|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On October 12 2015 20:15 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 18:29 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Basically the west will now support this new coalition in detriment of the other rebels... at least officially. They already sent tons of weapons to the YPG today and more will come. I think this will affect the conflict considerably because now other moderate groups can join this coalition and be under the protective umbrella of the western powers against russian strikes.
Not a bad idea, Russians will probably not attack allies of the Kurds. But I dont know how significant the non-Kurdish groups in this alliance are. And Turkey will probably hate this developement as they hate any support for YPG. I wonder if they even allow the groups they support to join this alliance. This strike seems to show that the Russian involvement is more about dick waving and less about Syria. Could also be called a weapons test under real life conditions though.
yes turkey is in a bad situation right now... but this is the best deal they can get, a western sponsored YPG instead of allianated kurds supplied by the russians or even allied to assad in the future of Syria.
|
On October 12 2015 21:03 ImFromPortugal wrote:some of those missiles landed in Iran.
Has there been any reliable confirmation of that? Last time I checked an "unnamed us official" said it happened while both Iran and Russia deny it.
|
So basically USA is creating a proxy that they are hopeful will fight Assad and Russia...
|
On October 12 2015 21:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 21:03 ImFromPortugal wrote:some of those missiles landed in Iran. Has there been any reliable confirmation of that? Last time I checked an "unnamed us official" said it happened while both Iran and Russia deny it.
well iranian sources reported it first then later said it was a drone
On October 12 2015 21:28 AssyrianKing wrote:
So basically USA is creating a proxy that they are hopeful will fight Assad and Russia...
not quite.. the US is just stengthing their hand in syria... to counter russian influence and the fact that their sponsored rebels are being bombed by the russians.
|
On October 12 2015 21:28 AssyrianKing wrote:
So basically USA is creating a proxy that they are hopeful will fight Assad and Russia...
Havnt they been doing that since day 1?
|
On October 12 2015 21:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 21:28 AssyrianKing wrote:
So basically USA is creating a proxy that they are hopeful will fight Assad and Russia... Havnt they been doing that since day 1?
Russia wasn't super involved to start, but this isn't new. Russia and the US have done this dance for a long time.
|
|
|
On October 11 2015 21:54 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 14:47 LegalLord wrote:I wonder how much coordination there was between Russia and the US on this offensive. I really doubt that Russia would unilaterally choose to start a military offensive, regardless of what the official stance on the issue is. My guess is that the US realized that giving weapons and training to (ISIS by any other name) is a losing proposition and they were willing to let Russia take care of it because it was more diplomatically convenient to have it happen that way. There is no such thing as a "moderate" rebel. I would have hoped that people would have learned from the Mujahideen in Afghanistan a few decades ago, but evidently not. On October 10 2015 12:08 heliusx wrote:
What? Russia drops a few bombs and suddenly they're the only ones doing anything useful? Never mind the 2000+ sorties carried out by the US and it's allies on Isis? Never mind the US-provided equipment that allowed the conflict to get as far as it did in the first place? This is simply wrong. Most equipment for rebels initially came from SAA. Remember many of them are former SAA soldiers. Later on foreign support was mainly from Saudis, Qatar, Turkey and Iran fo Assad. US played a minor role. The biggest contribution US made to ISIS equipment was weapons for the Iraqi army. But it is kinda difficult to say they should have given them nothing in anticipation terrorists woudl take it from them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/world/isis-ammunition-is-shown-to-have-origins-in-us-and-china.html?_r=0
![[image loading]](http://s12.postimg.org/lfu81f2fx/gfdpng.png)
|
On October 12 2015 21:28 AssyrianKing wrote:
So basically USA is creating a proxy that they are hopeful will fight Assad and Russia...
How many members of these proxies are switching over to ISIS though? The whole thing is a clusterfuck, for what it's worth Russia is making the USA look like fools though.
|
USA looked like fools since the Bushes so Russia can't do much here.
what's changing is your perception of USA and if you think they were not fools before this then i don't know, check the history i guess.
|
On October 14 2015 18:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2015 21:28 AssyrianKing wrote:
So basically USA is creating a proxy that they are hopeful will fight Assad and Russia... How many members of these proxies are switching over to ISIS though? The whole thing is a clusterfuck, for what it's worth Russia is making the USA look like fools though.
none..
this is a new group that was officially present now.. but they have been closely working with the YPG and other kurds for a long time.
|
Declaration of establishment by Syrian Democratic Forces
A total of 13 organizations have announced a joint establishment of Syrian Democratic Forces.
The 13 organizations include;
- YPG/YPJ,
- Al-Sanadid Forces,
- Syriac Military Council,
- Burkan Al-Fırat Operations Center,
- Suwar al-Raqqa,
- Shams al-Shamal,
- Lîwa Al-Selcuki,
- Brigade Groups of Al-Jazira,
- Jabhat Al-Akrad
- Jaysh Al-Thuwar (Revolutionaries' Army involving Jabhat Al-Akrad, Lîwai 99, Special Operations Center 455, Lîwa Al-Selcuki, Ahrar Al-Zawiya, Lîwa Sultan Selîm, Lîwa Şuheda Al-Atarib)
- Lîwai Al-Tehrîr and
- Lîwai 99 Muşat.
The press conference announcing the establishment of Democratic Syrian Forces was attended by a representative from all the mentioned forces.The joint press release was read by Şêx Bender Himêdî El-Deham from Al-Sanadid Forces.
El-Deham said all the forces joining the Democratic Syrian Forces herald the birth of future's Syria, adding; "This democratic step will enable the democratic unity of all Syrian peoples on the basis of women's freedom. Our basic objective is the founding of democratic Syria.”
Deham stated that their founding meeting witnessed a discussion of the situation and developments in Syria, treatment of the previously failed experiences and ascertainment of the intervention by external forces as the main reason of the failure.
Remarking that the meeting was attended by Arab, Kurdish, Syriac, Assyrian and Turkmen representatives, Deham said their primary objective was to fight the ISIS and forces attacking the peoples of Syria. Deham on behalf of Democratic Syrian Forces thanked the coalition forces for the support they provided, and called them to continue their support.
Deham informed that the meeting ended with the establishment of the United Military Council which will handle the works and joint coordination in the name of Democratic Syrian Forces.
Deham called upon all the Syrian men and women to join the ranks of their forces.
http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/declaration-of-establishment-by-syrian-democratic-forces
|
It is absolutely tragic what has happened to the Syrian people. Why the West thought it was a good idea to destabilize the country and try to take out Assad is beyond me. We should stop intervening in the middle east. In the mean time I think Western countries should do more to take in Syrian refugees. Canada, my country, has tons of room and we should take at least several hundred thousand of these guys.
|
On October 16 2015 16:01 LegacyOfTheVoidUser1 wrote:
It is absolutely tragic what has happened to the Syrian people. Why the West thought it was a good idea to destabilize the country and try to take out Assad is beyond me.
$
On October 16 2015 16:01 LegacyOfTheVoidUser1 wrote:
We should stop intervening in the middle east. In the mean time I think Western countries should do more to take in Syrian refugees. Canada, my country, has tons of room and we should take at least several hundred thousand of these guys.
Hundreds of thousands of unexpected immigrants is a pretty substantial logistical issue. You have to deal with all of the fake immigrants who are going to pretend to be from Syria, lots of potential radicals who you have to properly screen (and a few might leave), and adapt to the influx of those of a different culture.
Lot of trouble in Europe right now with its rather generous acceptance of more immigrants than it has the logistical means to accommodate. Wouldn't blame a country on the other side of the world if its leadership weren't really interested in putting in a massive effort.
|
Immigrants are a boon. Trade is mutually beneficial for both parties (asid from very rare exceptions where ex ante expectations are not realized ex post) so when people come to a country and begin engaging in trades with people this is a good thing. They don't even need to have any money to be able to do this since they can begin by trading their labour. The fact is that terrorism is not a real threat. It is something which the elites use to manipulate and terrify the public. We in the west don't need to spend our lives obsessing over Muslims (all the while ignoring all of the aggressive actions which the west has taken against Muslim countries). I mean it doesn't really matter why someone wants to come to my country, we should take all comers and we would prosper economically and culturally by having open borders. If someone from Jordan or Iraq or Nigeria for that matter wants to come to Canada, by all means, bring them on. A society with a functioning legal system does not fear from criminals, it deals with them harshly and that is it. Of course our legal system today is highly dysfunctional, as is the welfare state and all the rest, but even still we would prosper by embracing unrestricted immigration.
|
On October 17 2015 04:01 LegacyOfTheVoidUser1 wrote:
Immigrants are a boon. Trade is mutually beneficial for both parties (asid from very rare exceptions where ex ante expectations are not realized ex post) so when people come to a country and begin engaging in trades with people this is a good thing. They don't even need to have any money to be able to do this since they can begin by trading their labour. The fact is that terrorism is not a real threat. It is something which the elites use to manipulate and terrify the public. We in the west don't need to spend our lives obsessing over Muslims (all the while ignoring all of the aggressive actions which the west has taken against Muslim countries). I mean it doesn't really matter why someone wants to come to my country, we should take all comers and we would prosper economically and culturally by having open borders. If someone from Jordan or Iraq or Nigeria for that matter wants to come to Canada, by all means, bring them on. A society with a functioning legal system does not fear from criminals, it deals with them harshly and that is it. Of course our legal system today is highly dysfunctional, as is the welfare state and all the rest, but even still we would prosper by embracing unrestricted immigration.
People like to complain, but don't offer alternative solutions.
Trade is not always beneficial, unlike classical economic theory would suggest, there's a reason why stuff like NAFTA was such a big deal. Essentially, opening yourself up to trade gives the other party the power to decide when to trade with you and when to not, since you'll always trade so long as your utility goes up. So what can happen is that an entire industry in your country can be eradicated by free trade, and along that the livelihood of everyone working in that industry in your country. The products traded need to be ensured to be of acceptable quality, and just significant bureaucratic costs are created, while also making it more difficult to regulate the industry. That's only a couple points for being against trade, and why no country on this planet is anything close to have a "free market economy".
We would not prosper economically from most Syrian immigrants (especially in a <20 year time frame), and I think this is quite universally agreed between scholars... The issue here is an ethical issue of whether we want to create a burden for our taxpayers, as well as all the cultural implications it may have, for respecting the human rights of people in a foreign country. Personally I think most people would prefer to turn a blind eye.
If you spend the time analyzing the justice system in western countries (I can mostly only speak for Canada and US), you see the way it is... Yeah, a lot of the time it's shitty, but nobody has a clearly better solution. And easy to complain about the welfare state, but many people would still agree, that the quality of life in welfare states is some of the highest, so I don't really know why you are shitting on the idea... Simply go back to the industrial revolution if a free market is what you want, and see how that turned out.
Actually, I don't think you've even brought up a single piece of evidence for your argument. You just stated as fact that taking people in create a economical and cultural improvement. If you truly wish to discuss this topic, feel free to PM me, and we can have a discussion on Skype or something. It irks me when people (usually young, and bigots), look down so heavily on people who are against bringing refugees in, when it's a completely logical argument in most peoples beliefs and values system.
Well, seems like the age of socialism is upon us.
|
FiWiFaki I would nort expect any value from that discussion. Some people are just too far removed from reality to have sensible arguments. I just with this forum had an ignore option so I could be done with some of them.
|
On October 16 2015 16:01 LegacyOfTheVoidUser1 wrote:
It is absolutely tragic what has happened to the Syrian people. Why the West thought it was a good idea to destabilize the country and try to take out Assad is beyond me. We should stop intervening in the middle east. In the mean time I think Western countries should do more to take in Syrian refugees. Canada, my country, has tons of room and we should take at least several hundred thousand of these guys.
as to why here's some reason:
1) because it's a geopolitical enemy - aligned with russia.
2) cuz he's a bad guy
3) they thought it'd be over faster
4) mostly the stuff happened on its own, the western influence on it is minor.
Canada can't take several hundred thousand refugees, that'd be too many, it could take a fairly smaller number. There would be some culture clash issues, as refugees aren't necessarily that willing to change their ways just because their homeland was bad.
It'd be far more cost-effective to send money to the UNHCR to help the refugees in the camps in turkey/jordan than to move refugees to Canada. It'd also be socially sounder.
|
On October 17 2015 08:30 FiWiFaKi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 17 2015 04:01 LegacyOfTheVoidUser1 wrote:
Immigrants are a boon. Trade is mutually beneficial for both parties (asid from very rare exceptions where ex ante expectations are not realized ex post) so when people come to a country and begin engaging in trades with people this is a good thing. They don't even need to have any money to be able to do this since they can begin by trading their labour. The fact is that terrorism is not a real threat. It is something which the elites use to manipulate and terrify the public. We in the west don't need to spend our lives obsessing over Muslims (all the while ignoring all of the aggressive actions which the west has taken against Muslim countries). I mean it doesn't really matter why someone wants to come to my country, we should take all comers and we would prosper economically and culturally by having open borders. If someone from Jordan or Iraq or Nigeria for that matter wants to come to Canada, by all means, bring them on. A society with a functioning legal system does not fear from criminals, it deals with them harshly and that is it. Of course our legal system today is highly dysfunctional, as is the welfare state and all the rest, but even still we would prosper by embracing unrestricted immigration. People like to complain, but don't offer alternative solutions. Trade is not always beneficial, unlike classical economic theory would suggest, there's a reason why stuff like NAFTA was such a big deal. Essentially, opening yourself up to trade gives the other party the power to decide when to trade with you and when to not, since you'll always trade so long as your utility goes up. So what can happen is that an entire industry in your country can be eradicated by free trade, and along that the livelihood of everyone working in that industry in your country. The products traded need to be ensured to be of acceptable quality, and just significant bureaucratic costs are created, while also making it more difficult to regulate the industry. That's only a couple points for being against trade, and why no country on this planet is nowhere close to have "free market economy". We would not prosper economically from most Syrian immigrants (especially in a <20 year time frame), and I think this is quite universally agreed between scholars... The issue here a ethical issue of whether we want to create a burden for our taxpayers, as well as all the cultural implications it may have, for respecting the human rights of people in a foreign country. Personally I think most people would prefer to turn a blind eye. If you spend the time analyzing the justice system in western countries (I can mostly only speak for Canada and US), you see the way it is... Yeah, a lot of the time it's shitty, but nobody has a clearly better solution. And easy to complain about the welfare state, but many people would still agree, that the quality of life in welfare states is some of the highest, so I don't really know why you are shitting on the idea... Simply go back to the industrial revolution if a free market is what you want, and see how that turned out. Actually, I don't think you've even brought up a single piece of evidence for your argument. You just stated as fact that taking people in create a economical and cultural improvement. If you truly wish to discuss this topic, feel free to PM me, and we can have a discussion on Skype or something. It irks me when people (usually young, and bigots), look down so heavily on people who are against bringing refugees in, when it's a completely logical argument in most peoples beliefs and values system. Well, seems like the age of socialism is upon us.
You have written basically my exact thoughts in a much better way then I ever could. I do not see taking in any large number of refugees ending up as a net benefit for Canada.
|
Trades are virtually always mutuall beneficial. That is why people trade, because they expect to benefit from the trade and they are generally pretty well informed about whether or not they will benefit from a given transaction. There are some rare exceptions which I mentioned, but the person who trades and does not benefit quickly realizes this and avoids these trades in the future. Thus the overwhelming majority of trades end up being mutually beneficial. Trade has driven civilization since the dawn of man. It's why Columbus went off in search of India, why the American Indians and Africans living below the Sahara did not develop (no one to trade with) and is the foundation of every society. We all trade constantly and we do so because we benefit from it.
It's a mistake to consider an individuals contributions in society as measured by the tax dollars which are wrested from them. Immigrants are inevitably a benefit to the society they come into because they trade. They trade their labour with employers and they trade their income with merchants. They also contribute in non economic terms, with their relationships, friendships, their art, teams and organizations they join or any of the other myriad ways that people contribute to society. It doesn't really matter if they are rich and don't work (but still trade with merchants to purchase stuff) or poor (since they will thus be forced to trade their labour in order to make some money). Of course to the degree which the welfare state exists and they are able to live not through trade and exchange but through government largess this is a drain on society but the problem is not with the immigrant but with the welfare state and it is unlikely that any newcomer to the country will be as adept at exploiting the rent seeking aspects of the welfare state as those who have been born here and have practiced their whole life at exploiting the system.
Actually there are some obvious and clear reforms to our legal system which should be implemented. Instead of focusing on (as Canada does) rehabilitation, deterrence (both specific and general), denunciation, punishment or whatever, it would be better to have a restitution based legal system. Also all victimless crimes (such as drugs or prostitution but also anti-trust and many other victimeless crimes) should be eliminated. These two simple reforms would dramatically improve our legal system. It would also be good to legalize vigilante justice.
Canada absolutely could take in 200,000 Syrian refugees. We have a massive amount of land. It might put a slight strain on the housing but they would find ways like living a dozen to an apartment initially. In the long run, and even in the medium run, we would benefit tremendously by having more people living in this country, working, producing wealth and trading. We would also benefit diplomatically and could establish close ties with the Syrian people still in Syria. Syrians who came here and worked would be able to send money back home to their relatives who are struggling to survive in Syria or in other not so affluent countries where they became refugees. But more importantly there is a moral element here. Our close allies created this crisis by training and funding the rebels and trying to over throw Bassad. We have a responsibility to clean up their mess and to care for the poor Syrian refugees who have suffered so severely during this war. This war didn't just happen. The fans of this fire were flamed by Western governments. Our friends. Our close allies. So we can't just turn our back on the Syrians and pretend that we are not complicit. Even the Canadian government was sending money to the rebels. And it is long past time that we acknowledge that intervention in the affairs of other nations does not work. Look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Look at Syria.
How many tens of millions of innocent civilians need to die in the middle east until you all acknowledge that we aren't smart enough to play God? How many more must be sacrificed on the altar of our hubris before we acknowledge that intervention simply does not work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/syv3ddW.jpg)
