Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by Deborski

I am hearing conflicting stories regarding Russian ships in the Mediterranean. US news makes it sound like they are building up for a potential conflict with the US, but Russian news continues to state that the ships are there as part of a regular rotation which has been going on since before the crisis in Syria began two years ago.

If you have Russian articles stating that Russia intends to mount a military defense against the US, by all means share them because I haven't found any which say that.

This article was in RIA Novosti this morning (English edition)

Russia Boosts Mediterranean Fleet for Potential Evacuation – Kremlin | World | RIA Novosti



This was RT's version of the story, which basically said the same thing and even quoted the RIA Novosti article directly.

Troubled waters: Naval forces line Syrian shores — RT News

I have also read through Russian-language news and have not seen anything saying that Russia intends to become involved militarily on any front.

At this point, the majority of US citizens strongly oppose a military strike against Syria, and the vote in Congress appears to be shaping up to support that, although there are still many undecided. Personally I hope the US does not strike, but if it does, I do not think that Russia is going to start attacking US warships, for which I am grateful. Not because I think America is doing the right thing with a military strike, but because someone has to keep a calm head and prevent World War Three from starting, if at all possible. I admire Russia for its restraint.

As I said, triggering WW3 because someone attacked a country like Syria (EVEN IF it was an act of aggression) is the stupidest thing to do at this point; external countries may help alter a local conflict, but it absolutely has to be kept a local conflict, and everyone including Russia realizes that (I think even the USSR if it still existed would realize that);

On the other hand, I've heard the crazy dictator threatened to attack Israel, Turkey and Jordan if he got his @ss attacked, which shows HE doesn't fear a WW3 scenario, and is willing to do anything to stay in power, which suggests the safest situation in the region is achieved with him far far away from his throne.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

On the other hand, I've heard the crazy dictator threatened to attack Israel, Turkey and Jordan if he got his @ss attacked, which shows HE doesn't fear a WW3 scenario, and is willing to do anything to stay in power, which suggests the safest situation in the region is achieved with him far far away from his throne.

And what happens after we "topple Assad"? Does anyone even try to think that far ahead? Who takes power then? In whose hands will the chemical weapons end up? Which jihadist group will assume control and will they really be so much better for the stability of the region that Assad's secular government was?

Originally Posted by Deborski

And what happens after we "topple Assad"? Does anyone even try to think that far ahead? Who takes power then? In whose hands will the chemical weapons end up? Which jihadist group will assume control and will they really be so much better for the stability of the region that Assad's secular government was?

If their only two options are either a secular totalitarian dictatorship, or a sharia jihadist group, I feel so sorry for them...