|
Muffiner posted:And yes, western intelligence agencies do know who is trustworthy and who isn't. This isn't a murky quagmire where all the military leaders are unknown, this is a situation where they have been meeting with military leaders from all over Syria for months now.  Do you really think that meeting with a bunch of shady, shifting factions is going to magically give western intelligence agencies (agencies that are well known for their ability to fully grasp intricate cultural dynamics specific to this region, oh wait) insight into who is worth giving heavy weapons to? Or that once those weapons are distributed that they will stay solely in the hands of the people we have somehow figured out are "good"? Every single instance of providing armed aid from history (not to mention basic common sense) is completely at odds with this.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
The irony of this whole debate is that all of the gulf state monarchies, our ostensible allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. are going right into it, dumping money and arms to their pet militia groups within the FSA while the U.S. pays them lip service and still wring their hands over providing their own arms in the region. There's very little that can go right in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Miruvor posted:The irony of this whole debate is that all of the gulf state monarchies, our ostensible allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. are going right into it, dumping money and arms to their pet militia groups within the FSA while the U.S. pays them lip service and still wring their hands over providing their own arms in the region. Well at least we're starting to get a reputation for second-guessing ourselves. That's a good bit better than the reputation Bush gave us 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Now we can all pretend that the CIA and MI6 have hilariously inadequate capabilities when it comes to gathering intelligence about armed groups, but in this case you have Jordanian and Turkish intelligence also working on the situation. If both haven't been devoting a lot of their resources and time on trying to ID each fighting group and understand the dynamics of what is going on in Syria, I'd be very surprised. On the other hand if pretending that staying out of it is the best choice, then prepare to have a state that in the best possible scenario will be very hostile to the west, with a large and scary contingent of well-armed, well-financed, motivated and experienced Qaeda-like fighters causing a lot of trouble, if not outright ruling the land. Because this is what will happen. Fighters are abandoning more moderate battalions for Jabhat Al Nusra (JAN?), and the main force behind that is the better armaments and financing they have. The situation in Syria isn't Vietnam, or the Contras, or anything else. There are established groups on the ground who will not be disenfranchised if they receive arms. This isn't some foreign influencer trying to manufacture a whole new movement to counter communism, it is simple backing of an already established movement that has developed independent of any foreign influence. Keep the moderates isolated from any international help while the most extreme groups are being grown and nurtured by foreign players, why that will surely work!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:Keep the moderates isolated from any international help while the most extreme groups are being grown and nurtured by foreign players, why that will surely work!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
Miruvor posted:The irony of this whole debate is that all of the gulf state monarchies, our ostensible allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. are going right into it, dumping money and arms to their pet militia groups within the FSA while the U.S. pays them lip service and still wring their hands over providing their own arms in the region. The US joining in would make nothing better, though. Proxy wars aren't improved by adding more proxies into the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:On the other hand if pretending that staying out of it is the best choice, then prepare to have a state that in the best possible scenario will be very hostile to the west, with a large and scary contingent of well-armed, well-financed, motivated and experienced Qaeda-like fighters causing a lot of trouble, if not outright ruling the land. Yes because thats totally not how Libya turned out after we intervened...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Yes because thats totally not how Libya turned out after we intervened... I don't agree with the guy, but it really didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
BBC just reported that Morsi is going to annul his decree!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:BBC just reported that Morsi is going to annul his decree! This is great news for Egypt, it shows that popular protests are able to keep executive power from getting out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:BBC just reported that Morsi is going to annul his decree! Excellent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Chamale posted:This is great news for Egypt, it shows that popular protests are able to keep executive power from getting out of hand. Hopefully, this won't stop the opposition from being more united or if we're being absurd may lead to a split between Morsi "Not-Islamic Brotherhood" and the Islamic Brotherhood in terms of alliance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Some of this stuff is in reference to a page or two ago, but I was reading the thread yesterday and didn't have time to respond.iyaayas01 posted:I'd also add that the U.S. has an absolutely awful track record of intervening in situations like this and that doing nothing is a legitimate policy option that is too often forgotten by a U.S. foreign policy institution that thinks it has to solve all the world's problems, but I doubt this would get said by anyone actually in government as a reason for why the U.S. should not intervene. There's such a drastic difference between each administration foreign policy wise after every election that looking at a historical precedent from decades ago is pretty ridiculous. The United States is not inherently doomed to act the same way at all times. Libya is a great example of intervention done right with the Obama administration. If there's a way to end Assad's regime and allow it to replaced by an upstart democracy that has majority support from the people and would have positive results for Syria, than we should call for that, regardless of what happened with the Mujahideen. We should be talking about whether or not a viable option even exists. Not "No, no, America will gently caress it up anyways because America." That seems kind of unfair to the people who are actually being affected by this conflict. Also for your last point, there was someone in government saying that, but the lamestream media wasn't watching.  r ution Why do you guys keep referring to the Syrian National Council like that is the top of the food chain? They are a fraction of the Syrian National Coalition, which has pretty drat substantial support. They are the sole representatives of the Syrian people as recognized by the United States, the UK, France, the Arab League, a large part, if not a majority of the non-salafist rebels, and the European Union. They are even sending out ambassadors. Not bad for only being a month old. The Council makes up about a third of the Coalition. Comparing either to the Mujahideen is ridiculous.  http://www.aljazeera.com/category/organisation/syrian-national-coalition This isn't a proxy war situation at all. Syria was much more complicated than Libya at the start, but now it's starting to look like it's heading in a similar direction. This isn't about choosing sides in a civil war anymore. This is a fledgling government appealing to the international community because they are dealing with a genocidal warlord who is waving around chemical weapons. If you don't intervene in this situation, where does the line get drawn? How do you decide when Assad has gone too far? Now obviously, there's a lot of worry about the Alawites and roving bands of islamists and others left over from units like the al-Nusra front, but with the Coalition as a transitional government, and a people who, like the Egyptians, aren't going to hesitate to fiercely protest if the Coalition doesn't toe the line, I think with international support, stability can come to Syria. And of course, because I think that, I also believe now's the time to intervene, before chemical weapons start getting thrown around, and because I feel there's a solid option on the table. But my idea of intervention isn't to start tossing guns around. The FSA has come leaps and bounds over the last year. They don't need a whole hell of a lot to overthrow Assad. Simply taking out armor and aircraft from a distance while (continuing to) providing intel for the rebels would be enough to cripple the regime, without leaving behind weapons. After that, all you have to do is provide aid and work with the Coalition to maintain order and maximize their ability to prevent these horrible potential outcomes we all fear. They have already demonstrated clearly that they are willing to interact with the international community, and they've been moderate. I see absolutely nothing to suggest that the status quo is better than the Coalition becoming the interim government of Syria. It's not going to be butter smooth, but it never is. Benghazi and the recent episodes with Morsi are evidence of that. But it's still the right direction. The more interesting question is what is going to become of Kurd-controlled northern Syria. I wonder if they are going to jump on board with the Coalition, or remain adamant on holding the area. Or divide and do both. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
The majority of the soldiers in the Syrian Army have to be sunni right? I would think religious sectarianism would be involved when soldiers are sniping at children
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:When in history has the US chosen to arm leftists over theocrats? The Shah, Saddam Hussien, Hosni Mubarak, etc. We've armed plenty of secular leaders to fight theocrats. Most of them just as bad in their own way as the theocrats. The middle just doesn't produce many factions that are up to our standards on civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Secular does not equate with leftist. The Shah was by no means a leftist leader. The primary determining characteristic of individuals the US was willing to support since the beginning of the Cold War was their anti-Communist credentials. An amusing fact is that in the early 70's the US actually attempted to work with Musa al Sadr, the Iranian born cleric who founded the Lebanese Shia political party/milita AMAL. They saw his commitment to an Islamic focus in regards to social justice as preferable than that being promulgated by the LCP, PSP and leftist leaning Palestinian factions in Lebanon. Only after the Iranian Revolution did the US begin to see Islamic rhetoric as something to be concerned with. Even after the Beirut embassy and barracks bombings, ME policy was still being processed through a Cold War anti-Soviet lens. Hussein and Mubarak did put down and repress the Dawa and the Brotherhood respectively, but that's not why the US was supporting them. Please remember that one of the world's most theocratic states is our bosom buddy and has been for about 50 years now. And I'm not talking about Israel
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand the opposition to the referendum on the Constitution. The whole point is if people really don't like it, they can vote against it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
Up until recently Morsi gave himself de-facto dictatorial powers until a constitution was passed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
The situation in a Syria is an ethnic civil war that's only framed in terms of dictatorship versus democracy when it comes to swooning Westerners. As fast as you are to characterize this as a sole crazed dictator fighting a war of oppression, the fact of the matter is that the actual war is (rural, conservative) Sunni vs. the old Alawite elite (with a bunch of minorities mixed in), and even with Assad gone they would still be fighting this war. Your failure to acknowledge this is the exact reason why American intervention is a terrible idea: whoever wins, there's probably going to be some serious massacres and, in the case of a Sunni victory, ethnic cleansing. Civil wars are a messy business, and to believe that you can achieve a 'good' outcome by giving guns to the side with the best PR is idiotic. You're not going to achieve an open, democratic society by fueling a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Smashurbanipal posted:Secular does not equate with leftist. The Shah was by no means a leftist leader. The primary determining characteristic of individuals the US was willing to support since the beginning of the Cold War was their anti-Communist credentials. An amusing fact is that in the early 70's the US actually attempted to work with Musa al Sadr, the Iranian born cleric who founded the Lebanese Shia political party/milita AMAL. They saw his commitment to an Islamic focus in regards to social justice as preferable than that being promulgated by the LCP, PSP and leftist leaning Palestinian factions in Lebanon. Only after the Iranian Revolution did the US begin to see Islamic rhetoric as something to be concerned with. Even after the Beirut embassy and barracks bombings, ME policy was still being processed through a Cold War anti-Soviet lens. Hell, in the last couple years of the Truman administration the US publicly supported Mossadegh and the nationalization of the AIOC (contingent on a buyout of the Anglo- part of the outfit) and sent Attlee back to London explaining that we weren't going to help them invade Iran to prevent the takeover. Later on, the CIA started working to undermine Mossadegh despite US supporting him publicly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:The situation in a Syria is an ethnic civil war that's only framed in terms of dictatorship versus democracy when it comes to swooning Westerners. Then why are the Arab-language statements from the FSA always concerning the removal of Assad? The sectarian conflict comes from the favoritism the Assads gave Alawites, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:The situation in a Syria is an ethnic civil war that's only framed in terms of dictatorship versus democracy when it comes to swooning Westerners. As fast as you are to characterize this as a sole crazed dictator fighting a war of oppression, the fact of the matter is that the actual war is (rural, conservative) Sunni vs. the old Alawite elite (with a bunch of minorities mixed in), and even with Assad gone they would still be fighting this war. Your failure to acknowledge this is the exact reason why American intervention is a terrible idea: whoever wins, there's probably going to be some serious massacres and, in the case of a Sunni victory, ethnic cleansing. Civil wars are a messy business, and to believe that you can achieve a 'good' outcome by giving guns to the side with the best PR is idiotic. You're not going to achieve an open, democratic society by fueling a civil war. While I think you might be right about this, I'm really not sure. The civil war in Syria didnt start out as a civil war, but as protests inspired by other Arab springs like in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya etc. People wanted democracy and dignity in the beginning and were all about non violence. But after getting massacred and not receiving any help from anyone they decided to fight back and perhaps they got co-opted by people bent on sectarian divisions and islamists? But as for the aftermath of this civil war, I agree with your outlook. I think its going to be pretty horrific. And I think thats why most western countries arent getting too involved right now because they see the writing on the walls as to whats going to happen once Assad falls and dont want to contribute to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I'm not sure I understand the opposition to the referendum on the Constitution. The whole point is if people really don't like it, they can vote against it. A student posted:Up until recently Morsi gave himself de-facto dictatorial powers until a constitution was passed. Yeah, I think a lot of the people are pretty sensitive about 'emergency powers' that might become permanent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 09:37
|
|
|
Yeah that's problematic, but the constitutional referendum itself seems like a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah that's problematic, but the constitutional referendum itself seems like a good thing. It can become paradoxical to have a constitution that can be thrown out and re-written with haste if you view the Egypt thing a certain way. On the other hand, I'm getting pretty annoyed at every Karl, Dick, and Pamella calling every country in the middle east as "new Islamic Iran" every 20 seconds, especially since unlike Iran there isn't a figure such as Khommeni to rally so many people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:While I think you might be right about this, I'm really not sure. The civil war in Syria didnt start out as a civil war, but as protests inspired by other Arab springs like in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya etc. People wanted democracy and dignity in the beginning and were all about non violence. But after getting massacred and not receiving any help from anyone they decided to fight back and perhaps they got co-opted by people bent on sectarian divisions and islamists? But as for the aftermath of this civil war, I agree with your outlook. I think its going to be pretty horrific. And I think thats why most western countries arent getting too involved right now because they see the writing on the walls as to whats going to happen once Assad falls and dont want to contribute to it. The sad part is, there are Alawites on the rebels' side. Assad used terror and fear to make sure not many are following them, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 12:57
|
|
|
LP97S posted:It can become paradoxical to have a constitution that can be thrown out and re-written with haste if you view the Egypt thing a certain way. On the other hand, I'm getting pretty annoyed at every Karl, Dick, and Pamella calling every country in the middle east as "new Islamic Iran" every 20 seconds, especially since unlike Iran there isn't a figure such as Khommeni to rally so many people. Just keep in mind the number one driver of those sentiments in America is an insane and overriding desire to see America harmed as a consequence of electing a Elect the guy on an honest belief he's better suited to broker peace and uplift the disadvantaged? NO gently caress YOU, I WANT MORE WARS AND MORE POVERTY.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itf5KYVEUdM A new type of barrel bomb from Daraya. There is a decent still image here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itf5KYVEUdM Looks like an M-08 contact mine.  http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry2120.aspx Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Are naval mines likely to detonate by hitting dry ground when dropped from a helicopter or is this a sign of how desperate the army is to do something, however futile, to put a dent in the rebels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Are naval mines likely to detonate by hitting dry ground when dropped from a helicopter or is this a sign of how desperate the army is to do something, however futile, to put a dent in the rebels? Regardless of their likelihood to detonate, you don't throw naval mines out of helicopters at rebels because things are going well. There seems a real disconnect between the actions of the regime and the claims by third parties that the army is somehow a coherent fighting force that will prevent a sudden regime collapse. The best you can say is it's evidence they're still trying to fight, but we're entering the stage where, having run out of bullets, you throw your gun at the bad guy. I have to applaud the cameraman for staying the gently caress away from it though. Also, the use of the guard cat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Are naval mines likely to detonate by hitting dry ground when dropped from a helicopter or is this a sign of how desperate the army is to do something, however futile, to put a dent in the rebels? It could work. The acid vial detonation system could be triggered on impact. Though when naval mines were used in WW2 against land targets both sides opted for different detonation systems so impact detonation is probably inherently unreliable somehow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_mine
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Hell, in the last couple years of the Truman administration the US publicly supported Mossadegh and the nationalization of the AIOC (contingent on a buyout of the Anglo- part of the outfit) and sent Attlee back to London explaining that we weren't going to help them invade Iran to prevent the takeover. Later on, the CIA started working to undermine Mossadegh despite US supporting him publicly. All the Shah's Men has a great recounting of what happened. Truman begged the British to make their oil deal with Iran more fair but the Brits were clinging to their old colonies thinking that they still were the old empire. When Truman left, Eisenhower put new people in charge at the CIA and State and the Brits trumped up the claim that Iran would go to Soviet Russia if Mossadegh came into power. The CIA bit on the fear and well, the rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Get that kitten away from that bomb! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:The situation in a Syria is an ethnic civil war that's only framed in terms of dictatorship versus democracy when it comes to swooning Westerners. As fast as you are to characterize this as a sole crazed dictator fighting a war of oppression, the fact of the matter is that the actual war is (rural, conservative) Sunni vs. the old Alawite elite (with a bunch of minorities mixed in), and even with Assad gone they would still be fighting this war. Your failure to acknowledge this is the exact reason why American intervention is a terrible idea: whoever wins, there's probably going to be some serious massacres and, in the case of a Sunni victory, ethnic cleansing. Civil wars are a messy business, and to believe that you can achieve a 'good' outcome by giving guns to the side with the best PR is idiotic. You're not going to achieve an open, democratic society by fueling a civil war. And nobody is saying arm everybody. In the end, if you don't even try and help the people who are concerned with defending any of the minorities against some sort of onslaught sooner or later, then don't be surprised when it happens. Denying them any meaningful help will weaken their position, and strengthen the position of the more sectarian voices. What you will find is a majority of the country coerced into a difficult position where they are 'backing' some sectarian group due to being unable to fight them off, and any possible anti-sectarian group too weak to rally the population into a non-genocidal solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itf5KYVEUdM If you ever want to hear "Allah Ackbar" in cat-speak, this is the youtube for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:If you ever want to hear "Allah Ackbar" in cat-speak, this is the youtube for you. It seems sad it's being used wrong 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:And nobody is saying arm everybody. In the end, if you don't even try and help the people who are concerned with defending any of the minorities against some sort of onslaught sooner or later, then don't be surprised when it happens. Denying them any meaningful help will weaken their position, and strengthen the position of the more sectarian voices. What you will find is a majority of the country coerced into a difficult position where they are 'backing' some sectarian group due to being unable to fight them off, and any possible anti-sectarian group too weak to rally the population into a non-genocidal solution. The fact that hypothetical non-sectarian groups would need significant western aid to even theoretically have a chance against the sectarian ones is prima facie evidence that the population simply isn't interested in fighting the same war liberals in the West would like them to. You're also assuming that the US and others would be comfortable arming groups that will likely end up in opposition to Islamists and others armed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which seems unlikely. The situation in Syria is a proxy war motivated by sovereign self-interest and by believing that the most humanitarian solution is allowing CIA spooks to pour arms onto the situation you become little more than a useful idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It seems sad it's being used wrong What are the tears made of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Schizotek posted:What are the tears made of? The blood of an entire nation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:56
|
|