1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

News: Civil War in Syria

Discussion in 'International News' started by Mr. Conspiracy, Jul 17, 2012.

Moderators: Ismitje
  1. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Country:
    Iran
    The Iranian officers have seen and experienced prolonged war and combat, the Turkish officers haven't. That's what I meant.
     


  2. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Where? What war have iranian officers been a part of since 88?
     
  3. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    You're obviously not familiar with the Tehran feared 18th zimmer-frame brigade...

    [​IMG]

    :D
     
    Mr. Conspiracy repped this.
  4. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Granted there will likely be senior officers in the Generals and staff that were part of that war, but you are talking about 24 years ago and the war waged during that war is outdated and futile when fighting a modern military. Something iraq found out quickly.
    Another aspect is that those officers won't be on the line leading their troops and it is there that having combat exp. matters and makes a difference.

    So I really don't see iran having any advantage here, not to mention that the Turks benefit from having a US base there and the training they are getting is from US troops who are battle hardened and have been in combat since 01. Plus while I have no doubt that iran has many balistic missiles, the effectiveness and accuracy of them is in question as they have not been used in a real world situation like US weapons have been.
     


  5. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Country:
    Iran
    NATO makes that decision with a vote, there is nothing automatic about it. If there is no "declared war" or if Turkey starts the fight, then they can stay out and watch, which is what they most likely will do, as war with Iran is something all these countries want to avoid. If war with Iran was as easy as you keyboard warriors make it seem like, you can be sure that Iran would have been attacked a long time ago. The cost of an open war with Iran, is just too much, and the Western leaders know this.
     
  6. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Ha, keyboard warriors, unlike you and the other iranian loudmouths, I have actually served in the Military and have a strong understanding of what I am talking about. The bottom line is that the US isn't out looking for a war to fight. And if we did fight with iran, it would be limited in scope to Naval and Air power, both of which the US enjoys a substantial advantage in. There would be no need to invade iran as the goals of any conflict can be acheived through air and sea power. And don't forget, US Missiles are far more advanced and capable as compared to iran's.

    But as I already stated, the US isn't looking for a war with iran. And Turkey isn't either, although I can see them going into syria if things continue the way they are now. And if it isn't already painfully obvious, Turkey as I have shown in links, are moving armor and troops to the border area of syria and they are home to the FSA and that US base is being used to support the FSA.

    And I showed in a link where Obama is giving support to the FSA from that base. So I think it is implicitly clear that if Turkey decides to move into syria and support the FSA with more then just moral support, they will have US backing and likely NATO backing, which is essentially the US anyway.
     
  7. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Country:
    Iran
    Countries mass troops at certain borders at certain times to show off their strength. It doesn't mean they're going to war.
     
  8. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    Agreed, but the times that they do are usually when the anticipation of a conflict is high and they are sending a message that they are prepared to fight if needed. But why I think this have more relavance is due to the report that came out today that I linked to earlier where Obama gave secret permission to support the FSA...We shall see.

    As for the combat exp. were you referring to the older Officer Corps of Iran from the Iran-iraq war? If not what other combat have iranian officers been in?
     
  9. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    I very much doubt the turks are going to do anything either. They'll give support to the people fighting and, possibly, provide a buffer zone 'on humanitarian grounds', but that's about it. All this sabre rattling by the fascists is laughable, tbh.

    It's only if the Iranians decide to up and ante and try to actually attack the turks that anything will happen. At that point the NATO commitments come into effect. Having said that I doubt the yanks need to do anything except offer technical support as the turks have MORE than enough firepower to deal with any Iranian lunacy.

    I suspect it will continue on as it is with the Assad regime getting weaker and weaker as time goes on and end up fighting among themselves which is, of course, precisely the reason the fascists are becoming more and more hysterical.
     
    Mr. Conspiracy repped this.
  10. Iranianfootie

    Iranianfootie Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Oil runs away when your enemy is bombing your crude oil export terminals. But this is all irrelevant since as you said, a Turkey-Iran war is virtually a non-possibility. But in the alternate universe where this happened, Iran would be a severe disadvantage in equipment...even if NATO didn't get involved directly, the US would surely provide Turkey with the best it has.
     
  11. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
  12. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
  13. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
  14. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    Anybody want to predict when Assad will collapse? I don't think he makes it to Christmas.
     
  15. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    I'm thinking they'll try and get rid of him and get some sort of deal with elections promised at some vague point in the future, that sort of thing.
     
  16. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Country:
    Iran
    I think the kidnapping of 48 Iranian pilgrims, most of whom are women and children, by the Wahabi armed thugs in Syria, have given Iran the perfect Casus belli to enact the Iran-Syria Mutual Defense Pact, and intervene in Syria. What do you think about this IM?

    My own position is that Iran, under any government, should first and foremost care about her own national interests and sovereignty. The stupid Mullahs should abandon this nonsense about 'Islamic unity", and stop playing nice with these Islamist mother********ers. It's in Iran's national interest to save Syria from these Wahabi thugs, because once they're done there, their masters will send them to cause havoc in Iran, mark my words. That's why Iran should take the game to them in Syria, instead of sitting and waiting to be next. Better to fight these Taliban-like armed thugs in Syria now, so that young Iranians won't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran later.

    None of this, of course, is about the regime in Iran (or Syria), the regime ruling Iran, is irrelevant in the larger picture. The real target is Iran as a strategic geo-political entity with 80 million people and numerous resources, a nation that can stand on its own two feet in a region that everyone else has a master. The ultimate plan, the end game in Syria, is the Balkanization of Middle East and Iran.
     
  17. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    If indeed that it was sunni extremists who did this cowardly act then I would agree as well that Iran has the right to defend their people and take action.

    But let me play Devils Advocate here, whose to say that this kidnapping wasn't a staged event by assad to bring iran into the fight to help him since he is incapable of winning by himself despite the fact that he is shelling his own cities and killing tens of thousands of his own people. I do not put it past him to pull a false flag to get outside help.
     
  18. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Country:
    Iran
    Well, there are no indications that Iran plans to do anything yet. Creating a false flag to draw-in Iran is possible too, by either Assad as you say, or even the Saudis trying perhaps to provoke Iran into taking hasty actions. Anything is possible these days. There is so much lies and depictions on all sides, it's sickening.
     
    Mr. Conspiracy repped this.
  19. Mr. Conspiracy

    Mr. Conspiracy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    I agree, I wouldn't put it past anyone involved in the situation in syria right now to do anything. Believe me when I say that I have no trust or love for the wahabists and what they do. We all know first hand what they are capable of just look at 9/11.
     
  20. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Hang on a minute, weren't you the one saying as how Iran was just about to develop an 'arse-kicking scenario' in Syria? Now you're saying there's no indication they plan to do anything? Make your mind up fella!!!

    Anyway, here's the other sides version of whatever the hell passes for the truth in that god forsaken part of the world...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/w...stages-are-iranian-guards.html?pagewanted=all

    As has often been said, the ME is the worlds largest open-air lunatic asylum. :(
     
  21. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Location:
    Tehran Iran
    Iran is the kind of country where you have at least several different positions on every issue, all pronounced by seemingly authoritative figures! That gives Iran both certain flexibility in terms of decisions it needs to make, as well as it creates a certain paralysis in the way it ultimately makes those decisions, which generally require consensus within the different organs of power in Iran.

    There are those in Iran who are generally more hawkish and more willing to risk a fight between Iran and its enemies in pursuit of what they perceive to be legitimate rights, goals and aspirations of Iran. There are others who are a lot more dovish and, in general, prefer to find every excuse to avoid any move that would increase pressures that exist on Iran. Many of these folks are willing to go to any lengths to find an accommodation with Iran's adversaries and, but for the fact that their influence is limited by the highest authorities in Iran, would have sold out on most issues long time ago. In this latter group, you have some who advocate this position to preserve the regime's power and privileges and others who, conversely, want the regime undermined through such compromises because they are in fact opposed to its policies.

    Besides these two broad categories, you also have those who appear to be entirely self-interested in the positions they advocate: some of them pick their position depending on the latest factional fight they are having; others might even have some corrupt or treacherous connections that explain their conduct. This group, which are not entirely inconsequential either, essentially navigate the spectrum: they sometimes side with those who are hawkish and other times with those who are dovish.

    I say all this because I feel Iran has the perfect excuse to try to establish a presence for itself in Syria. Indeed, as I have said before, I would have preferred Iran to negotiate with the Syrians establishing a joint military (naval, air and ground forces) base in that country. While Assad might not have been enthusiastic about this before, I think he might welcome the idea under the current circumstances. But I don't see Iran moving in that direction. There are many in Iran who have invested their political capital lobbying to see Iran avoid any moves that will further increase the "displeasure" of the US and its allies. The last thing they will support is for Iran to do what I am suggesting.
     
  22. Tribune

    Tribune Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Frankly, while, in theory, everything is possible, it is far more likely that the "wahhabis" are telling the truth. Think about it: who in their right minds would go on a "pilgrimage" in a city where a civil war is raging - and exactly at the moment when the fate of the fighting seems to be hanging in the balance?
    Other places just as "interesting" as Damasc is right now would have been only Baghdad in april 2003, Fallujah in autumn 2004, Beirut in summer 1982, Grozny in winter 1995 or Hue in feb-march 1968. I don't recall many groups of "tourists" showing up there at those times.
     
  23. Anthony

    Anthony Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 1999
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    Lots of tourists do stupid things. Look at the American hikers who went for a walk along the Iran Iraq border a few years back. War is a great idiot magnet. At some point simple Darwinism has to apply and view people like that as helping to improve the DNA pool by taking themselves out of it.

    But more importantly, the Syrian Prime Minister has supposedly defected. Who knows the truth at this point, but the Prime Minister is a Sunni.

    I still think we (the US, the west whomever) should stay out of it, but I really hope we (meaning the US) have some contingencies about getting hold of Syria's WMD stockpile so it does not fall into hostile hands.
     
  24. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Just on that specific point, there are an enormous number of people who visit the shrine there so that's not too much of a stretch. I forget what the shrine is but it's probably something to do with the prophet mohammed.... his cat took a wiz on some geraniums there or something. Whatever!

    Of course, they're not the only nutters around...



    :D
     
  25. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Country:
    Iran
    Who? The khar-mazhab (religious donkey) Iranians who were getting blown up in Iraq dozen at a time a few years ago, and kept going there for pilgrimage. You don't seem to understand the whole concept of pilgrimage in Shia Islam. Some of these ultra conservative Shias would make a promise to some imaginary saint that "if my daughter gets into university" or "if my wife gets healed", I'll come visit your shrine. So when their wish is granted, they HAVE TO fulfill their promise and go on on pilgrimage no matter what, it's like a religious duty.

    Now if these people were not civilians on a pilgrimage, they would not (1) have woman and children with them (2) hang around a shrine, unarmed, 50 at a time waiting for their bus (3) carry their passports , national IDs, etc with them. The Wahabis' proof that these people are "Iranian soldiers" is their Card Payan Khedmat (Mandatory Military Service Completion Card) Every Iranian man has one of these cards, because military service is mandatory in Iran for all men, and without showing this card, which proves that you're not a runaway soldier and you've done your service already, you can not use any social services or leave the country.
     
Moderators: Ismitje

Share This Page