Syria - I told you so

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

i dont see much happening with russian federation interest in desperately protecting its naval base in syria

wombat_of_war:
i dont see much happening with russian federation interest in desperately protecting its naval base in syria

And if they didn't you really think a there would be any better outcome?

The US will not get involved in another war, Syria is not Libya (not that the outcome in Libya was any good well at least French, Dutch, and Italian oil interests are safe) so even with support for the "rebels" the at best you will get is another Whabbist state built by Saudi Arabia and the gulf states which have pretty much started this armed conflict.

If any thing there's a greater chance of western nation building from the current Alawite regime with our without Assad.
The Alawites are as far as you can get from "traditional" or "extreme" Islam as you can get without being counted as an apostasy. Syria for the most part is a secular state with no "supreme leaders" or clerics that run it behind the scenes.

Assad also was very keen on disrupting all Sufi and other extremist schools of Islam because he feared the exact same scenario which is happening now.
He like's his European life style, and fears Islamic purism and the extremes it brings.

Syria's relations with Iran and trough it their pet Hezbollah have nothing to do with ideology, the same goes to it's relations with the Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, all of which were pretty much only to counter Israel since it's their main and only adversary in the region.

I still don't get what rational government would deal with THEIR OWN citizens PEACEFULLY PROTESTING by sending in tanks. The rebels had every right to revolt, but if they are just going to turn into another Iran, Iraq etc. What is the point of going in to help the rebels. Also where are the Russian citizens saying hey maybe we shouldn't send Syria heavy weapons, we are all human so I guess we can't not think the same way, when the U.S send more F-16s to Egypt their was an internet uproar.

Ideally the world would lend support to Assad in putting down the barbaric and Al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebels.

2012 Wont Happen:
Ideally the world would lend support to Assad in putting down the barbaric and Al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebels.

.
You're way off on your estimates, friend. The forces fighting against Assad aren't merely rebels, but have evolved into numerous groups, some of which include religiously-motivated mercenaries. You're looking at the extreme picture, which isn't the reality at all.

TheIronRuler:

2012 Wont Happen:
Ideally the world would lend support to Assad in putting down the barbaric and Al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebels.

.
You're way off on your estimates, friend. The forces fighting against Assad aren't merely rebels, but have evolved into numerous groups, some of which include religiously-motivated mercenaries. You're looking at the extreme picture, which isn't the reality at all.

But it is part of the general reality of the situation.

Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or help arm what i saw the BBC describe as "Moderate parties" despite the probable risks involved, and were all a bit weary about arming random groups nowadays for good reason.

I don't think 2012 is correct in his statement but i can understand why someone would become exasperated with the whole situation. The "rebels" are being pushed back some, ground is being lost and the conflict is being prolonged. The establishment of some kinda of stability and central authority in the form of Assad despite what he is must be very tempting.

Pandalisk:

TheIronRuler:

2012 Wont Happen:
Ideally the world would lend support to Assad in putting down the barbaric and Al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebels.

.
You're way off on your estimates, friend. The forces fighting against Assad aren't merely rebels, but have evolved into numerous groups, some of which include religiously-motivated mercenaries. You're looking at the extreme picture, which isn't the reality at all.

But it is part of the general reality of the situation.

Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or help arm what i saw the BBC describe as "Moderate parties" despite the probable risks involved, and were all a bit weary about arming random groups nowadays for good reason.

I don't think 2012 is correct in his statement but i can understand why someone would become exasperated with the whole situation. The "rebels" are being pushed back some, ground is being lost and the conflict is being prolonged. The establishment of some kinda of stability and central authority in the form of Assad despite what he is must be very tempting.

It's not as if a situation like this hasn't happened before and while anything may be better than the current chaos, I would prefer it if the developed countries didn't prop up another dictator.

I doubt Assad will really provide stability. I realize that the rebels have become radicalized in more recent time due to the length of the civil war, but from the very start Assad employed extreme methods to put down the protesters who eventually became rebels. He is not someone you want in power.

I can only see one possible scenario if Assad remains in power. After receiving support Assad enacts an even more brutal repression to quash any dissent. He or whoever succeeds him might after only remain in power for a limited number of years before starting another civil war. The revolution is only temporarily crushed and rises back up, except that those rebels would be more radicalized and they would probably hate and distrust the west more for having supported Assad.

The situation is difficult, because most nations have waited until the situation became worse. At this point, there are going to be undesirable people in power either way. Revolutions are always very bloody and having a democracy in place is a pretty long distant dream.

Pandalisk:

TheIronRuler:

2012 Wont Happen:
Ideally the world would lend support to Assad in putting down the barbaric and Al-Qaeda affiliated Syrian rebels.

.
You're way off on your estimates, friend. The forces fighting against Assad aren't merely rebels, but have evolved into numerous groups, some of which include religiously-motivated mercenaries. You're looking at the extreme picture, which isn't the reality at all.

But it is part of the general reality of the situation.

Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or help arm what i saw the BBC describe as "Moderate parties" despite the probable risks involved, and were all a bit weary about arming random groups nowadays for good reason.

I don't think 2012 is correct in his statement but i can understand why someone would become exasperated with the whole situation. The "rebels" are being pushed back some, ground is being lost and the conflict is being prolonged. The establishment of some kinda of stability and central authority in the form of Assad despite what he is must be very tempting.

.
Who is "we"? Why do we act as if our opinion matters on the world stage? In a representative democracy the only way a single person's opinion matters is when it is a part of a collective movement with the same opinion which drives decision making in one way or the other. Talking about this situation is just fine, but you're speaking of it as if you're Putin or Holland.

The rebels are losing ground and Assad may get out of this in one piece. I changed my mind about this disaster - at first I wanted Assad to win swiftly, but now having dragged Sheikh Nasrallah's reputation through the mud and weakened Hezbollah and Syria's military might, I think this only did good for my nation's interests.

Scum. But sure, let's arm these animals who will undoubtedly be worse than Assad... That's never backfired, at least not recently... Oh wait.

MoeLeicester:
Scum. But sure, let's arm these animals who will undoubtedly be worse than Assad... That's never backfired, at least not recently... Oh wait.

Then let's support a dictator, because that always goes absolutely peachy.

Cut the straw man. Most people are well aware that some of the rebels may be unsavory, that's why there's a question of whether to intervene or not.

Better the devil you know...

My views?

Honestly?

Syria is becoming this generations Spanish Civil War. A British doctor recently died out there when the hospital he was working in got shelled, there have been reports of fighters coming in from various regions... hell, if I could speak better Arabic or French (and was not currently engaged in a liberal arts degree and had some form of military training) I would be tempted to ship out. I had friends ship out to Libya. Old friends.

Its not going to end this year. Hell, if something is not done it will not end for many years. It is going to boil and seethe until eventually the Turks set up a safe zone in the North, the Israelis step up their strikes and the Iranians pour more men and machinery into the region. Fighters from Lebanon are currently shooting at fighters from Lebanon, fighters from Syria are being trained up in Turkey (And joined by various people on their way back across the border), Iranian soldiers are fighting alongside Hezbollah Jihadis against other Jihadis...

The conflict simply will not end. Everyone is going to get involved. Eventually the UN will decide in its infinite wisdom to send in the blue hats so they can watch as the violence happens around them and occasionally get blown up by one of the extremist groups. But thats OK because the UN soldiers will end up getting involved in low-level banditry, selling arms confiscated from one rebel group to another rebel group.

America and the UK said that the use of chemical weapons would be the red line that causes intervention. That line was crossed.

That said, lets look at what happened last time Britain and France decided to use an arms embargo during a civil war. The Republicans got slaughtered (again referencing the Spanish Civil War). If we start sending arms in we cannot stop them from getting to religious extremists, the kind of people we do not like. However, we can start arming the moderates so they do not become extremists out of necessity, the Jihadis will get their guns from their sources regardless.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked