If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

If Iran closed the Hormuz strait, it would probably not be with warships but with mines.
Yeah, during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran did quite a good job with the mines. In a sense, it was darkly humorous as Reagan announced that the USN would be escorting the tankers through the minefields, but it turned out the mines were more dangerous to the much smaller USN destroyers than the massive tankers. The result was the tanker effectively escorting the USN destroyers through the minefield.
 
If Iran closed the Hormuz strait, it would probably not be with warships but with mines.

And now I'm wishing my far side books weren't packed away. There's an old 80s comic of the love boat straying into the Straight of Hormuz. IIRC, there were land mines in the drawing.

Don't forget, we flagged Kuwaiti (I think they were Kuwaiti??) tankers under the US flag before even the 1st gulf war in an attempt to ensure nobody attacked them because of the volatility of the region/strait.

EDIT: yeah, sorry, Ajidica's was the first new post on the new page and didn't see it til I posted mine, but yeah same time period. *Genuflects at mention of Reagan*
 
Yeah, during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran did quite a good job with the mines. In a sense, it was darkly humorous as Reagan announced that the USN would be escorting the tankers through the minefields, but it turned out the mines were more dangerous to the much smaller USN destroyers than the massive tankers. The result was the tanker effectively escorting the USN destroyers through the minefield.

It was even more hilarious in a macbre way, because while making steam about the Iranian mines, he was busy laying them illegally in Nicaraguan waters.
 
"It's not illegal if the US government does it"

*genuflects at Nixon

"I'm saying that when the president does it, it's not illegal"
Frank Langella AS Nixon.

Sent via mobile.
 
Right. But the US and Saudi Arabia and Israel would LOVE that.

Sent via mobile.
So there's really no reason for Iran to play into their hands, is there?

Sent via a little man in a loin cloth clutching a cleft stick. (With the post in the cleft, of course.)
 
The USS Stark was sunk by a French-made missile (source unknown), and the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner.

The USS Stark was not sunk by the Iraqi launched Exocet.
But the sailors were not in a good mood when they came into the bar of the Hotel Bristol, in Bahrain, when I was drinking there.
Saddam reportedly executed the pilot.
 
The USS Stark was not sunk by the Iraqi launched Exocet.
But the sailors were not in a good mood when they came into the bar of the Hotel Bristol, in Bahrain, when I was drinking there.
Saddam reportedly executed the pilot.

Of course not, why did I even say "sunk?"

My brother was on the Spruance when the airliner was shot down.

Small world, Silurian.
 
RT News:
West vows to boost Syria rebels, Russia says they should be 'compelled' to join peace talks

Published: Sep 16, 2013, 02:06 PM

The US, UK and France have agreed to bolster Syrian rebels by providing more help, press Syria into delivering on its promise to hand over chemical weapons and seek an end to the conflict, which would involve ousting of President Bashar Assad.

The intentions were voiced by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and his counterparts from Washington and London at a joint media conference.

No debate. The "West" has already made up its mind.

Who would have thought Russia would end up on the high ground?

And Assad, as he said on TV 3 days ago:
Over 10 years ago, Syria presented the UN with a proposal for a WMD-Free Middle East; this was because the region is turbulent and has been immersed in wars for decades. Thus removing unconventional weapons would be rational in order to enhance stability, at that particular time the U.S hindered the proposal.

Firstly, in principle we strive for peace and stability therefore we do not perceive the existence of WMD’s in the Middle East to have any positive effect. Secondly, in relation to current developments, Syria as a state genuinely seeks to avert another war of lunacy on itself and countries in the region, contrary to the efforts of warmongers in the U.S who seek to inflame a regional war. We continue to pay the price of U.S wars, be it in geographically distant Afghanistan or neighbouring Iraq. We believe that a war on Syria shall be destructive to the region and embroil it in a quagmire of instability for decades or generations to come. Thirdly, and most remarkably, what was most encouraging was the Russian initiative itself, without which we would not have been able to pursue this path.
 
So there's really no reason for Iran to play into their hands, is there?

Honestly, I think it's doubtful Iran would even want nuclear weapons. They would be dumb if they actually do want that. However, part of the problem is that Iran has a lot of moral obligations to Israel's enemies (i.e. they can't drop hostility to Israel, since it would cause a lot of dissent, even though it would be otherwise in Iran's interest to be friendly to Israel), so Israelis feel genuinely threatened by Iran. Add the fact the Arab Gulf monarchies hate competition, and you have the perfect ingredients to be public enemy #1.
 
Iran is an oil state. The phrase from Scarface was "Don't get high on your own supply." They are looking for alternatives to oil. Solar is not the most immediate option, and wind could be, but oil will reach peak.
 
Iran is an oil state. The phrase from Scarface was "Don't get high on your own supply." They are looking for alternatives to oil. Solar is not the most immediate option, and wind could be, but oil will reach peak.

Exactly. Honestly, that's why I hope Assad will be done for soon, so Iran can become friends with Israel and have this whole Iran-is-developing-nuclear-weapons-OMG! done with. Actually, while Iran cannot work against Assad, it would be sort of in their interest to have him fall.
 
Assad said:
Over 10 years ago, Syria presented the UN with a proposal for a WMD-Free Middle East; this was because the region is turbulent and has been immersed in wars for decades. Thus removing unconventional weapons would be rational in order to enhance stability, at that particular time the U.S hindered the proposal.

Firstly, in principle we strive for peace and stability therefore we do not perceive the existence of WMD’s in the Middle East to have any positive effect. Secondly, in relation to current developments, Syria as a state genuinely seeks to avert another war of lunacy on itself and countries in the region, contrary to the efforts of warmongers in the U.S who seek to inflame a regional war. We continue to pay the price of U.S wars, be it in geographically distant Afghanistan or neighbouring Iraq. We believe that a war on Syria shall be destructive to the region and embroil it in a quagmire of instability for decades or generations to come. Thirdly, and most remarkably, what was most encouraging was the Russian initiative itself, without which we would not have been able to pursue this path.

If there's any actor in this whose credibility is bankrupt it's Assad. Not that anyone else has much either.

I've asked before, but I'll ask again: if Assad has any interest in peace and stability, why oh why did he so viciously attack the peaceful Syrian protesters of 2 years ago?

How can anyone take this guy seriously? He's just your average tuppenny-ha'penny crackpot tinpot dictator, imo. Not that he isn't dangerous, mind you.

But there really is no military solution to this civil war. Only a diplomatic one has any chance of success. And even that's not much of one.

The likeliest is that the conflict drags on and on for decades until eventually everyone gets sick of it.
 
If there's any actor in this whose credibility is bankrupt it's Assad. Not that anyone else has much either.

I've asked before, but I'll ask again: if Assad has any interest in peace and stability, why oh why did he so viciously attack the peaceful Syrian protesters of 2 years ago?

How can anyone take this guy seriously? He's just your average tuppenny-ha'penny crackpot tinpot dictator, imo. Not that he isn't dangerous, mind you.

But there really is no military solution to this civil war. Only a diplomatic one has any chance of success. And even that's not much of one.

The likeliest is that the conflict drags on and on for decades until eventually everyone gets sick of it.

This Article from 2011 shows how that the "violent attack on peaceful protesters" may be blown out if proportion.

Spoiler :
Lies and Media Manipulations regarding the Protest Movement in Syria

The Hama Affair’ or how 10,000 protestors multiply overnight to be 500,000 in the AFP’s news reports

This July, I travelled to Syria, with the purpose of establishing an understanding of the causes of the political protest movement.

I was able to travel freely throughout the country, from Daraa, Damascus, Homs, Hama, Maraat-an-Numan, Jisr-al-Shigur, on the Turkish border, even Deir-ez-Sor, all places where the media had signalled outbursts of violence…

I was able to witness the different internal struggles, some which were violent and had completely different objectives to the peaceful protest movement. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, seeks to bring about an Islamic republic, which in turn terrifies both the Christians and Muslims.

Yet, outside the scope of my research, I was surprised that the image of Syria, portrayed by the Western media, a country undergoing full scale revolution, did not correspond whatsoever to the reality of the situation.

Indeed, the large-scale protest movements seem to have run out of steam, many of the protests only number a few hundred at most, usually focussed around mosques, bearing the mark of Islamist influence.

Therefore, it is only in the city of Hama, cultural stronghold of the Muslim brotherhood, under a state of siege, that full scale protests are to be found.

Centre of a violent revolt, in 1982, which was crushed by Hafez al-Assad, father of the incumbent President, Hama is today surrounded by heavy armour. This said, the government have chosen against a bloodbath, for fear of repercussions from the international community.

On Friday 15th July, I entered Hama. Very quickly I found myself surrounded by the youths in control. Upon presenting my Belgian passport the situation calmed down: ‘Belgicaa! Belgicaa!’; as the only foreign observer on the ground, they escorted me through the protestors. The highlight of which was reaching the top of a skyrise, from which I took a series of snaps, revealing the extent of the debacle.

On Asidi square, to the bottom of the large El-Alamein Avenue, prayer finished, to the sound of thousands of people appearing from all across the city, uniting under a shout of defiance ‘Allah Akbar!’

That same night on 15th July, I received news feeds from the AFP announcing a million protestors all over Syria, of which 500,000 in Hama alone.

In Hama however, they could not have been more than 10,000.

Hama and Deir ez-Zor – 1,200,000 protestors (Le Monde)

This ‘information’ was even more absurd due to the fact that the city of Hama counts 600,000 inhabitants.

Of course, there will always be a margin for error and numbers do vary with sources, estimations are never quite so straightforward.

Yet, in this case, it was not a simple estimation: this was blatant disinformation, propaganda at its finest. 500,000 protestors can shake the very foundations of a regime, 10,000 however are of lesser consequence.

Furthermore, all the ‘information’ regarding the Syrian situation has been twisted similarly for months now.

So what sources does the AFP cite?

The same which crop up systematically throughout the media and has now become a monopoly in its own right, regarding the Syrian protests: the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).
 
This Article from 2011 shows how that the "violent attack on peaceful protesters" may be blown out if proportion.


Oh no doubt things get exaggerated by Western media sources. For reasons best known to themselves.

But if a regime's best response to peaceful protesters is to shoot at them, I suggest it's a remarkably poor sign.

Notice, too, that the FSA at core is composed of Syrian army deserters.

Any reasonably civilized regime is perfectly capable of incorporating protesters into its political system. Especially peaceful ones. Or is the fact that the protesters were originally peaceful also disputed by Assad?

The best that can be said of Assad is that he's plain incompetent. Mind you, inheriting a system which favours Alawites over other ethnicities is going to be a recipe for disaster, if you ask me. Isn't that the Ba'athists, all over?

Unless you count 100,000 Syrian dead, and counting, to be success.

Or has it all been a CIA conspiracy all along?

Even so, Assad must surely be wondering how it's all going to turn out in the end, mustn't he?
 
Not for or against Assad. It has been a terrible war. I do not think the US funneling arms and equipment to the FSA, Al-Nusra, et al is a solution. Soldiers do terrible things even in peaceful protest situations.

In Charlotte, North Carolina, a stranded motorist was shot dead by police when he approached them in the dark.

In NYC, police shooting at an unarmed man "acting out" hit two passers by in a crowd.

This does not mean a systemic failure on the part of the Obama regime. Well, there IS a systemic.failure, but this ain't it.
 
Any reasonably civilized regime is perfectly capable of incorporating protesters into its political system. Especially peaceful ones.
What if such peaceful protests happen in your country? With protesters demanding no less than deposing your government, and don't want to hear about any "incorporation". What if protesters disrupt normal activities (road traffic, etc), and start violent actions against police who tries to stop them? And then, with financial support from foreign countries and military support from radical islamists, start armed uprising. What would your civilized country do?
 
Back
Top Bottom