alexkvaskov
New Member
I'm surprised there's been no info from Israeli and US intelligence on this.
What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?
- Thread starter Comrade69
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
But what are they supposed to do? We dont even know who is right or wrong or good or bad(Rebels or government). I guess international forces can occupy Syria to force a cease fire but I think it would just get turned into any other middle east situation where there would be daily attacks on the soldiers(assuming the Rebels are the ones causing this mess)
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
And can someone tell me, is this an air strike?
The World Is A Scary Place: Crazy Footage Of Syrian Resistance Fighters Getting Vaporized! (*Warning* NSFW) - World Star Uncut
The World Is A Scary Place: Crazy Footage Of Syrian Resistance Fighters Getting Vaporized! (*Warning* NSFW) - World Star Uncut
He's writing emotionally in a situation that calls for reason. The rebels are the type of people that cut Christian priests heads off with bread knives, then posting videos of it on the internet. So to be honest I strongly suspect the victory of the rebels will be followed by a slaughter on a scale that will dwarf the civil war.
I agree. We (the West) are very keen to label the regime as the baddies and then by default labelling the rebels the 'good guys'.
There is no simple differentiation to make, on one side we have Assad & chemical weapons and the other we have - like Feanor said - extremely brutal sectarian Islamic extremists who would seek to create a strict Islamic totalitarian state.
Some - like William Hague - like us to imagine rainbows, sunshine and fluffy bunnies when we talk about the rebels, this is not the case.
There is no simple differentiation to make, on one side we have Assad & chemical weapons and the other we have - like Feanor said - extremely brutal sectarian Islamic extremists who would seek to create a strict Islamic totalitarian state.
Some - like William Hague - like us to imagine rainbows, sunshine and fluffy bunnies when we talk about the rebels, this is not the case.
the road runner
Active Member
Australia's new PM who has just been voted in Tony Abbott stated ....
"its the baddies Vs the baddies"
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Some of them, & AFAIK not those who started the whole thing, But unfortunately, that type of rebel now seems to be in the ascendancy.
Assad has managed to create the sectarian war he claimed he was fighting against. There's a secular democratic movement, but instead of trying to co-opt it by making concessions, Assad stamped on it. Unlike the Islamist extremists, it was pretty open, & entirely indigenous, which made it relatively vulnerable. This left the Islamist extremists untouched, & with many more recruits. A tragedy - unless you don't care about the death or suffering of anyone except yourself & your cronies.
We now have an appalling situation. On the one hand, a brutal & murderous dictator, leading an increasingly sectarian government. On the other hand, vicious Islamist extremists who want to impose a Taliban style horror state. The people of goodwill have been squeezed to the margins. Millions have been forced to flee the country, millions more have been displaced inside Syria, & about 100,000 killed. And for what?
Everyone who supported Assad at the start must share blame with everyone who has armed or otherwise supported the Salafist extremists who now seem to be his main military opponents.
The Assad regime is inherently unstable, because of its narrow religio-ethnic base. You can't permanently run a country by reserving the top spots for a group which is only about 11% of the population. Even if he wins this war, Assad's regime can't last forever, & by deepening the sectarian divide, he's strengthened the enemies of his own people. He & his clan & cronies put their personal rule above the interests of their own people, & the other minorities - and the many secular Sunnis. It amazes me that there are people who don't see that, & think that because some of Assad's enemies are evil, we should support him. What would that achieve in the long run?
No, we have to find another way. But it won't be easy, & Assad seems intent on making it even harder.
This is spot on and follows the pattern established in similar conflicts over the last 30-40 years. From Afghanistan and Chechnya, to Libya and Syria. That having been said, I don't think any pro-democracy movement ever had a chance in these circumstances, whether Assad has external support or not. The simplest and most obvious choice is to leave the whole thing alone. Peaceful pro-democracy activists will never bring down a militarized, violent, and organized regime. And the types of movements that will won't bring democracy. Best to let the Syrians decide their own fate, and then deal with whoever is left.
King Wally
Active Member
He took flack for it as well but I honestly think someone needed to dumb it down and paint a picture for Joe public that was realistic. And if your going to over simplify the situation to the extreme I think he covered it in one line.
Now personally I still think the west needs to make a statement about chemical weapons, I don't think that statement is trying to force a Rebel Victory BUT I do think a slap up the back of the head for the regime would be appropriate. Not to cripple them but to prove a point that they need to play within certain rules. Level a couple key stockpiles, or labs or even a lavish palace with a handful of cruise missiles then walk back away and let them sort out their own civil war outcome.
Well the election campaign was referred to as "slogs for bogans" on the assumption most intelligent swinging voters had already made up their minds based upon their own research leaving only the DF bogan element to be bribed, conned or frightened.
That aside Syria is extremely complex, with no easy solution in sight. Maybe the west should keep out of choosing sides and rather aim to evacuate and protect as many people as possible. Maybe a UN mandate for a demilitarized zone on Syria's boarders policed and protected by the UN and overwhelming response for any incursions into the zone by any of the combatants. Armed UN escorts could also be negotiated to get refugees out of combat zones.
protoplasm
Active Member
It'd be interesting to try to work with a DMZ on the Lebanon border, just because of the huge number of people involved. There's already 700k+ Syrians in Lebanon within a few clicks of the border, add in a UN force large enough to carry out an overwhelming response and it could get crowded really fast.
Syrian refugees top 2 million as thousands flee daily | Al Jazeera America
The "UN" force could be a US carrier battle group off the coast. On the ground you could maintain a fairly small force for security reasons. At the end of the day I don't see either group making an overt move against the refugees. With a US naval presence as a guarantee of imminent response, even less so.
King Wally
Active Member
I really wish we could focus the debate back onto a solid plan like this. Rather then the back and forth of "intervene or not to intervene" get serious about the refugee problem and focus on that. A DMZ and refugee safe zone under an international watch would be a great goal to aim for if you could pull it off. In a perfect world you would run it under the UN banner. So much dam politics though.
You don't want to hit the stockpiles for fear of creating a poison gas release. And they now have civilians quartered in barracks, palaces, etc. to generate news reports about Coalition atrocities according to defectors.
Take out the air defense network and leave the rest alone, for now. The rebels don't have aircraft, so it won't aid them, but it leaves Assad wide open if the Coalition decides that further strikes are necessary. That is a message Assad will probably understand.
Yes, various countries have a history of supporting rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters and later finding out that these chaps were not as nice or 'liberal' as previously thought.
The first thing that comes to mind is:
1. What will Obama have done if proof had appeared that chemicals had been use, but not by Assads loyal chaps but by the 'rebels'? Will there be any talk about the 'red line' and justice for the victims of the 'rebel' attack?
2. Assuming strikes are launched to 'punish' Assad, in the long run what will they achieve? Assad is not likely to start rolling in bed at night due to fears of more Tomahawks coming his way and the U.S has made it clear that there will be no 'boots' on the ground. Are strikes really intended to 'punish' Assad and weaken him; or are strikes the only option available to punish' and weaken Assad?
3. Why did Obama call for strikes even whilst the UN fact finding team was still in Syria and had yet to submit its findings?
alexkvaskov
New Member
The UN inspection committee is expected to release the results of their investigation in the next 2-3 days, but they seem to be a bit behind the times (or is everyone just too eager to jump to their favoured conclusions?) as they'll only be establishing the fact of the attacks, without assigning responsibility.
Obama was pushing for strikes to save face, although that makes seeing that most Americans are against intervention. There have even been rumblings about impeaching Obama. It seems like some strong party hostile to Obama is using the situation around Syria to discredit him.
EDIT: Russia's FM has proposed that Syria place their CW under UN control, as per Kerry's recent suggestion. Also, the Syrian FM is currently in Moscow. Thoughts?
http://ria.ru/arab_riot/20130909/961993979.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-syria-push-chemical-experts-return-20197291
Obama was pushing for strikes to save face, although that makes seeing that most Americans are against intervention. There have even been rumblings about impeaching Obama. It seems like some strong party hostile to Obama is using the situation around Syria to discredit him.
EDIT: Russia's FM has proposed that Syria place their CW under UN control, as per Kerry's recent suggestion. Also, the Syrian FM is currently in Moscow. Thoughts?
http://ria.ru/arab_riot/20130909/961993979.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-syria-push-chemical-experts-return-20197291
alexkvaskov
New Member
Regarding the BDKs that were brought up earlier, a video from the Novorossiysk port, with the Alexander Shalabin LST being loaded up. Any idea what those boxes on the pier could be?
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esePle-mN1k"]БДК ÐлекÑандр Шабалин под погрузкой - YouTube[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esePle-mN1k"]БДК ÐлекÑандр Шабалин под погрузкой - YouTube[/nomedia]
Just establishing what kind of gas, the purity, and the method of delivery at each location where gas is claimed to be used would help a lot. For example Al Qaeda is not known to have sarin, VX, or mustard gases, but Assad does. However al Qaeda is known to have used chlorine and insecticides as crude chemical weapons. Details of the delivery systems would also be revealing.
2007yellow430
Active Member
This is too complex for me to come to grips with. On the one hand there are dead folks, apparently from gas. something should be done. However, who did it is a huge question. Did Syria do it, or did the rebels? How in the world do you prove who did it. If the US has footage from drones or Satellites, it's time to show it. if not, there is no way we can prove who did it, and that is a very important piece of the puzzle.
In short, I think we should do nothing until we can prove who did it to everyone else's satisfaction.
In short, I think we should do nothing until we can prove who did it to everyone else's satisfaction.
Al Qaeda in Iraq had a sarin factory that the Iraqi authorities busted open recently.
Blame Assad and push for strikes anyway. Also I'm not sure this is a hypothetical. I'm not sure facts or evidence matter at all in this situation.
There's a good question. In general the West has made use of Arab spring to topple authoritarian regimes across the Middle East. The problem is that it's brought to power an equally, if not more, anti-western element.
Because he doesn't want the UN to announce first that the chemical weapons used were of a type that's inconsistent with the regime, before he announced that Assad is to blame.