
"Straits of Hormuz Battle Shaping Up?" Topic
62 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board Back to the Modern Aviation Painting Guides Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article What if you want to game something too controversial or distasteful to put on the tabletop?
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
Bangorstu | 04 Jan 2012 8:46 a.m. PST |
Plenty of armed resistance in Syria – indeed given it's composed of renegade units of the army it seems a lot more competant than the Libyan resistance. The problems are that first off, us Europeans have just done one of these and can't do two in quick succession. Though the Turks could have a go
. More importantly, Syria has important, powerful friends. Like Russia. |
Mikhail Lerementov | 04 Jan 2012 10:54 a.m. PST |
U.S. is just following Europe's lead. Jump in and I'm sure, under the new policy, provide you some support. But from now on, in the Med area, it's Europe first. And about time, too. |
I Never Touched It | 04 Jan 2012 11:45 a.m. PST |
Very true. If Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel want to be big kids they need to start acting like it. |
Bangorstu | 04 Jan 2012 1:07 p.m. PST |
Mikhail – I certainly don't mind Europe taking a lead occasionally but I think this one is Turkey's to deal with. Of course we're skint and are cutting back our forces so there is a limit on what we can do. And frankly we need to replenish our ammo stocks. Whereas the lack of civilian casualties was a notable feature of the Libyan campaign, we only have so many of those fancy bombs. BAe were working round the clock during the conflict as it was
Whether Israel would be particularly happy about the European nations starting to play around in her particular sandbox is also an interesting question – we're generally far more critical of her than the US. Of course she'd be even more concerned by Turkey
Ultimately politics is the art of the do-able. The UK won't bomb Syria without UN approval, and shes protected by Russia and China. |
Mako11 | 04 Jan 2012 8:18 p.m. PST |
Given that the casualties and conflict in Syria seems to be far worse than in Libya, it's a bit contradictory to not do something to aid their citizens. At the very least, a full embargo of trade and banking with them, and a freeze of their assets seems to be in order. If China and Russia won't play ball, then just proceed without them. Theoretically, Russia was an ally of Libya too, but they didn't do much to aid Qaddafi. I have been encouraged to read of late that some of Assad's military is defecting, and trying to help the rebels. That is encouraging, but without outside aid, I imagine they will have a long, uphill battle. |
Bangorstu | 05 Jan 2012 3:09 a.m. PST |
Realpolitik Mako, alas. Syria is suffering from starting their revolution after Libya. Europe has shot her bolt for the year. China and Russia weren't expecting the massive air campaign and aren't about to let another happen by giving it UN cover. I'm not sure, but I think we've got sanctions against Syria anyhow
Russia wasn't an ally of Gaddafi, she just sold him weapons. Whereas they've got a naval base in Syria. Imagine how the USA would react to Iran intervening in Bahrain (where an American ally has jailed doctors for treating wounded protestors
.) It will be a long uphill battle, but unfortunately some things just have to be – unless Turkey gets involved. But as I said, poking around in Syria is more dangerous than Libya. Syria is the key to a whole bunch of Middle eastern problems
|
Mikhail Lerementov | 05 Jan 2012 10:47 a.m. PST |
The U.S. is likewise cutting billions from the military budget. Much of it will come from reducing the number of ground troops. Also this is a more homogeneous revolt with to many civilians mixed in with the military. Unlike Libya where vast swaths were controlled by the rebels and they had a militia army, the revolutionaries in Syria don't. There was enough outcry, from you in particular Stu, about the U.S. hitting civilians. No reason to take that chance in a place you can't identify who is who. |
Bangorstu | 05 Jan 2012 11:16 a.m. PST |
The revolutionaries in Syria most definitely do have an army – plenty of soldiers have defected with their equipment. As for hitting civilians, I think we've all learned some lessons. In Libya targets were observed for days to work out when the fewest civilians would be near them
one reaosn the campaign took so long. However, as I said, Libya had no friends and Syria does which makes doing something trickier. |
vojvoda | 05 Jan 2012 2:27 p.m. PST |
Syria is a hard nut to crack. The military have much more control the Libya. It is up to the Syrian people to decide. I don't see it happening any time soon. There is just too much at stake. VR James Mattes |
Pages: 1 2
|