Well thats a poor assessment its all opinion and conclusion, not even argument, sorry but declaring someone "booty buddies" isn't going to convince anyone.
:doh
there's a reason all their weaponry is Soviet Bloc. hint: they didn't pay for it.
I think you're thinking of Lebanon,
nope. Them
too, mind you.
I'm not personally aware of any major influence by Iran through Hezzbollah in Syria.
well.... i hope you'll understand if i say that sitting here on my home computer I don't really want to get too deeply into it. but as I recall you are a "sir"; if you have a SIPR account and a free 30 minutes, I would urge you to look into it yourself.
I think Syria also has enough small arms weapons in its current stockpiles,
fascinating. I had no idea you were the SME on Syrian logistics
:shrug: it just seems rather logical that if they are in need of a particular weapon type, that is the most likely one. the only other alternative I can think of is that this is simply a very poorly-timed IADS upgrade after Israel humiliated them a couple of years back.
I can't imagine a regime so authoritarian to not be prepared for a crack down.
I can - firstly, the fighting has gone on longer than they probably originally anticipated. secondly, much of their weaponry and ammunition have been traveling in the last few years to their south-east. thirdly, after daddy crushed Hama, it would be entirely reasonable of this regime to assume that no one would be stupid enough to try that again.
Also the original news story says the exact opposite of what you are saying, how is Turkey moving closer to Syria when it seizes their weapons, calls for an end to dictators, and is no longer officially talking to that government?
that's the point I was making; this was a reversal of recent Turkish policy. It would be like if the US were to seize an Arms shipment meant for the IDF.
I'm curious what do you think Turkey's goal is? Both regarding the political unrest in Syria and the Middle East as a whole?
Erdogan see's himself as reIslamicizing Turkey and overturning significant portions of the Kemalist Revolution at home. Abroad, this means a reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire, though less formally and more in terms of protectorates and influence, similar to that empires' relationship with Egypt under the Mamlukes.
Don't forget that China and Russia are both effected by changes in the oil market, especially China since its not an oil producer like Russia.
Bingo. so, as the
West puts an embargo on Syrian Oil, well, gosh, who do you think could be a buyer, and therefore has a vested interest in that regimes holding on to power? Hint: the same country buying up huge chunks of East Africa.
Also remember the still ongoing Libyan conflict, China has thus far not been a player whatsoever, it has not supported Ghaddaffi or Libya nor has it supported the West.
which didn't stop it from using the conflict to demonstrate it's long-lift NEO capability. that was a bit surprising to a few analysts.
If we are making the argument that China is interested in starting brush fires, why didn't it fuel the one that was burning for months?
my bet would be: 1. the active presence of NATO and 2. the implausibility of the logistics of Ghaddaffi selling to China.
This I could actually go along with, it would be a long shot for NK betting, but NK is known for that kind of thing
what? that sort of thing is
precisely what NKorea is known for.
