|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On December 14 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote: Assad acted badly and got a revolution on his hands. Problem is, now said movement has been co-opted by the international jihadist movement and has long since lost its original purpose. Best situation is probably simply to end those rebellions by a mix of Assad and some of the cooperative, but rebellious, parties in power. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances. With all the atrocities committed in his name Assad staying is hardly possible either. Even if he wins this war Syria is a ticking time bomb.
|
On December 14 2016 05:17 Wrath wrote:Show nested quote +. 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. Yeah, they need some kind of strong leader that can keep the extremists under control and command the troops to only take down Assad and his soldiers, not take food away from the civilians and rape their women. A strong, powerful leader with a iron grip on the rebels/insurgents/jidahists under his command.
That will solve all the problems in Syria.
On December 14 2016 05:23 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote: Assad acted badly and got a revolution on his hands. Problem is, now said movement has been co-opted by the international jihadist movement and has long since lost its original purpose. Best situation is probably simply to end those rebellions by a mix of Assad and some of the cooperative, but rebellious, parties in power. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances. With all the atrocities committed in his name Assad staying is hardly possible either. Even if he wins this war Syria is a ticking time bomb. The time bomb that is Syria went off a couple of years ago...
|
Rebellion issue is that you can literally name over a 100 faction. Unless somehow all those factions gets terminated and rebuilt under a single entity and the leader is a former General that knows war tactics and where to aim and how to counter.
It is becoming more of a "who's dick is bigger" contest between those factions instead of actually fighting the regime. During Aleppo war, not a single faction outside Aleppo did anything to attack the regime and help lessen the siege.
|
On December 14 2016 05:25 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 05:17 Wrath wrote:. 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. Yeah, they need some kind of strong leader that can keep the extremists under control and command the troops to only take down Assad and his soldiers, not take food away from the civilians and rape their women. A strong, powerful leader with a iron grip on the rebels/insurgents/jidahists under his command. That will solve all the problems in Syria. Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 05:23 RvB wrote:On December 14 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote: Assad acted badly and got a revolution on his hands. Problem is, now said movement has been co-opted by the international jihadist movement and has long since lost its original purpose. Best situation is probably simply to end those rebellions by a mix of Assad and some of the cooperative, but rebellious, parties in power. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances. With all the atrocities committed in his name Assad staying is hardly possible either. Even if he wins this war Syria is a ticking time bomb. The time bomb that is Syria went off a couple of years ago... No shit. My point is that even if the civil war ends in an Assad victory the fractures in society and violence will stay as long as he's in power. Assad has too much blood on his hands.
|
On December 14 2016 06:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 05:25 a_flayer wrote:On December 14 2016 05:17 Wrath wrote:. 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. Yeah, they need some kind of strong leader that can keep the extremists under control and command the troops to only take down Assad and his soldiers, not take food away from the civilians and rape their women. A strong, powerful leader with a iron grip on the rebels/insurgents/jidahists under his command. That will solve all the problems in Syria. On December 14 2016 05:23 RvB wrote:On December 14 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote: Assad acted badly and got a revolution on his hands. Problem is, now said movement has been co-opted by the international jihadist movement and has long since lost its original purpose. Best situation is probably simply to end those rebellions by a mix of Assad and some of the cooperative, but rebellious, parties in power. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances. With all the atrocities committed in his name Assad staying is hardly possible either. Even if he wins this war Syria is a ticking time bomb. The time bomb that is Syria went off a couple of years ago... No shit. My point is that even if the civil war ends in an Assad victory the fractures in society and violence will stay as long as he's in power. Assad has too much blood on his hands. And violence will stay if he disappears. The rifts between the different ethnicities / religions are now just way too big. This country is done.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Syria hasn't been stable in a long time. It's a poorly conceived nation. But I don't think it's quite done yet.
|
On December 14 2016 07:16 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 06:22 RvB wrote:On December 14 2016 05:25 a_flayer wrote:On December 14 2016 05:17 Wrath wrote:. 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. Yeah, they need some kind of strong leader that can keep the extremists under control and command the troops to only take down Assad and his soldiers, not take food away from the civilians and rape their women. A strong, powerful leader with a iron grip on the rebels/insurgents/jidahists under his command. That will solve all the problems in Syria. On December 14 2016 05:23 RvB wrote:On December 14 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote: Assad acted badly and got a revolution on his hands. Problem is, now said movement has been co-opted by the international jihadist movement and has long since lost its original purpose. Best situation is probably simply to end those rebellions by a mix of Assad and some of the cooperative, but rebellious, parties in power. Negotiations can possibly proceed but a hard line of "Assad must go" will no longer work under the current circumstances. With all the atrocities committed in his name Assad staying is hardly possible either. Even if he wins this war Syria is a ticking time bomb. The time bomb that is Syria went off a couple of years ago... No shit. My point is that even if the civil war ends in an Assad victory the fractures in society and violence will stay as long as he's in power. Assad has too much blood on his hands. And violence will stay if he disappears. The rifts between the different ethnicities / religions are now just way too big. This country is done.
The country isn't 'done' -- plenty of examples in history of countries managing to put far bigger adversities behind. Foreign agents need to stop pulling the country apart for them to have a chance at something better, though.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Aleppo seems to be basically a done deal. Rebels surrendering and civilians are being moved.
|
So where does Americas foreign policy go now that Obama's side lost in Syria?
|
Why so quick to point fingers at Obama? He's been against arming rebels against Assad, the arming of rebel groups by the Obama administration has been at a minimum. The rebels have been basically begging for more arms, and the Saudis I am sure have been asking for the same. It's not right to blame Obama for this war when it was W who destabilized the region in the first place. Assad even crossed the red line and Obama did nothing to escalate the violence. He could've went in and started bombing, a lot of people think it was a mistake not to do so.
If you're trying to read the tea leaves about what Trump will do in the region, it's impossible to say because I suspect that even Trump does not know what he will do. What is certain however is that you can expect a Trump administration to be much more acquiescent to the path Putin wants to go down.
I recommend this documentary about how Daesh gained a foothold in Iraq/Syria to explain a lot about American policy in the region for the past decade... basically we've been doing whatever made sense at the time but the end result was inadvertantly more violence and misery. The craziest part about it is that we know now that most of that violence was engineered by a handful of jihadists (Zarqawi, al-Baghdadi)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/
|
On December 14 2016 05:17 Wrath wrote:Show nested quote +. 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. again, you need contexts and something to compare things with.
- the context is Middle East arab states; you compare what Assad family did with what other arab rulers did. for you to compare Syria with what you now call modern Western states, is at least disingenuous if not totally delusional. in that context, Syria was the most modern and secular arab state(i'm including here human rights issues) and as far as Assad's killings go, Saudis killed more people in lawful public executions and they're a west friend and closest ally.
- going again to the war, no one wants Assad to rule forever. US&co. want him dead(better safe than sorry) and russians want a transition period after which Assad will step down from power and will be replaced by some form of constitutional democracy. - military, the rebellion is done for; they'll be branded as terrorists soon enough. politically, there's still a good chance for a transition in Syria from Assad to a democracy of sorts, loyal to russian interests(that is, if a ww3 is off the table).
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
On December 14 2016 18:08 xM(Z wrote: - going again to the war, no one wants Assad to rule forever. US&co. want him dead(better safe than sorry) and russians want a transition period after which Assad will step down from power and will be replaced by some form of constitutional democracy.
why would russia want this?
|
they don't care who rules Syria as long as it remains their ally. there were official offers for this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced
Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.
Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.
Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.
But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview. admittedly things evolved and what was valid then might not be valid now(as far as Assad willingness goes) but it still remains true that russians do not care who rules Syria.
|
Cease fire broke and Regime and Russia resume bombing.
Opposition says that Iran is responsible for breaking the cease fire because it tried to allow only injured to leave while civilians and others to be exchanged as prisoners with Iranian prisoners in other Opposition controlled areas in Foo'ah.
I'll provide sources later today.
|
On December 14 2016 19:09 xM(Z wrote:they don't care who rules Syria as long as it remains their ally. there were official offers for this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside Show nested quote +Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced
Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.
Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.
Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.
But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview. admittedly things evolved and what was valid then might not be valid now(as far as Assad willingness goes) but it still remains true that russians do not care who rules Syria.
I'm not sure if how that went down counts as an official offer. It seems to me like Vitaly Churkin spoke to Ahtisaari in a somewhat personal setting about this who then relayed it to the P3, but there were no official communications because the P3 rejected what Ahtisaari relayed out of hand. I fear this was because they didn't care about peace (or, if you believe what they said, they didn't believe the offer) and they just wanted to see Assad dead at the hands of the opposition.
I'm just going to post this 2 minute clip again so we can reflect on whether or not we should believe Russian diplomatic offers: + Show Spoiler +
In my opinion, all the people who listened to what Ahtisaari relayed but didn't act on it should be trialled for war crimes along with Assad. Ideally they should have lived in Eastern Aleppo for the past 5 years.
|
how about this then? https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/4/17/syrian-opposition-assad-will-step-down-in-months Mistura made the proposal for Assad to remain in office during a transitional period to the Saudi-backed HNC, during a meeting late on Friday.
"He proposed that President Assad would appoint three vice presidents that we choose, and that he would transfer his military and political prerogatives to them," an HNC source said.
"Effectively, Assad would stay in a ceremonial position. But we categorically rejected the proposal," the source added.
that is as official as it can get but it can be argued that some trust issues still remain valid(thing is, by that time, Assad had new wings, flying on passed victories).
you also have the interview with Assad from IranianTV http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/president-assad-says-he-will-step-aside-if-departure-part-solution-syria-crisis-1522390 Syrian president Bashar al-Assad said he is ready to step aside if his "departure is the solution". Assad was speaking in an interview with Iran's Khabar TV.
The West has previously insisted that Assad should leave office as part of any solution to the Syrian civil war. In recent weeks though Western leaders have softened their stance, with British Prime Minister David Cameron claiming that that Assad could remain in office as part of a transitional government. However, Cameron described Assad as a "butcher" earlier today.
"I say once again that if my departure is part of the solution, I will never hesitate to do that," said Assad, adding though that "this is decided only by the people". some squinting needed there but it does show some willingness for things on his part. (my opinion on that is him saying to the iranians that if they want to, he will step down).
some good reading also http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-insight-idUSKCN0X50O0 Faisal al-Yafai, a leading commentator from the United Arab Emirates, says Russia "played its cards in Syria very cleverly, but miscalculated in one aspect".
"They assumed that once the (Assad) regime felt secure, it would be more willing to negotiate. In fact, the opposite has happened”.
"There’s a limit to the pressure that Russia can exert on Assad. Assad absolutely will not go quietly -- and certainly not when there is no real alternative to him, even within the regime," says al-Yafai.
Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria and now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, agrees that Russia may not be able to compel Assad to go.
The secret police backbone of Assad’s rule remains intact, he says, and "Assad seems confident again, after his much more sober tone last summer. The Russians may have helped him too much, such that Assad can maintain control of key cities and roads for a long time".
Ford also drew attention to the competition over Syria between Russia and Iran, Assad’s two main allies. Moscow’s emphasis is on its traditional relations with the Syrian military establishment, while Tehran focusses on the militia network it built with Hezbollah to shore up the regime.
“Assad is plenty smart to know how to play one country off against the other. I am not even sure Russia would test its heavy pressure capacity against that of Iran in Damascus. The Russians know they might lose", Ford said. Edit: think of iranians doing this on their own, more or less(or them being the main policy architects in that region); straight lines from their resource deposits through Iraq and Syria all the way to the EU.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
|
- the context is Middle East arab states; you compare what Assad family did with what other arab rulers did. for you to compare Syria with what you now call modern Western states, is at least disingenuous if not totally delusional. in that context, Syria was the most modern and secular arab state(i'm including here human rights issues) and as far as Assad's killings go, Saudis killed more people in lawful public executions and they're a west friend and closest ally.
Where did I even compare Syria to a western country. And no, calling Syria the most modern country is the biggest joke of all time. Don't even compare it to the gulf states. What you are trying to point out is the "Secular" part. Iraq before 2003 was the most advanced Arab country.
Obviously it is an issue for you that religion and state are correlating in the middle east in general that you are trying to point out the secular part and associate it with modernism.
Anyway, regarding the situation with the regime his allies, it is like this:
- Assad: He does not give a shit what happens to the country or people as long as he stays "The President". He is willing to let the country be occupied, the people massacred and he won't give a shit.
- Iran: Trying to create a Shiite Crescent that goes from Iran - Iraq - Syria - Lebanon and the other side from Iran - Yemen to contain the Sunni Gulf states and slowly occupies them to control the holy city Mecca.
- Russia: Wants to have influence in the Middle East especially with Trump coming to power and his policy of "USA Economy Comes First" instead that policy of Bush and Obama.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Any talk of how Assad is basically Hitler and needs to be deposed should start by giving an actual alternative for the leadership of Syria, or at the very least the means by which it will be partitioned if you want to play that game. Otherwise, it's just empty words.
|
There is a replacement for Assad to lead a transition period. His name is Riyad Farid Hijab
|
|
|
|