| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
To make it short. People want Assad and his gang out of Syria and trialed. If that happens they are willing to drop down their weapons and stop the fight. Unfortunately, this all wishful thinking as the whole area evolved into a full mode sectarian war that will end either the Gulf states fall or Iran's fall. Here is a small thing to keep in mind: The revolution did have tons and tons of mistakes. But the revolution itself was not and will never be a mistake. | ||
zatic
Zurich15361 Posts
On December 14 2016 01:38 LegalLord wrote: Well I'm glad you gave such deep reasoning for saying that it's bullshit that isn't just a one-liner. Sure, there are no "good guys" in this conflict, and yes, there are problems with Hezbollah and even Assad that would be unacceptable if it weren't true that everyone is a shitty actor. And yet I'm not the screaming "omg rusha is bombing THE GOOD GUYS not the ISIS OMG WTF ABUSE." The "moderate rebels" are just another problematic faction like any other, and they just happen to have a tendency to fold into Islamist groups as they have in the past. Calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is definitely contentious though. I won't make the case either way here. Then call it like it is. There is no "moderate opposition". True. Everyone picked their sectarian extremists to support, including Russia. The bullshit part is claiming the Russian position is in any way better than the West's. They are doing exactly what they are accusing the US of (supporting terrorists). | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 14 2016 02:12 zatic wrote: Then call it like it is. There is no "moderate opposition". True. Everyone picked their sectarian extremists to support, including Russia. The bullshit part is claiming the Russian position is in any way better than the West's. They are doing exactly what they are accusing the US of (supporting terrorists). The way the Russian position is better is that it supports propping up a secular dictator rather than Islamist chaos. Let's not mince words, that's exactly what would happen if Assad were to be defeated by the opposition. And if there were a plan after Assad is deposed then the US would have had a chance to do what they wanted before Russia even got involved. But after Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it's pretty clear there isn't a follow-up to slaying the dragon. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
On December 14 2016 01:52 Wrath wrote: that is totally wrong also. yes there are iranian shia forces and iranian backed Hezbollah fighting in Syria but Assad has mainly a conscription-based armed force(some(?) of the men were conscripted against their will, especially when things were bad for Assad; early on in the war they went unpaid and were overworked). it's alleged that ~80.000 alawites died for Assad. Assad is a "secular" dictator that belongs to a minority that allied itself with Shiite and having their support to fight with him as long as he swear loyalty to Khaminai. The so called "Secular Syrian Arabian Army" is not secular, not Syrian and not Arabian. It is formed mostly of Iranian and the refugee Afghan and Pakistan there and Yemen and Lebanon Shiia. This "Secular" army is a pure sectarian army in fact. for more read: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/syria-seeks-volunteers-support-army-successes-161122160216259.html Syria already conscripts its men at age 18 into the army. Before the war, service would last for two years but now many conscripts say they have served for several years, with no sign of being discharged. Military analysts say the Syrian army's pre-war numbers were about 300,000 personnel, but its current size after almost six years of conflict is not known. Young men are known to desert the army, leave the country, or pay bribes to avoid being drafted. Syria's forces are bolstered by Iranian troops, Iran-backed militias, and fighters from Lebanon's Shia-Muslim Hezbollah group, as well as Russian air power. Edit: People want Assad and his gang out of Syria and trialed. If that happens they are willing to drop down their weapons and stop the fight. wrong also. syrians elected Assad as president in 2014. | ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On December 14 2016 01:52 Wrath wrote: wrong also. syrians elected Assad as president in 2014. Yes and Saddam Hussein was elected by score of 100% in 2002, those dictator really seems to be popular, come on. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18204 Posts
On December 14 2016 02:32 xM(Z wrote: that is totally wrong also. yes there are iranian shia forces and iranian backed Hezbollah fighting in Syria but Assad has mainly a conscription-based armed force(some(?) of the men were conscripted against their will, especially when things were bad for Assad; early on in the war they went unpaid and were overworked). it's alleged that ~80.000 alawites died for Assad. for more read: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/syria-seeks-volunteers-support-army-successes-161122160216259.html Edit: wrong also. syrians elected Assad as president in 2014. That election was about as useful as the post-hoc referendum in Crimea for similar reasons: (1) the integrity of the votes is unclear, (2) there was no real opposition possible, and (3) the war was still going on, and only those in pro-Assad areas were allowed to vote. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
add proof or wear a tinfoil hat. @Acrofales: without even trying to comment on your point(because it's a he said she said kind of thing) there's still a long way to go from that to People want Assad and his gang out of Syria and trialed. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18204 Posts
On December 14 2016 02:52 xM(Z wrote: what's your point?, when involving dictators, everything is rigged?. add proof or wear a tinfoil hat. @Acrofales: without even trying to comment on your point(because it's a he said she said kind of thing) there's still a long way to go from that to People want Assad and his gang out of Syria and trialed. Yup. It's entirely possible that there is (or at least was) a majority of Syrians who would have preferred Assad to any opposition. But Assad preempted that discussion by refusing constitutional change and elections, and instead driving tanks into protests. We will now never know, as at the end of all this either Assad will once again rule as a totalitarian military dictator (courtesy of Iran and Russia) or Assad will be dead. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
that is totally wrong also. yes there are iranian shia forces and iranian backed Hezbollah fighting in Syria but Assad has mainly a conscription-based armed force(some(?) of the men were conscripted against their will, especially when things were bad for Assad; early on in the war they went unpaid and were overworked). it's alleged that ~80.000 alawites died for Assad. Exactly. Assad is playing the minorities card. Also regarding the 80,000 alwaites confirms it. Assad himself is alwait ruling a country with over 75% sunnis, yet they did not protest at the start because sectarian issue but because corruption. Once they were faced with that power it turned into sectarian with Iran's support. There were numerous calls to take the battle the alwaites area as they form the backbone of Assad's popularity and taking most of the sensitive positions in the country. To the people, they represent the whole corruption skeleton that needs to be taken down. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On December 14 2016 02:12 zatic wrote: Then call it like it is. There is no "moderate opposition". True. Everyone picked their sectarian extremists to support, including Russia. The bullshit part is claiming the Russian position is in any way better than the West's. They are doing exactly what they are accusing the US of (supporting terrorists). That's an incredibly ignorant claim to make. Ambiguity of the 'moderate' rebels and their ties with AQ / IS etc aside, you can't just go and support a rebellion in a foreign country because you don't like their government. Half the world is ruled by dictators and shitty regimes, many of them far more dangerous and far less legitimate than that of Assad's. And yes, Russia is in Syria solely to protect their geopolitical interests, not because they are 'the good guys' or something -- but they are protecting their geopolitical interests in accordance with the international law in spite of whatever accusations MSM hurls at them, while USA & friends are violating god knows how many conventions with their continued presence there. Russia isn't in the right because Assad is 'better' than the people USA is supporting or something; Russia is in the right because they are on the right side of the law in Syria, while NATO is not. But Assad preempted that discussion by refusing constitutional change and elections, and instead driving tanks into protests. The whole topic of Assad supposedly 'crushing peaceful protests' is highly contested, btw. Like, the original reason for NATO coalition's entry into Syrian civil war has been proven to be a false flag already (gas attacks against civilians). | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
so now you're in a war, facing a massive sunni desertion; what do you do?; you conscript loyalists(people from your own sect, people you know they'll die for you) because you're forced to, because you can't afford more desertions. conscripting alawites was a do or die scenario. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On December 14 2016 03:18 Salazarz wrote: Because might make right? Because simply massacring your own civilians is lawful in Assads eyes makes them the legitimate government? That is basically the crux of your argument. Russia isn't in the right any more than Assad is in the right.That's an incredibly ignorant claim to make. Ambiguity of the 'moderate' rebels and their ties with AQ / IS etc aside, you can't just go and support a rebellion in a foreign country because you don't like their government. Half the world is ruled by dictators and shitty regimes, many of them far more dangerous and far less legitimate than that of Assad's. And yes, Russia is in Syria solely to protect their geopolitical interests, not because they are 'the good guys' or something -- but they are protecting their geopolitical interests in accordance with the international law in spite of whatever accusations MSM hurls at them, while USA & friends are violating god knows how many conventions with their continued presence there. Russia isn't in the right because Assad is 'better' than the people USA is supporting or something; Russia is in the right because they are on the right side of the law in Syria, while NATO is not. The whole topic of Assad supposedly 'crushing peaceful protests' is highly contested, btw. Like, the original reason for NATO coalition's entry into Syrian civil war has been proven to be a false flag already (gas attacks against civilians). | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On December 14 2016 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Because might make right? Because simply massacring your own civilians is lawful in Assads eyes makes them the legitimate government? That is basically the crux of your argument. Russia isn't in the right any more than Assad is in the right. No, might doesn't make right -- which is precisely why NATO should stop intervening in other countries' internal affairs with military power to further their own interests. International law exists to prevent the folks with bigger sticks beating up on those around them; the US should be subject to it just as everyone else is. Do you honestly believe the NATO coalition is in Syria because of 'human rights abuses' and the reason they are violating another countries' sovereignty is because the people in that country are suffering from evil dictatorship abusing them? | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On December 14 2016 03:26 xM(Z wrote: @Wrath: you're missing the context here. in early days, after the war started, Assad army was hit by massive desertions. from generals to regular foot soldiers, numbers given were in the tens of thousands. so now you're in a war, facing a massive sunni desertion; what do you do?; you conscript loyalists(people from your own sect, people you know they'll die for you) because you're forced to, because you can't afford more desertions. conscripting alawites was a do or die scenario. The question is, WHY DID IT EVEN BREAK INTO A WAR? It is not what to do when you are alwaite and facing massive sunni desertion. It is why did we even got here? It all started with a boy writing on the wall "You are next Assad". The boy got caught and tortured. The people rioted in Dar'a against what happened. The authority there who had connections with Assad insulted them and forced them out. That is how it started. If Assad had some IQ, just punishing the responsible for that and people would have went back to homes. But his stupidity allowed the situation to escalate to this point. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On December 14 2016 04:19 Wrath wrote: The question is, WHY DID IT EVEN BREAK INTO A WAR? It is not what to do when you are alwaite and facing massive sunni desertion. It is why did we even got here? It all started with a boy writing on the wall "You are next Assad". The boy got caught and tortured. The people rioted in Dar'a against what happened. The authority there who had connections with Assad insulted them and forced them out. That is how it started. If Assad had some IQ, just punishing the responsible for that and people would have went back to homes. But his stupidity allowed the situation to escalate to this point. His stupidity (regarding the boy, or maybe having an excessively large army and chemical weapons to begin with), starvation as a result of the drought (hunger can be a real motivator to pick up arms and rebel alongside people you thought were extremists), insurgents coming in from Iraq to bolster the rebellious/terrorist spirit, the US and Saudis giving weapons to them and the moderate rebels, Russia coming in and helping Assad maintain his position. Everybody is contributing to this war. From Gaia herself through the drought, to her children and whatever constructs they can come up with. Both in a meta-physical and physical sense -- from societal structures such as religion and narratives in the media to objects such as weapons and computers. That's why there's war in Syria. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
But I don't think they all came together, I mean, if Assad just punished the responsible for Dar'a incident, things would not have escalated that much. Anyway off topic. Am I the only one having the footer of the page aligned to the left instead of center? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On December 14 2016 04:40 Wrath wrote: True, But I don't think they all came together, I mean, if Assad just punished the responsible for Dar'a incident, things would not have escalated that much. Anyway off topic. Am I the only one having the footer of the page aligned to the left instead of center? I think it would have only postponed the inevitable. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
similar to the assassination Franz Ferdinand and his wife, on 28th June 1914 | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances. And neither ending the rebellion can no longer work under the current circumstances. This is not contest who cries more get the toy. If the people had a reason to take him down in 2011. Now they have a thousand reason to do so. Now that Aleppo phase is over, this may be an opportunity to recalculate everything and reset the rebellion on a correct track under a specific leadership. @xM(Z you are correct. Hamah 1982 also played a role in that. The father's rule and then his son was boiling up but people never had the courage to move. The Arab Spring started and this was a chance to get things moving. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Korean StarCraft League
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
