Syria - I told you so

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I have a short vacation today and tomorrow, and since all of my friends are in the base, I wanted to share something with you fellow R&P dwellers. A few hours after I got home today I opened my computer and saw something strange on the bbc English website-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22519770

Syria - I told you so. I so did tell you so. Since the get-go, I told you so. The destabilization of the country would only lead to the erosion of central power and the formation of outlaws with guns and a thirst for revenge. The number of deaths would have already climbed past one hundred thousand, and the number of refugees is around the 3-4 million. Assad should have kept his shiny little throne, and instead we have ourselves a Somalia.

Anyway, to make this a tad more interesting and less dark - Could you speculate what the future holds? What would be your ideal end to this bloody period in the country?

I see further fragmentation in Syria, entrance of advanced weapons into Hezbollah hands and a regional conflict. More tensions from Iran as it sends troops and supplies through Iraq, as the remaining loyalist armies struggle to remain in their strongholds. Could Russian support extend further than mere diplomacy? I don't think so.

I would hope for an ideal end to the conflict where the Opposition consolidates, Assad Abdicates, Iran&&Hezbollah back off from the Syrian corpse and the new administration is anointed to lead the new Syrian country. At the same time I also expect to see the tremendous growth in the unicorn population.

Cutting out and eating peoples hearts? That is pretty sick really, what could ever justify that? I get that people are angry and want revenge and to kill the other side but how does reverting to primitive barbarism achieve anything.

J Tyran:
Cutting out and eating peoples hearts? That is pretty sick really, what could ever justify that? I get that people are angry and want revenge and to kill the other side but how does reverting to primitive barbarism achieve anything.

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:
Cutting out and eating peoples hearts? That is pretty sick really, what could ever justify that? I get that people are angry and want revenge and to kill the other side but how does reverting to primitive barbarism achieve anything.

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

J Tyran:

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:
Cutting out and eating peoples hearts? That is pretty sick really, what could ever justify that? I get that people are angry and want revenge and to kill the other side but how does reverting to primitive barbarism achieve anything.

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

Not comparable. The corpse from whom the Rebel took the organ isn't complaining, because he's dead.

But to humor you, I would have no problem with that, either. You do what you have to do to win a war, using any means necessary. Because if a cause is worth dying for, there shouldn't be any lengths you aren't willing to go to defend it.

Edit: Small sidenote; nobody should take this as me endorsing either Assad or the Rebels. Because I don't support either.

J Tyran:

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:
Cutting out and eating peoples hearts? That is pretty sick really, what could ever justify that? I get that people are angry and want revenge and to kill the other side but how does reverting to primitive barbarism achieve anything.

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

I believe there's a reason they say "War is hell"

I see Kurdistan as a real possibility. The Kurdish areas which is mostly in the NE of Syria is bordering to the Kurdish area of Irak. The Irakish-Kurds is already semi-independent (and they have oil) it is not unlikely that the two Kurdish areas will fuse sometime in the future.

As for the rest for Syria, my guess is that after a VERY long and bloody civil war Assad will lose. There will be no western intervention of any meaningful sort. On the other hand I think that Iran will do a lot to keep their puppet in place.

I don't know. Some schools of thought say that quick support could have stopped the radicalization of the rebels. Take for example Libya.

It's pointless however to discuss what should have been done now. I don't trust the rebels as they are now, but Assad has to step down.

Frission:
I don't know. Some schools of thought say that quick support could have stopped the radicalization of the rebels. Take for example Libya.

It's pointless however to discuss what should have been done now. I don't trust the rebels as they are now, but Assad has to step down.

.
You're lucky what's going on in some parts of Libya never reach the mainstream media then. It wasn't support of the rebels, it was a manhunt after Qaddafi. Don't fuck with the almighty dollar was the message.

TheIronRuler:

Frission:
I don't know. Some schools of thought say that quick support could have stopped the radicalization of the rebels. Take for example Libya.

It's pointless however to discuss what should have been done now. I don't trust the rebels as they are now, but Assad has to step down.

.
You're lucky what's going on in some parts of Libya never reach the mainstream media then. It wasn't support of the rebels, it was a manhunt after Qaddafi. Don't fuck with the almighty dollar was the message.

Libya is still in chaos, but at least it didn't degrade to the level of Syria. The hunt for Qaddafi was barbaric and it's still an incredibly dangerous area, but it was better to have quickly concluded the civil war instead of letting it fester.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/

No one expected it to suddenly turn into a bastion of democracy, especially considering how volatile the region is. Only time will tell if overthrowing the dictators was better.

The bigger problem actually for Libya now is that many of Qaddafi's mercenaries are out of work, and they're patrolling Africa. That's a big problem for the french troops stationed there.

TheIronRuler:
Syria - I told you so. I so did tell you so. Since the get-go, I told you so. The destabilization of the country would only lead to the erosion of central power and the formation of outlaws with guns and a thirst for revenge. The number of deaths would have already climbed past one hundred thousand, and the number of refugees is around the 3-4 million. Assad should have kept his shiny little throne, and instead we have ourselves a Somalia.

I don't share your hyperbolic sentiments. However, you do have good points regarding the dangers over yonder: each day the civil war continues bears a higher risk of turning the uprising into a more and more tribal and sectarian conflict that is bound to make reconciliation and dealing with the with the aftermath harder and harder plus bears growing risks for the neighbors. The sooner the conflict ends the better - and I don't see this happening without a Western intervention in the style of Libya. A UN backed NATO operation enforcing at first a no-fly zone and if necessary allows for tactical air strikes to cripple the regimes ability to move troops should do the trick. Will probably be much less effective in Syria than it was in Libya but should still tip the scales to the rebels favour. Plus it has the advantage of providing contrasting evidence to anti-western demagogy and I don't see the regime being able to win that conflict soon either, so there is really no alternative.

Frission:
The bigger problem actually for Libya now is that many of Qaddafi's mercenaries are out of work, and they're patrolling Africa. That's a big problem for the french troops stationed there.

Indeed. That and weapons from the civil war crossing the border was often cited as the reason underlying the rapid success of the uprising in Mali's northern regions that made the French intervention necessary in the first place. You could say that this was a first negative effect coming out of the Libyan revolution.

J Tyran:

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:
Cutting out and eating peoples hearts? That is pretty sick really, what could ever justify that? I get that people are angry and want revenge and to kill the other side but how does reverting to primitive barbarism achieve anything.

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

"I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog," the man says referring to President Bashar al-Assad as he stands over the soldier's corpse.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

Don't forget about impalement! All it took is one insane Romanian man to send the Ottoman Empire running in pure terror after all.

Anyways, on a more serious note: I personally think that unless the war ends in such a way that there's a smooth transition of leadership (which is unlikely) I'm starting to believe that the country will be torn apart by factionalism and warlords even (or especially) after Assad is gone.

Then again, Assad is a bastard who destroyed years of history and tortured his own people. I don't wish death on anyone, but I wont cry when he's gone.

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:

Kopikatsu:

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

Not comparable. The corpse from whom the Rebel took the organ isn't complaining, because he's dead.

But to humor you, I would have no problem with that, either. You do what you have to do to win a war, using any means necessary. Because if a cause is worth dying for, there shouldn't be any lengths you aren't willing to go to defend it.

Edit: Small sidenote; nobody should take this as me endorsing either Assad or the Rebels. Because I don't support either.

Could you please stop calling them rebels? when they are in Iraq they are insurgents, when they cross the border to Syria they are rebels?

Verbatim:

Could you please stop calling them rebels? when they are in Iraq they are insurgents, when they cross the border to Syria they are rebels?

Is there a difference between 'insurgent' and 'rebel'? My understanding is that they're interchangeable.

Kopikatsu:

Verbatim:

Could you please stop calling them rebels? when they are in Iraq they are insurgents, when they cross the border to Syria they are rebels?

Is there a difference between 'insurgent' and 'rebel'? My understanding is that they're interchangeable.

Well one gets interviewed by CNN the other get's a drone strike :)

Verbatim:

Kopikatsu:

Verbatim:

Could you please stop calling them rebels? when they are in Iraq they are insurgents, when they cross the border to Syria they are rebels?

Is there a difference between 'insurgent' and 'rebel'? My understanding is that they're interchangeable.

Well one gets interviewed by CNN the other get's a drone strike :)

So...interchangeable; as it is with 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter'. I can start calling them insurgents if it'd make you feel better, rebel is just shorter.

Kopikatsu:

Verbatim:

Kopikatsu:

Is there a difference between 'insurgent' and 'rebel'? My understanding is that they're interchangeable.

Well one gets interviewed by CNN the other get's a drone strike :)

So...interchangeable; as it is with 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter'. I can start calling them insurgents if it'd make you feel better, rebel is just shorter.

.
When you use the word "rebel" I infer that these outlaws are rebelling against Assad's regime while many of the fighters are not even Syrian, and their goals are quite different than the Syrian rebels themselves.
.

Verbatim:

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

Not comparable. The corpse from whom the Rebel took the organ isn't complaining, because he's dead.

But to humor you, I would have no problem with that, either. You do what you have to do to win a war, using any means necessary. Because if a cause is worth dying for, there shouldn't be any lengths you aren't willing to go to defend it.

Edit: Small sidenote; nobody should take this as me endorsing either Assad or the Rebels. Because I don't support either.

Could you please stop calling them rebels? when they are in Iraq they are insurgents, when they cross the border to Syria they are rebels?

.
Insurgents aren't necessarily armed.

TheIronRuler:

.
Insurgents aren't necessarily armed.

Eh?

An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority

- Wiki

An organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of armed conflict.

- Princeton

Alternatively, one could still interpret what's happened in Syria as evidence to support that the West should have intervened earlier on. If the West had the political will and financial capability it could have destroyed Assad's air defenses and then armoured/artillery units leading to a speedy "FSA" victory before things turned as ugly as they have now.

It's a shame hydrocarbon demand has ordained this miserable part of the world as "relevant".

I can't wait until these backwater nations return to their primordial obscurity.

on a serious note; it's too early to discern the fate of the revolution.

Nickolai77:
Alternatively, one could still interpret what's happened in Syria as evidence to support that the West should have intervened earlier on. If the West had the political will and financial capability it could have destroyed Assad's air defenses and then armoured/artillery units leading to a speedy "FSA" victory before things turned as ugly as they have now.

And turn Syria into another Afghanistan? Not to mention that so far a war with Syria will turn into a conflict with Russia since about 3rd of it's Navy is currently set just of it's shores...
They currently have 13 ships, and 3 sub's in the region, the port of Tartus is their only military naval port in the med they won't give it up.

There is no quick and simple solution for Syria, a full on NATO assault would not look pretty both in NATO casualties and in civilian casualties on the ground.
Syria is quite big and has formidable air defense systems a sneaky air raid that most likely launched stand off munitions is one thing, employing a no flight zone will be a very different story.
NATO lost about 10 aircraft during the Bosnian wars to a country that pretty much had stingers left in Afghanistan, 1950's soviet anti air systems and sling shots. Syria has fairly modern air defense systems and a sizable air force for the region.
Also Israel will never allow a NATO operation so close to it's borders with out being granted operation freedom to intervene against any targets it sees as threats, since any NATO intervention will result in a retaliation against Israel, and judging from their previous endeavors they are not very capable of stopping such actions.

I don't care whether things would be more stable under a dictator the people have a right to choose their own destiny it sucks. Shit goes sideways during revolutions but between authoritarianism and anarchy, anarchy is the better choice.

dmase:
I don't care whether things would be more stable under a dictator the people have a right to choose their own destiny it sucks. Shit goes sideways during revolutions but between authoritarianism and anarchy, anarchy is the better choice.

So you would say a bloody civil war ala Iraq which will claim another 250-500K lives not to mention the more probable scenario in which will turn into just another jihadi autocracy is better than stopping the violence even if it means keeping a dictator in power?

Some moral standards you have there, for the most part there is no "revolution", the FSA does not really exist, there isn't some magical secular freedom loving party fighting for democracy and justice. Even the lesser devils are still devils although supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and not by fully pledged AQ/Islamic Jihad factions.
This is not the student revolt in Iran, this is not even the Egyptian protestors this is a military coup with countless belligerents who are supported by multiple factions none of which has any intention to institute any thing that even remotely resembles a liberal democracy.

I really doubt you would prefer anarchy, i don't even think that you even know how it feels like knowing that you can be gunned down in the street for no reason at all, or your entire family hanged in the public square because you are of the wrong ethnic faction. Heck i doubt you even know what it feels to get of the buss when you see some one suspicious get on at the bus stop fearing that if you don't you might end up as a portrait on the news.

Every time i see pretty much spoiled western kids talking how it's better to have anarchy i want to smash my head into a wall.
You never lived in a dangerous environment, you never lived in a place that had absolutely no rule of law, never lived in a place where anything from a pizza place to a mosque or a church can explode at any moment so please keep such stupid statements to yourself.

Was Syria a good place to live in 2 years ago? compared to rural Virginia heck no!, compared to many other places in the world including the region heck yes...

Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, not to mention pretty much half of Africa places where sectarian violence and no rule of law claim the lives of countless people every day. Those people would give pretty much everything to live even in a country like Iran or China, heck to some extent even North Korea is far from the worse place on earth.

Verbatim:
Every time i see pretty much spoiled western kids talking how it's better to have anarchy i want to smash my head into a wall.

Swap "my" for "their" and you don't need the rest of the argument.

Verbatim:

dmase:
I don't care whether things would be more stable under a dictator the people have a right to choose their own destiny it sucks. Shit goes sideways during revolutions but between authoritarianism and anarchy, anarchy is the better choice.

So you would say a bloody civil war ala Iraq which will claim another 250-500K lives not to mention the more probable scenario in which will turn into just another jihadi autocracy is better than stopping the violence even if it means keeping a dictator in power?

Some moral standards you have there, for the most part there is no "revolution", the FSA does not really exist, there isn't some magical secular freedom loving party fighting for democracy and justice. Even the lesser devils are still devils although supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and not by fully pledged AQ/Islamic Jihad factions.
This is not the student revolt in Iran, this is not even the Egyptian protestors this is a military coup with countless belligerents who are supported by multiple factions none of which has any intention to institute any thing that even remotely resembles a liberal democracy.

I really doubt you would prefer anarchy, i don't even think that you even know how it feels like knowing that you can be gunned down in the street for no reason at all, or your entire family hanged in the public square because you are of the wrong ethnic faction. Heck i doubt you even know what it feels to get of the buss when you see some one suspicious get on at the bus stop fearing that if you don't you might end up as a portrait on the news.

Every time i see pretty much spoiled western kids talking how it's better to have anarchy i want to smash my head into a wall.
You never lived in a dangerous environment, you never lived in a place that had absolutely no rule of law, never lived in a place where anything from a pizza place to a mosque or a church can explode at any moment so please keep such stupid statements to yourself.

Was Syria a good place to live in 2 years ago? compared to rural Virginia heck no!, compared to many other places in the world including the region heck yes...

Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, not to mention pretty much half of Africa places where sectarian violence and no rule of law claim the lives of countless people every day. Those people would give pretty much everything to live even in a country like Iran or China, heck to some extent even North Korea is far from the worse place on earth.

If compared to Western and stable nations you are right on every account.

However, these nations are unstable and in order for the problem to be fixed there needs to be a serious overhaul of the current political climate. Not an apathetic dredge between dictator after dictator. Maybe they'll get lucky and adopt a dictator who A. Actually knows how to run a country and B. Is benevolent. But the chances of such an event occurring are so improbable one could call it impossible as the nature of dictators and the traits required to become a dictator in such a setting are mutually exclusive to quality B. and frequently do not even include quality A.

Revolutions are pretty much the million monkeys and million typewriters trying to draft the works of Shakespeare. Eventually they'll get it right. Maybe if war was more profitable and the world was capable of supporting the idea of a foreign nation moving in to clean things up - the situation could be resolved in a more "humane" manner. Then, of course, the locals would have to be accepting of this regime or the occupation would have to be willing to turn the nation into a satellite state - which would mean generations of occupations.

So when people say "anarchy is better than a dictator" what they mean is "revolution is required to resolve the issue".

And this is precisely the reason why I laughed any time someone would say "Arab Spring!" Lybia, Egpyt and Syria are now not any safer than they were before. Sure, some bastard might have been removed from power but how has anything really changed in day to day life? I'm sick to death of revolutions. They're nonsense, romanticised ideas and they need real hard work behind them. In the Middle East, all they have is anger, fanfare and violence behind them.

Don't be fooled.

Abomination:
If compared to Western and stable nations you are right on every account.

However, these nations are unstable and in order for the problem to be fixed there needs to be a serious overhaul of the current political climate. Not an apathetic dredge between dictator after dictator. Maybe they'll get lucky and adopt a dictator who A. Actually knows how to run a country and B. Is benevolent. But the chances of such an event occurring are so improbable one could call it impossible as the nature of dictators and the traits required to become a dictator in such a setting are mutually exclusive to quality B. and frequently do not even include quality A.

Revolutions are pretty much the million monkeys and million typewriters trying to draft the works of Shakespeare. Eventually they'll get it right. Maybe if war was more profitable and the world was capable of supporting the idea of a foreign nation moving in to clean things up - the situation could be resolved in a more "humane" manner. Then, of course, the locals would have to be accepting of this regime or the occupation would have to be willing to turn the nation into a satellite state - which would mean generations of occupations.

So when people say "anarchy is better than a dictator" what they mean is "revolution is required to resolve the issue".

I could name many places on earth that were much worse than Syria was 2 years ago, Iraq 10 years ago and Iran today.
Although i fully support intervention in order to stop maniacal regimes i can't say that "Anarchy" or a "revolution" as you say at all costs is flat out better than a stable dictatorship.
I can make a pretty good argument that the US today is nothing more than an aristocratic constitutional republic judging by just how many senators usually serve their entire life in the senate and other public offices only to be replaced by their heirs.
So is it better to let militias ramp the country for a couple of decades until the US becomes a "true" liberal democracy?

I see literally no point of blowing Assad of the face of the earth and in terms bombing Syria back to the stone age since without erasing pretty much every peace of infrastructure and government they currently have you won't get rid of him or his party in any other means.
Just so they can have a revolution, supporting random factions(many of whom we fight in almost any other place on the planet) in order to get rid of a dictator will help no one.
And why Syria? there are plenty of dictators that will be a much easier target, pretty much all of the gulf states rely on the US for defense most of them don't have an army to speak off, and with the amount of US forces stationed in the region and the access they have to all levels of government it would be a much easier task...
So lets execute the entire Saudi royal family, whack the emir of Qatar and Kuwait, air drop some good ol' fashion 1911's and AR-15's to the local populous make some popcorn and TiVo the show(cuz we know we don't want to miss Dancing With The Stars).
I also find it funny that for the better part pretty much everyone who cried foul when the US and other NATO forces went into Afghanistan and Iraq, called the US troops murderers and child killers now want's to drop bombs on Syria.
Any military intervention in Syria will cause countless civilian casualties, there is no other option and NATO does not drop leaflets or make phone calls before launching an alpha strike..
You really think that when the SCUD-B launchers will be placed in the middle of Damascus or when Syrian forces decide to deploy an AAA battery next to a school it won't cause casualties?
So at in the best case scenario NATO will kill 5-20K more people, without any permanent presence the 50 or so factions that are fighting both Assad and each other will continue their killing sprees. And even if Iran and the 10K Hezbollah fighters currently fighting with Assad don't decide to make a power play which mean there's a chance Israel will not decide to turn the outskirts of Damascus into a parking lot for it's tanks like it did in 67 and 73.
What would it achieve?
There is no revolution in Syria no matter how you paint that picture it's a proxy war of various factions with both big regional players, regional super powers and global super powers involved.
And for the most part besides the money and ammunition not a single faction actually cares for any other support, especially not "nation building".
If the west has finally come to it's senses and is willing to take the responsibility for actually turning this poor excuse of a planet into a better place, and is willing to pay the price of in blood(much of it will be it's own) to stay there for decades and actually try to see if we can redo the same thing that happened W Germany, S Korea, Singapore, The Philippines or Japan I'm all for it. If not then what good would it really do to the people who actually have to live in Syria and the region.

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:

Kopikatsu:

It's a symbolic statement meant to strike fear into the Rebel's enemies.

I don't see a problem with it fundamentally. Psychological warfare is part of the game.

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

Not comparable. The corpse from whom the Rebel took the organ isn't complaining, because he's dead.

But to humor you, I would have no problem with that, either. You do what you have to do to win a war, using any means necessary. Because if a cause is worth dying for, there shouldn't be any lengths you aren't willing to go to defend it.

Edit: Small sidenote; nobody should take this as me endorsing either Assad or the Rebels. Because I don't support either.

Note to self: If we ever go to war with Kopikatsu's country shoot him first. Otherwise he will rape our women, crucify them to death then eat their flesh. And if we are very very lucky he will do so in that order

Verbatim:

Nickolai77:
Alternatively, one could still interpret what's happened in Syria as evidence to support that the West should have intervened earlier on. If the West had the political will and financial capability it could have destroyed Assad's air defenses and then armoured/artillery units leading to a speedy "FSA" victory before things turned as ugly as they have now.

And turn Syria into another Afghanistan? Not to mention that so far a war with Syria will turn into a conflict with Russia since about 3rd of it's Navy is currently set just of it's shores...
They currently have 13 ships, and 3 sub's in the region, the port of Tartus is their only military naval port in the med they won't give it up.

There is no quick and simple solution for Syria, a full on NATO assault would not look pretty both in NATO casualties and in civilian casualties on the ground.
Syria is quite big and has formidable air defense systems a sneaky air raid that most likely launched stand off munitions is one thing, employing a no flight zone will be a very different story.
NATO lost about 10 aircraft during the Bosnian wars to a country that pretty much had stingers left in Afghanistan, 1950's soviet anti air systems and sling shots. Syria has fairly modern air defense systems and a sizable air force for the region.
Also Israel will never allow a NATO operation so close to it's borders with out being granted operation freedom to intervene against any targets it sees as threats, since any NATO intervention will result in a retaliation against Israel, and judging from their previous endeavors they are not very capable of stopping such actions.

I did say if the West had the political will and financial capability. After Libya and twelve years of war in the Middle East it's not surprising the West hasn't intervened in Syria. Russia and China presented diplomatic obstacles, and given Syria has a half-decent military capability it would cost a great deal more to run a no-fly zone campaign in Syria than Libya. Part of me also thinks that if the West had intervened in another Middle Eastern uprising it would have led to a domino effect of more countries revolting against their government based on the belief that the NATO will intervene on their side- which would have led to chaos in the region.

There's good pragmatic reasons to explain why there hasn't been an intervention, but morally speaking i believe that if a state has the military capability to stop another state from committing grave human rights abuses then it should intervene, which is why in an ideal world NATO would have intervened in this conflict.

Nickolai77:

Verbatim:

Nickolai77:
Alternatively, one could still interpret what's happened in Syria as evidence to support that the West should have intervened earlier on. If the West had the political will and financial capability it could have destroyed Assad's air defenses and then armoured/artillery units leading to a speedy "FSA" victory before things turned as ugly as they have now.

And turn Syria into another Afghanistan? Not to mention that so far a war with Syria will turn into a conflict with Russia since about 3rd of it's Navy is currently set just of it's shores...
They currently have 13 ships, and 3 sub's in the region, the port of Tartus is their only military naval port in the med they won't give it up.

There is no quick and simple solution for Syria, a full on NATO assault would not look pretty both in NATO casualties and in civilian casualties on the ground.
Syria is quite big and has formidable air defense systems a sneaky air raid that most likely launched stand off munitions is one thing, employing a no flight zone will be a very different story.
NATO lost about 10 aircraft during the Bosnian wars to a country that pretty much had stingers left in Afghanistan, 1950's soviet anti air systems and sling shots. Syria has fairly modern air defense systems and a sizable air force for the region.
Also Israel will never allow a NATO operation so close to it's borders with out being granted operation freedom to intervene against any targets it sees as threats, since any NATO intervention will result in a retaliation against Israel, and judging from their previous endeavors they are not very capable of stopping such actions.

I did say if the West had the political will and financial capability. After Libya and twelve years of war in the Middle East it's not surprising the West hasn't intervened in Syria. Russia and China presented diplomatic obstacles, and given Syria has a half-decent military capability it would cost a great deal more to run a no-fly zone campaign in Syria than Libya. Part of me also thinks that if the West had intervened in another Middle Eastern uprising it would have led to a domino effect of more countries revolting against their government based on the belief that the NATO will intervene on their side- which would have led to chaos in the region.

There's good pragmatic reasons to explain why there hasn't been an intervention, but morally speaking i believe that if a state has the military capability to stop another state from committing grave human rights abuses then it should intervene, which is why in an ideal world NATO would have intervened in this conflict.

An intervention means occupation, and countless casualties sadly not a single western country has the backbone to do it.
The US is now leaving Afghanistan saying we "won" while in reality the country will have no way of defending it self against the Taliban and the tribal war lords and pretty much every positive venue that the invasion opened will come crumbling down.
I wish the US and the rest of NATO would actually go back to playing Cow Boy's, but no one is willing to pay the price.
I'm still amazed that people still volunteer for the US army considering how the media and a large part of the population treat them.

psijac:

Kopikatsu:

J Tyran:

OK maybe they should rape some people and crucify and flay a few while they are it too?

Not comparable. The corpse from whom the Rebel took the organ isn't complaining, because he's dead.

But to humor you, I would have no problem with that, either. You do what you have to do to win a war, using any means necessary. Because if a cause is worth dying for, there shouldn't be any lengths you aren't willing to go to defend it.

Edit: Small sidenote; nobody should take this as me endorsing either Assad or the Rebels. Because I don't support either.

Note to self: If we ever go to war with Kopikatsu's country shoot him first. Otherwise he will rape our women, crucify them to death then eat their flesh. And if we are very very lucky he will do so in that order

No, he won't. And you know why? Because we are so very, very pretty. We are just too gorram pretty for God to let us die.

TheIronRuler:
Snip.

Fine, yes, you did tell us so. I remember it well. But the relevant question to you seems to be: What were people supposed to do? How was the conflict to be solved WITHOUT Syria turning into a hell-hole, but with Assad displaced? Because that guy seriously needed to go.

As for the future..Eh, I expect there to be a Muslim, conservative government rising up soon. At the end of war, conservatism always seem to prevail.

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:
Snip.

Fine, yes, you did tell us so. I remember it well. But the relevant question to you seems to be: What were people supposed to do? How was the conflict to be solved WITHOUT Syria turning into a hell-hole, but with Assad displaced? Because that guy seriously needed to go.

As for the future..Eh, I expect there to be a Muslim, conservative government rising up soon. At the end of war, conservatism always seem to prevail.

.
Syria is already a hell-hole. Assad can stay as far as I care, this has turned into much more than a civil war. I also said before that this has gone through the point of no-return two years ago.

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:
Snip.

Fine, yes, you did tell us so. I remember it well. But the relevant question to you seems to be: What were people supposed to do? How was the conflict to be solved WITHOUT Syria turning into a hell-hole, but with Assad displaced? Because that guy seriously needed to go.

As for the future..Eh, I expect there to be a Muslim, conservative government rising up soon. At the end of war, conservatism always seem to prevail.

.
Syria is already a hell-hole. Assad can stay as far as I care, this has turned into much more than a civil war. I also said before that this has gone through the point of no-return two years ago.

And you don't think there's anything to be done except bleed it out?

Realitycrash:

TheIronRuler:

Realitycrash:

Fine, yes, you did tell us so. I remember it well. But the relevant question to you seems to be: What were people supposed to do? How was the conflict to be solved WITHOUT Syria turning into a hell-hole, but with Assad displaced? Because that guy seriously needed to go.

As for the future..Eh, I expect there to be a Muslim, conservative government rising up soon. At the end of war, conservatism always seem to prevail.

.
Syria is already a hell-hole. Assad can stay as far as I care, this has turned into much more than a civil war. I also said before that this has gone through the point of no-return two years ago.

And you don't think there's anything to be done except bleed it out?

.
Nothing to be done. The major and minor players don't give two shits about the people in Syria. It's about preserving the power and influence they have in Syria - or changing the political map to their advantage.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked