|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 23 2013 01:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +only accusations yet, and if the media starts pointing fingers it doesn't mean much.
hopefully the un observers will be able to do their job while the warmongers are held at bay the countries that resisted sending weapons to the rebels for over a year and so far have not fired one shot at assad soldiers (after 2+ years of war now between assad government and rebels) are the warmongers who need held at bay riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
i believe you're extrapolating a bit too much from my post.
On August 23 2013 01:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
thanks a lot george bush you created a generation of people who have replaced their brains with mindless slogans
that is very precious and kind of ironic considering you were the one who made the association.
|
On August 23 2013 02:22 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 01:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:only accusations yet, and if the media starts pointing fingers it doesn't mean much.
hopefully the un observers will be able to do their job while the warmongers are held at bay the countries that resisted sending weapons to the rebels for over a year and so far have not fired one shot at assad soldiers (after 2+ years of war now between assad government and rebels) are the warmongers who need held at bay riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight i believe you're extrapolating a bit too much from my post. Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 01:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
thanks a lot george bush you created a generation of people who have replaced their brains with mindless slogans that is very precious and kind of ironic considering you were the one who made the association.
Well to be fair, a lot of Assad supporters I know support him simply because he is against America. They do not care about democracy even though they will bring up Wikileaks, police brutality, and the sort in the West, they do not care what happens as long as American influence is limited.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that anti-imperialism is much needed, but it has lost its meaning. I mean, even many of my leftist buddies will go so far to support an anti-communist general in Argentina because they hate Britain or praise Milosevic because he was a "victim" of Western imperialism. I swear to God, the biggest thing anti-imperialists lack is consistency.
|
The thing is that people are really jaded after the "WMD's in Iraq for realz!" as well as seeing most of the countries in the middle east who had revolutions just revert back to similar or worse conditions again.
Add that it's a coalition of very different groups/clans that are figthing "together" and that some are as vile as Assad and that few of them will get along once there is a power vacum and you have a recipie for another (or another five) civil wars once the military is gone.
Sectarian violence is usually a lot worse than rebellion or civil war.
People in the west are also incredibly war weary after seeing most of our shit fail horribly in the middle east and this time we KNOW what the demands for a succesfull intervention is.
And the last fact is that Assad is winning. Which means that a few targeted strikes will only slow him down, a no fly zone is in no way a a guarantee that the rebels will win and a full on air war will still make the war drag on for ages.
So even more people will probaby die if we go in and do something and we will leave a very unstable situation with a huge chance of spreading (weak central goverment, kurds declare independance, other countries go in and fuck the kurds for exampe).
IF Assad is gassing his own people then yeah "we" have to do something since there has to be some point where the world says "No, you can't do this to your own people".
But be aware that it wouldn't really be saving anyone like a knight in shining armor since it will likely prolong a really bloody conflict and make the situation worse on the ground since no one (just watch every single politician saying over and over that there will be no troops on the ground) is intrested in another Iraq.
It would have to be done but I have serious doubts that it would be pretty afterwards.
Edit: I'm not saying that Assad is better than the rebels but usually if you let shit resolve itself it at least has a tendency to stay resolved for a bit as grim as that sounds since the most powerfull side wins.
If it was clear cut who the good guys were it would be an easier choice but IMHO it's not and it never was.
|
Extremely sad to see the latest massacre.
The use of chemical weapons on mass civilians including children is going to put a lot of pressure on various governments to intervene in this conflict. Of course some people will claim it was a false flag operation despite no evidence of this except their wishful thinking and state it was an attempt to frame Assad. Assad is not the first Middle-East dictator to gas his own citizens.
The political pressure is definitely going to be escalated into intervening. People tend not to like to see videos of dozens of dead children, it tends to provoke an emotional reaction. After all this entire conflict was triggered by Assad's forces torturing children who wrote anti-Assad graffiti in Daraa. Of course some will pretend this started because the US are imperialists or other such nonsense. I have no time for such idiocy.
I doubt the UN will intervene purely because China and Russia will veto any resolutions. One of the major flaws of the UN as an organisation is the power of veto that Security Council members have been granted. It severely hamstrings the ability of the UN to act decisively, even though the UN's stated goal and purpose is to maintain international peace and security.
Will be interesting to see how this develops but this latest atrocity might be a water-shed moment in the International response to the ongoing conflict.
|
On August 23 2013 02:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
The thing is that people are really jaded after the "WMD's in Iraq for realz!" as well as seeing most of the countries in the middle east who had revolutions just revert back to similar or worse conditions again.
Add that it's a coalition of very different groups/clans that are figthing "together" and that some are as vile as Assad and that few of them will get along once there is a power vacum and you have a recipie for another (or another five) civil wars once the military is gone.
Sectarian violence is usually a lot worse than rebellion or civil war.
People in the west are also incredibly war weary after seeing most of our shit fail horribly in the middle east and this time we KNOW what the demands for a succesfull intervention is.
And the last fact is that Assad is winning. Which means that a few targeted strikes will only slow him down, a no fly zone is in no way a a guarantee that the rebels will win and a full on air war will still make the war drag on for ages.
So even more people will probaby die if we go in and do something and we will leave a very unstable situation with a huge chance of spreading (weak central goverment, kurds declare independance, other countries go in and fuck the kurds for exampe).
IF Assad is gassing his own people then yeah "we" have to do something since there has to be some point where the world says "No, you can't do this to your own people".
But be aware that it wouldn't really be saving anyone like a knight in shining armor since it will likely prolong a really bloody conflict and make the situation worse on the ground since no one (just watch every single politician saying over and over that there will be no troops on the ground) is intrested in another Iraq.
It would have to be done but I have serious doubts that it would be pretty afterwards.
Edit: I'm not saying that Assad is better than the rebels but usually if you let shit resolve itself it at least has a tendency to stay resolved for a bit as grim as that sounds since the most powerfull side wins.
If it was clear cut who the good guys were it would be an easier choice but IMHO it's not and it never was.
I understand your points. And don't disagree except you say, that by intervening the situation will be very unstable. The situation is unstable NOW. It is a major civil war that is being complicated by all the neighbouring countries undertaking a proxy war supporting various factions in order to influence the outcome, plus the US and Russia butting heads about it.
It is vastly different from the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Although Saddam was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown, the country was actually quite stable and in a state of peace, albeit under a dictatorship. You could make the case the 2003 Invasion and the subsequent turmoil escalated things into more bloodshed in Iraq. However there is already a massive state of war engulfing all of Syria, so it won't escalate into a full-blown war as it is already in that situation.
It must be strange for the Israelis, to see two of their neighbouring enemies Egypt and Syria both enaged in civil wars. Egypt is not there yet, but it may be on the path. Yet more conflicts to wrack the Middle East.
|
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
I have a really hard time with this, on one hand I hate knowing how much death and suffering is going on, but on the other I don't think whoever replaces Assad will be any better.
Also I think the fact the rebels were hoping for an intervention has made this civil war a lot worse than it should've been, with them trying to force the world to intervene. I don't see western world being able to intervene and stabilize a country, I mean has it worked ever?
|
On August 23 2013 02:47 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 02:22 nunez wrote:On August 23 2013 01:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:only accusations yet, and if the media starts pointing fingers it doesn't mean much.
hopefully the un observers will be able to do their job while the warmongers are held at bay the countries that resisted sending weapons to the rebels for over a year and so far have not fired one shot at assad soldiers (after 2+ years of war now between assad government and rebels) are the warmongers who need held at bay riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight i believe you're extrapolating a bit too much from my post. On August 23 2013 01:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
thanks a lot george bush you created a generation of people who have replaced their brains with mindless slogans that is very precious and kind of ironic considering you were the one who made the association. Well to be fair, a lot of Assad supporters I know support him simply because he is against America. They do not care about democracy even though they will bring up Wikileaks, police brutality, and the sort in the West, they do not care what happens as long as American influence is limited. Don't get me wrong, I believe that anti-imperialism is much needed, but it has lost its meaning. I mean, even many of my leftist buddies will go so far to support an anti-communist general in Argentina because they hate Britain or praise Milosevic because he was a "victim" of Western imperialism. I swear to God, the biggest thing anti-imperialists lack is consistency.
i don't support assad and i (probably) wasn't referring specifically to the countries DEB didn't bother to name.
i realize 'warmongers' is a loaded term over there, but damn.
|
On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
I have a really hard time with this, on one hand I hate knowing how much death and suffering is going on, but on the other I don't think whoever replaces Assad will be any better.
Also I think the fact the rebels were hoping for an intervention has made this civil war a lot worse than it should've been, with them trying to force the world to intervene. I don't see western world being able to intervene and stabilize a country, I mean has it worked ever?
nothing confirmed. and yes it has worked, worked very well in the balkans. but its not the same situation.
|
There is absolutely no point for Assad to use chemical warfare right now, he was massively ahead and this recent move just fucked him over.
So tbh, the only question I have right now is "Rebels or CIA?"
|
On August 23 2013 03:40 deichkind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
I have a really hard time with this, on one hand I hate knowing how much death and suffering is going on, but on the other I don't think whoever replaces Assad will be any better.
Also I think the fact the rebels were hoping for an intervention has made this civil war a lot worse than it should've been, with them trying to force the world to intervene. I don't see western world being able to intervene and stabilize a country, I mean has it worked ever? nothing confirmed. and yes it has worked, worked very well in the balkans. but its not the same situation.
Mm, well was more thinking closer to the case of Syria where it's more driven by religion/fanatism rather politics.
But on the point of the chemical weapons, I was paying a lot of attention last time chemical weapons were used, but I never saw any confirmation on who used them. Were there actually any results from that? I assume not since obviously no intervention was done, but yer...
|
On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
People do stupid things.
Assad would look less guilty if he allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors to visit the site immediately. If he denies them permission, it makes him look like he has something to hide.
|
On August 23 2013 03:50 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 03:40 deichkind wrote:On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
I have a really hard time with this, on one hand I hate knowing how much death and suffering is going on, but on the other I don't think whoever replaces Assad will be any better.
Also I think the fact the rebels were hoping for an intervention has made this civil war a lot worse than it should've been, with them trying to force the world to intervene. I don't see western world being able to intervene and stabilize a country, I mean has it worked ever? nothing confirmed. and yes it has worked, worked very well in the balkans. but its not the same situation. Mm, well was more thinking closer to the case of Syria where it's more driven by religion/fanatism rather politics. But on the point of the chemical weapons, I was paying a lot of attention last time chemical weapons were used, but I never saw any confirmation on who used them. Were there actually any results from that? I assume not since obviously no intervention was done, but yer...
un observers arrived just recently, and were going to 3 different locations to investigate.
ban ki has asked that they get to peep ghouta as well. source
according to rt they are ready to cooperate 100%, but we'll see.
|
On August 23 2013 03:53 revel8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
People do stupid things. Assad would look less guilty if he allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors to visit the site immediately. If he denies them permission, it makes him look like he has something to hide.
Yes, people do stupid things, but this kind of goes beyond it. He's winning the war and has been for quite a while, he has been able to massacre people quite freely, so why use chemical weapons? I ofcourse agree that he should allow UN inspection, but Assad isn't a saint(edit: understatement of the century, had to add that in here), I don't doubt for a second he has plenty of shit to hide(and plenty of reason to mistrust foreigners). A pot smoker isn't thrilled of the idea of allowing cops to search his home when he gets accused of selling cocaine.
|
On August 23 2013 03:50 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 03:40 deichkind wrote:On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
I have a really hard time with this, on one hand I hate knowing how much death and suffering is going on, but on the other I don't think whoever replaces Assad will be any better.
Also I think the fact the rebels were hoping for an intervention has made this civil war a lot worse than it should've been, with them trying to force the world to intervene. I don't see western world being able to intervene and stabilize a country, I mean has it worked ever? nothing confirmed. and yes it has worked, worked very well in the balkans. but its not the same situation. Mm, well was more thinking closer to the case of Syria where it's more driven by religion/fanatism rather politics. But on the point of the chemical weapons, I was paying a lot of attention last time chemical weapons were used, but I never saw any confirmation on who used them. Were there actually any results from that? I assume not since obviously no intervention was done, but yer...
the argument could be made that fanatic nationalism is the same as religious. its the only place i can think of like right now, im sure there are some other places aswell but hardly as infected as the syrian conflict. these people have fought over their religion since it began almost. no happy ending for syria im afraid.
|
On August 23 2013 03:42 Protosnake wrote:
There is absolutely no point for Assad to use chemical warfare right now, he was massively ahead and this recent move just fucked him over.
So tbh, the only question I have right now is "Rebels or CIA?"
Rebels, they want to make this attack look like it was made by Assad so western countries will have to send troops or better guns to them so they can finally overthrow the goverment, the thing is that USA and OTAN don't want to give them heavy weapons, ATA missiles, heavy artillery and stuff like that since then when the war is over it would be very likely that a considerable % of those weapons would fall into extremists hands, and a single stinger is more than able to shut down a commercial airplane. So now we have this really awkward situation where OTAN and UN can't really give heavy guns to the less radical side of the rebels because they don't have enough training to use them efficiently, and they can't give the guns to the more radical side because when this war is over all these weapons will be used against western countries and if they do actually go ahead and give then better guns when the war ends and it is revealed that the rebels did bad things whit these guns (that it will happen) they will be judged for supplliing guns to extremists, and if they don't give the damn guns then they will lose a shit ton of the little credibility OTAN has because Obama said that chemical weapons where the red line.
So, the last option the western countries have (that will not happen btw) is an armed intervention, Otan countries just can't afford another war and the bad pr it would mean.
To end this, what will happen now? i have no idea.
|
On August 23 2013 02:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Does absolutely no one use their brains anymore? These e-mails were "hacked" and released in the spring. This was already after limited CW use and Obama doing jack shit about it. Here we are again more CW use and what are France and the UK and Obama doing? Putting missiles on the warplanes? No, they're calling for an investigation.
the email in question is dated to 24th of december 2012 btw.
|
On August 23 2013 03:50 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 03:40 deichkind wrote:On August 23 2013 03:38 Zarahtra wrote:
Is it totally confirmed that it was Assad troops that did use chemical weapons? It just seems like a really stupid move, as I see it, the only move Assad could make to lose the war.
I have a really hard time with this, on one hand I hate knowing how much death and suffering is going on, but on the other I don't think whoever replaces Assad will be any better.
Also I think the fact the rebels were hoping for an intervention has made this civil war a lot worse than it should've been, with them trying to force the world to intervene. I don't see western world being able to intervene and stabilize a country, I mean has it worked ever? nothing confirmed. and yes it has worked, worked very well in the balkans. but its not the same situation. Mm, well was more thinking closer to the case of Syria where it's more driven by religion/fanatism rather politics. But on the point of the chemical weapons, I was paying a lot of attention last time chemical weapons were used, but I never saw any confirmation on who used them. Were there actually any results from that? I assume not since obviously no intervention was done, but yer...
You can't really get more political than religious fanatics
|
|
|
People really need to google pipelineistan for it all to make sense.
|
Rebels guided with jordanians, Israeli and american commandos with a few CIA are advancing toward Damas since 17 august
According to these info, the first armed group trained by the USA are beginning to push, and this could be what triggered the use of chemical weapons
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
