Siria, el nuevo Libia, al borde de la 3GM

S

soujiro zeta

Weon Pro
Oct 6, 2005
1,413
20
Frogoids
0.0
Estan preparando a la gente. Loco es el mismo guion d irak la cago
si es un ataque con objetivos militares pa q avisas publicamente hasta los objetivos, a mi me huele a propaganda y juego sicologico . Por un lado amenazas al enemigo y por el otro preparas a tu plebe para q la noyicia no llegue d golpe.
Si atacan a SIria esta respondera y tendran mas excusas para invadirla. Si esto sigue asi no habran ganadores
 
wat0n

wat0n

Froguero Brigido
Ago 18, 2006
7,090
72
Frogoids
7.1
Pero ese es el punto.

Los gringos tampoco pueden llegar y darse vuelta la chaqueta con lo que dicen que van a hacer así como así, más aún cuando la opinión pública está en contra de intervenir:


As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll

By Lesley Wroughton

WASHINGTON | Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:32pm EDT

(Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.

Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.

The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some foreign and U.S. officials - notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 - have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week's poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama's caution.

"The United States has become too much of the world's policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours," Kohls said in an interview. "I don't think we ought to" intervene in Syria.

Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United States should stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.

CROSSING THE 'RED LINE'

Obama has called the suspected chemical attack near Damascus on Wednesday "an event of great concern" and directed U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the allegations of chemical use as he weighs potential responses.

The president met with his national security advisers on Saturday but U.S. officials said he has not decided whether to intervene.

U.S. defense officials, meanwhile, have repositioned naval forces in the Mediterranean to give Obama the option for a missile strike on Assad's regime, which has been backed by Russia and China.

Obama has been reluctant to intervene in the Syria war, where rebel forces opposed to Assad are made up of dozens of militant factions, some not friendly to the United States.

The president warned Syria's government last year that any attempt to deploy or use chemical or biological weapons would cross a "red line."

The White House said that Assad's military appeared to cross such a threshold in June, and responded to reports of Syrian troops using chemical weapons by agreeing to offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels.

It does not appear that any U.S. weapons have been delivered to rebels so far. As the war has escalated, Obama's administration has come under increasing pressure from various governments, including those in France and Israel, to respond more forcefully to what many have called an unfolding humanitarian and political crisis.

LIKE OBAMA, AMERICANS CAUTIOUS

However, Obama does not appear to be feeling much pressure over Syria from the American people.

In this week's Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.

About 11 percent said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels.

Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.

Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a "no-fly" zone over Syria that would ground Assad's air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).

Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.

"I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons," Powell said.

Asked what changed her mind, she said: "What's going on over there is terrible." However, Powell praised Obama's wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.

Some Americans believe the use of chemical weapons has changed the game in Syria, and that the United States should get involved as long as other countries did, too.

Jonathan Adams, 56, of California, said that he was "happy that we didn't get involved from the start and I'm glad Obama was cautious. But I think we have gotten past the point of where we should've been involved in some way."

He said reports of chemical weapons use "went way past the line."

**To see the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria if chemical weapons are used there, go to polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM43/type/day/dates/20130531-current

(Editing by David Lindsey and David Storey)
Haga clic para ampliar...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825
 
S

soujiro zeta

Weon Pro
Oct 6, 2005
1,413
20
Frogoids
0.0
Loco ya lo han hecho. Han dicho una wea y salido con otra cuantas veces,tan dificil d entender. Ve la posibilidad al menos, darle mas vueltas al asunto no vale la pena. Yo exprese mi punto tu el tuyo, veamos q pasa
 
Shingo

Shingo

Usuario de Frog
Jul 11, 2007
20,358
941
Frogoids
0.3
sera verdad esta wea? ww3??

Alerta Roja

Si EEUU atacara a Siria, Rusia lo haría con Arabia Saudí
28/08 - 2013/facebook - Alerta Roja

Arabia Saudí se convertiría en el blanco de los misiles rusos en caso de que Occidente, encabezado por EE.UU., materialice una opción militar contra Siria, so pretexto de que el Ejército sirio ha usado armas químicas.

Así informó el martes EU Times, citando un “memorándum de acción urgente” de la oficina del presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, que autoriza el bombardeo de varios objetivos dentro del territorio saudí.

Esta decisión de Moscú se emite, luego de que altos funcionarios estadounidenses anunciaran el martes que Washington podría dar inicio a un ataque misilístico contra Siria “tan pronto como el jueves”.

En este sentido, el diario libanés de As-Safir ha justificado esta postura de Moscú ante Riad por la visita que realizó el jefe de los servicios de inteligencia saudí, Bandar bin Sultan, a Rusia para convencer al presidente ruso que retire su apoyo al Gobierno de Damasco.

Conforme a As-Safir, el príncipe saudí había advertido que si Rusia no aceptaba la derrota de Siria, Arabia Saudí desataría terroristas chechenos bajo su control para que provocaran el caos durante los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno que se celebrarán entre los días 7 y 23 de febrero del año 2014 en Sochi, Rusia.

También existían rumores de que el titular saudí había ofrecido un contrato armamentístico a cambio de que Rusia diera la espalda a Siria, lo que fue desmentido posteriormente por el mandatario ruso.

La escalada de tensiones entre Rusia y Occidente se debe a una posible intervención militar de EE.UU. y sus aliados en Siria, con el objetivo de lanzar un mensaje al presidente, Bashar al-Asad, acusado por los occidentales de autorizar un presunto ataque químico la semana pasada, algo rechazado enérgicamente por el Gobierno de Damasco.

Ante esta situación, Siria ha permitido a los inspectores de Naciones Unidas que accedan al sitio donde supuestamente se produjo el ataque con armas químicas.

El 23 de agosto, el secretario de Defensa de EE. UU., Chuck Hagel, aseguró que el Pentágono ya había comenzado a movilizar sus fuerzas navales con el fin de posicionarse para un posible ataque contra Siria, en caso de que el presidente norteamericano, Barack Obama, tomara tal decisión.

Por su parte, el Parlamento británico tiene previsto reunirse el jueves de esta semana para debatir y votar sobre una intervención militar en el país árabe.

Anteriormente, el ministro británico de Asuntos Exteriores, William Hague, retando al derecho internacional, afirmó el lunes que una intervención extranjera en Siria es posible, sin el respaldo unánime de todos los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas (CSNU).

Esta postura bélica de Londres se produce a pesar de que ni siquiera existen pruebas que evidencien el uso de armas químicas por parte del Ejército sirio.

El sábado, una unidad del Ejército sirio irrumpió en un almacén situado en el barrio de Jobar, en Damasco, donde encontró barriles de gas tóxico con etiquetas en la que se especificaba que eran de fabricación saudí.

No es la primera vez que los grupos terroristas en Siria utilizan armas químicas en el país árabe, para después pretender presentar al Gobierno de Damasco como autor de tales ataques químicos, adecuando así el camino para que Occidente, encabezado por Washington, lance una posible intervención en el país árabe.
Hispantv.com
Haga clic para ampliar...
 
C

csnight

Froguero Brigido
Sep 2, 2005
13,776
1,321
Frogoids
0.0
¿Hace cuanto tiempo que no sabemos noticias sobre eventos militares de Rusia? Rusia no esta ni ahi el unico que le gusta armar guerras y jugar con el miedo internacional es estados unidos. Ni China se va a pronunciar militarmente.
 
Kazanov

Kazanov

Usuario de Frog
Jul 3, 2005
28,854
916
Frogoids
171.1
csnight dijo:
¿Hace cuanto tiempo que no sabemos noticias sobre eventos militares de Rusia? Rusia no esta ni ahi el unico que le gusta armar guerras y jugar con el miedo internacional es estados unidos. Ni China se va a pronunciar militarmente.
Haga clic para ampliar...
Rusia si ha armado guerras, pero con sus paises vecinos, de hecho es un bully profesional :noppy

Solo no se mete en el territorio de los gringos, son como nenas en ese aspecto.
 
C

csnight

Froguero Brigido
Sep 2, 2005
13,776
1,321
Frogoids
0.0
Kazanov dijo:
Rusia si ha armado guerras, pero con sus paises vecinos, de hecho es un bully profesional :noppy

Solo no se mete en el territorio de los gringos, son como nenas en ese aspecto.
Haga clic para ampliar...

osea si con sus pares y paises que pertenecieron a la union de republicas sovieticas.. pero aparte de eso no lo he visto en el mismo papel destructivo que USA
 
Gaara

Gaara

Usuario de Frog
Sep 7, 2005
12,059
324
Frogoids
0.0
(Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the eastern Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, as Western powers prepare for military action over last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Interfax news agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine ship would arrive in the coming days because of the "well-known situation" - a clear reference to the conflict in Syria.
Haga clic para ampliar...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSBRE97S0AK20130829
http://news.sky.com/story/1134531/syria-russia-ships-bound-for-mediterranean

:paranoico
 
Ihsahn

Ihsahn

Me vuelvo gata loca.
Oct 19, 2006
16,412
135
Frogoids
22.3
¿Los gringos no están moviendo sus clase Nimitz?
Que extraño que no lo hayan hecho (o no lo quieran mostrar), en el estrecho de Ormuz anduvieron dando vueltas hace algún tiempo.
 
Shingo

Shingo

Usuario de Frog
Jul 11, 2007
20,358
941
Frogoids
0.3
yo digo q libia, porq ya no se molestan en entrar al pais con tropas, sencillamente arman a los enemigos del estado y bombardean para facilitarle las cosas
 
Debe iniciar sesión o registrarse para responder aquí.
Superior Pie