over Syria imminent?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Titus Pullo, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    ... if so, big problems are obvious.

    We are so close to something in the barn catching fire. The only question that remains is whether it gets contained to a few stalls, or if the whole thing becomes engulfed.

    [​IMG]

    From ZeroHedge:

    Albawaba news, which cites Kuwait's al Rai daily, reports that Arab jet fighters, and possibly Turkish warplanes, backed by American logistic support will implement a no fly zone in Syria's skies, after the Arab League will issue a decision, under its Charter, calling for the protection of Syrian civilians. In other words, foreign countries will take it upon themselves to do what only America has done with impunity so far: decide what is best for a given sovereign nation's population. Granted, we have yet to verify the credibility of both Al Bawaba and Al Rai, although at first blush they appear substantially more credible than Debka-type fly by night operations. Which then leads to a sobering conclusion: if indeed Europe and the Western world is dead set upon an aerial campaign above Syria, then all eyes turn to the East, and specifically Russia and China, which have made it very clear they will not tolerate any intervention. And naturally the biggest unknown of all is Iran, which has said than any invasion of Syria will be dealt with swiftly and severely. Then again, the Iranian war foreplay has gone on for far too long at this point that we have gotten to where headlines about the "imminent" Iranian war are almost as ignored as headlines about how "Europe is bailed out" all over again.

    From Al Bawaba:

    Last edited: Nov 23, 2011
  2. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    and, right on queue:

    Russia Retaliates Against US: Puts Radar Station On Combat Alert, Prepares To Take Out European Missile Defense Systems

    Medvedev:

    "First, I am instructing the Defense Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert. Second, protective cover of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons, will be reinforced as a priority measure under the programme to develop out air and space defenses. Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads. Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems if need be... Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defense system, in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region."​
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2011
  3. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    This is surprising for a couple of reasons:

    1. Syria is about 30th in the world in oil production.
    2. We usually wait until just about everyone that we are ostensibly trying to defend is already dead.

    This might be a sign that the Syrian opposition has been neutralized.
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +346 / 6 / -8

    Just curious - what the hell good is a no-fly zone in a country with something like 15,000 tanks? I mean, I see that the countries in the region are all happy about establishing one, so fine, what the hell. But it's not like they can't just roll into every trouble spot and take care of things up close and personal.

    The Iran war drumbeat is bugging me too, but it's biting off more than we can chew, in any sustained fashion. I think we all get this. I have no bloody idea what the plan is, "if it comes to it."

    It looks to me like a lot of cold-war style bluster and maybe tweaking their noses from time to time. But ultimately we have to pretty much establish a "doctrine" that nobody goes nuclear unless we say so, and we'll use the fact that we've done so to prevent them from it. We can "beat" Iran in a conventional war, but there are a few dozen others we'll have to whack the same way (and a handful we've chosen not to whack the same way) to uphold that doctrine. We don't have that amount of will or cash -- nobody in today's world does. If we did there would still be five members in the nuclear "club", the US, China, Russia, Britain, and France.

    It's one of those situations where the only thing worse than doing nothing will be confrontation.

    We'll see. I think what ends up happening is, like N Korea, Pakistan, and India, one day you just wake up and they're testing a nuke. Eh well.

    PFnV
  5. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    I think Mrs. Oleary's place has been doused with enough petrol to get something going pretty quick. Only a matter of time.
  6. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Except that they will use it.
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +346 / 6 / -8

    They're not reasonable men like Kim Jong Il?
  8. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Does KJI believe in martyrdom?
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +346 / 6 / -8

    If he just saw a movie about it, yes.

    You're really saying Kim Jong Il is a more stable bet for possession of a nuclear weapon than... anybody?
  10. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    He believes in self-preservation. That is the point of having them. I am not sure that is the case with the mullahs.

    I am saying that I think Iran is the least stable bet.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +346 / 6 / -8

    Uh yeah. You do know that Kim just threatened to turn South Korea into a "lake of fire" yesterday, right?

    I mean, regardless of Ahmanutinadinnerjacket's "Israel will be erased from the page of history" quote some years ago, it's just plain silly to pretend this stuff isn't already issuing directly from a guy who just got his bloody nukes.

    Do we need to bomb him into submission too?

    PFnV
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

  13. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    No, better to make sure that they both have them. That will promote maximum "stability".
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Are you M.A.D.?

    [​IMG]
  15. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +380 / 0 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Iran won't use their nukes; at least not without either being fired upon or believing that such action is imminent. They're definitely not going to nuke Israel. What? They're going to kill 2 million Arabs in Israel, several more million Muslims in Palestine, destroy Haram al-Sharif, the myriad Islamic holy sites within Israel and Palestine, and then risk having the fallout blow into Egypt (following the prevailing winds) and put another 80 million Muslim lives at risk just to kill a handful of Zionists? This isn't to mention the Israeli retaliation that makes any Iranian benefit, if there could be one, extremely short lived. I get the history lesson of Tamerlane and his "Islamic holocaust", but let's be real.

    They have real, pragmatic reasons for wanting a nuke. If I were Iran, I could come up with a few good ones right off the bat; reasons that make sense to a rational mind. I think I listed them in a previous thread here. The biggest mistake we could make is thinking that they are crazy or acting irrationally. All we have to do is look at their handling of our invasion of Iraq. It was a geopolitical masterpiece on Tehran's part.

    Yes, like most Shia, the mullahs believe in the 12th imam's reappearance, but it holds no more significance in this discussion than the Christian belief of Jesus' return in the end times or what have you.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2011
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +346 / 6 / -8

    Holy crap.

    In Iraq when we had the no-fly zones, how did Santa get to the houses?
  17. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,348
    Likes Received:
    50
    Ratings:
    +130 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    I think there are more scenarios to worry about than just an ICBM. Ship-based delivery...slipping it to a terrorist group...

    The latter is the most worrisome, as delivering it through a third party allows them the ability to deny any involvement.

    We live in weird times...basket-case regimes are going nuclear while most of the developed world has almost no ability to defend itself any longer.
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    ...infidel....:mad:
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,939
    Likes Received:
    92
    Ratings:
    +208 / 3 / -10

    Pragmatic reasons or not, the world doesn't have to allow Iran to have nukes. Now some may believe all countries have that right, but I wouldn't agree with that, do you?

    And BTW...I have never witnessed a more insane (yes, he is crazy) leader than Ahmadinejad.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2011
  20. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>