|
Pervis posted:I assumed part of the Iran negotiations are to split it from Russia a bit, as events in Russia, Syria, and Iran are all intertwined. Splitting Syria/Hezbollah from Iran seems fanciful thinking, especially given Iran's control/influence of the Iraqi government. Defusing the regional proxy war a bit going on between the Gulf States, Turkey, and Iran is about the only way Syria has anything approaching and endgame for the civil war. At this point though I don't think that's something that can be done by the West. Focus resources on enhancing the areas of the world that suck far far less like... you know, the United States.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
How about just killing the son of a bitch when the idiot actually takes a peak to negotiate? Kerry is a really bad SoS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:How about just killing the son of a bitch when the idiot actually takes a peak to negotiate? Who'll replace him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:How about just killing the son of a bitch when the idiot actually takes a peak to negotiate? Sounds like a great way to ever, ever get any polarizing individual to speak to a U.S. representative ever again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Claim it was a Nam flashback and he thought Assad was VC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Sounds like a great way to ever, ever get any polarizing individual to speak to a U.S. representative ever again. Didn't an opposition leader go to Syria when invited by China and Russia, thinking this was some sort of guarantee and he got tortured to death by Assad pretty much immediately ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Didn't an opposition leader go to Syria when invited by China and Russia, thinking this was some sort of guarantee and he got tortured to death by Assad pretty much immediately ? Sort of, he was invited as a way to discredit him as a coward in case he refused to return to Syria to die. He knew he was a dead man walking, only question was whether he wanted to die with dignity and have the comforting thought that his death would save his extended relatives, or die in disgrace without hearing from his family again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Assad isn't a realistic option no matter how you slice it. Despite the regime being propped up by foreigners from Iran and elsewhere in the region who have rushed into the country in large numers, they can't make advances. They can't even cut off Aleppo, which they'd achieved earlier in the war for a time. ISIS is making advances against the opposition in areas the regime doesn't control, despite fighting a whole other front in Iraq and yet, everywhere else is stagnant. The regime and its allies can't defeat ISIS, they can't control Syria, and going to bat for them plays right into ISIS' key recruiting pitch. If it's not a better option than sweeping the conflict under the carpet and pretending it's not happening, it's not worth discussing. It's like saying the Janjaweed are the best realistic option for Somalia. It doesn't work like that. The rebels can do even less, and are/have been defecting to ISIS in increasing numbers by the minute. Their FSA has been a gutted shell for multiple years now, and every attempt to arm a "moderate" opposition has failed and led to more and more weapons and equipment falling to ISIS. Earlier in the thread you argued that if the US had created a no-fly zone that America's popularity with Syrians would skyrocket, but I think that's a pipe-dream considering how it ignores the very substantial number of people in Syria who do, really, no actually, prefer Assad to nonexistent rebel leadership and the insanity of ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Sort of, he was invited as a way to discredit him as a coward in case he refused to return to Syria to die. He knew he was a dead man walking, only question was whether he wanted to die with dignity and have the comforting thought that his death would save his extended relatives, or die in disgrace without hearing from his family again. Oh really? Who is this person might I ask?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Who'll replace him? Find an Ivy Leaguer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Pervis posted:I assumed part of the Iran negotiations are to split it from Russia a bit, as events in Russia, Syria, and Iran are all intertwined. Splitting Syria/Hezbollah from Iran seems fanciful thinking, especially given Iran's control/influence of the Iraqi government. Defusing the regional proxy war a bit going on between the Gulf States, Turkey, and Iran is about the only way Syria has anything approaching and endgame for the civil war. At this point though I don't think that's something that can be done by the West. The negotiations on the Golans occurred just prior to the Arab Spring, for Israel isolating Iran was and is far more of a concern. Going back you may recall there were accusations that the rebels were zionist puppets, whatever the cours eof negotaitons may have taken, it's absolutely clear at this point Assad needs Iran and Hezbollah more than he would need to fulfill revanchist desires towards the Golans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
God, Golan. I guess Syria can just say goodbye to any hope of ever getting the heights back. Who would even be in a position to receive it in the event of an eventual deal between Israel and whatever's left of Syria?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The rebels can do even less, and are/have been defecting to ISIS in increasing numbers by the minute. Their FSA has been a gutted shell for multiple years now, and every attempt to arm a "moderate" opposition has failed and led to more and more weapons and equipment falling to ISIS. Earlier in the thread you argued that if the US had created a no-fly zone that America's popularity with Syrians would skyrocket, but I think that's a pipe-dream considering how it ignores the very substantial number of people in Syria who do, really, no actually, prefer Assad to nonexistent rebel leadership and the insanity of ISIS. There's Libya to look at for what might've happened in the event of a no-fly zone enacted (and bombing campaign of airbases and air defense network) early on. It went OK at first, but the post-war kerfluffle was still problematic, leading to arms flowing to folks like Boko Harem (right?). Later our "friends" in the region then started influencing events in the country towards their own ends. Ousting Assad quickly might've been an option, but after Libya I'm not sure if NATO would've gone for it nor what the Russian or Iranian response would've been if we had tried. I know they weren't thrilled by the outcome of Libya, at least publicly. After the gas attacks we should have done something, but that failed both in the UK and the US to pass in the legislature. Of course I don't know what we should've done, or what it might cost or achieve. The war in Syria is wound up in the ongoing Iranian nuclear talks I imagine. A nuclear Iran in exchange for a sunni-led Syria, wouldn't be a choice most folks would like. farraday posted:The negotiations on the Golans occurred just prior to the Arab Spring, for Israel isolating Iran was and is far more of a concern. Going back you may recall there were accusations that the rebels were zionist puppets, whatever the cours eof negotaitons may have taken, it's absolutely clear at this point Assad needs Iran and Hezbollah more than he would need to fulfill revanchist desires towards the Golans. Ah, I thought you were talking about the ongoing Iranian nuclear negotiations, not the Golan stuff from back then. I remember that being something that was talked about here, but that's about it. And yeah, that's his only way of holding on, and only real source of funding (beyond Russia or something?).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Pervis posted:There's Libya to look at for what might've happened in the event of a no-fly zone enacted (and bombing campaign of airbases and air defense network) early on. It went OK at first, but the post-war kerfluffle was still problematic, leading to arms flowing to folks like Boko Harem (right?). Later our "friends" in the region then started influencing events in the country towards their own ends. Ousting Assad quickly might've been an option, but after Libya I'm not sure if NATO would've gone for it nor what the Russian or Iranian response would've been if we had tried. I know they weren't thrilled by the outcome of Libya, at least publicly. Well, yeah. Libya has some similar problems to Syria, like the rebels never really having an organized leadership or a clearly-defined vision for the country beyond the interests of each of a dozen separate forces fighting on the ground, or of the various groups in exile giving interviews to western press in hotels far from the fighting. I can see a US-intervention ending up a lot like Libya, or worse, since I don't buy the argument that if the US had intervened after Ghouta ISIS would have been nipped at the bud. If anything, I feel that would catalyze the group's emergence, and we'd be fighting them instead of the regime by now, just as an insurgency instead of a weird quasi-state. With the added bonus of (if we restricted the campaign to aircraft) of the new government having to occupy both the Alawi areas AND fight ISIS in the east. People have said a lot of things about how the US would be viewed more positively if we'd intervened, but I'm highly skeptical about that since it reeks of "We'll be greeted as Liberators!" The majority of Iraqis detested Saddam, but they hated us even worse after the occupation started in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
What's the likelihood of an independent Kurdistan coming out of all these years of mess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What's the likelihood of an independent Kurdistan coming out of all these years of mess? It's pretty much already de-facto independent, ain't nobody from Damascus coming in to oversee the Syrian parts, and Iraqi Kurdistan has been autonomous for a long while. Turkey has the biggest chunk will probably never really accept anything more than that and I have no idea about the Iranian part, so barring some further shakeups (which, okay, let's be real: been a lot of those lately), Kurdistan is going to have to settle for a dotted line border like Abhkazia or Transnistria instead of a solid one for the forseeable future (tomorrow, maybe up to Wednesday if we're optimistic).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What's the likelihood of an independent Kurdistan coming out of all these years of mess? Well, a lot of news outlets are already talking like it exists. The Frontline report on the rise of Isis, posted a ways upthread, referred to Erbil as simply "in Kurdistan" as opposed to "in Iraqi Kurdistan," the 'official' name of the region. The more the Kurds gain legitimacy against Isis, the more likely it is that they'll get to keep the parts they've carved out of Syria and Iraq, although their goals in Turkey and Iran are highly unlikely to happen. It's likely that Turkey and Iran won't want any sort of Kurdistan at all, even if it doesn't officially lay claim to areas within their borders, because it will give the group international legitimacy and embolden their own separatist movements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:What's the likelihood of an independent Kurdistan coming out of all these years of mess? Depends who wins in '16. Clinton? Bat's chance in hell, what with all those state contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Jeb '16? Jeb don't play second-fiddle to some has-been neo-Ottoman. Biden? Pure tossup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Assad isn't a realistic option no matter how you slice it. Despite the regime being propped up by foreigners from Iran and elsewhere in the region who have rushed into the country in large numers, they can't make advances. They can't even cut off Aleppo, which they'd achieved earlier in the war for a time. ISIS is making advances against the opposition in areas the regime doesn't control, despite fighting a whole other front in Iraq and yet, everywhere else is stagnant. The regime and its allies can't defeat ISIS, they can't control Syria, and going to bat for them plays right into ISIS' key recruiting pitch. If it's not a better option than sweeping the conflict under the carpet and pretending it's not happening, it's not worth discussing. It's like saying the Janjaweed are the best realistic option for Somalia. It doesn't work like that. Do you honestly think that a scenario other than Assad, ISIS, and Nusra emerging as the three main actors is likely? Assad deliberately has been giving ISIS a free hand, and unfortunately it has worked brilliantly. If/when the west gets on board (and I think at the same time the remaining non-Nusra opposition will fall or join Nusra), they'll stop holding back against ISIS and comfortably cripple them. A Sunni guerilla movement will likely continue indefinitely, but I think a majority of civilians/refugees would go with an armistice. farraday posted:The thrust of negotiations with Syria was to create a split between Syria/Iran/Hezbollah. You think this is at all likely now that Assad has been shown on being militarily and financially dependent on their support to maintain power? This is realistic? Why does America and/or Israel need to be at war with those actors? Hezbollah is a lot less rational than the western media gives them credit for, but eventually they might realize that Salafis literally do want to exterminate them, while a Herzog government might be a willing partner. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Depends who wins in '16. Clinton? Bat's chance in hell, what with all those state contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Jeb '16? Jeb don't play second-fiddle to some has-been neo-Ottoman. Hey MIGF, could you please tell me who you're talking about in this post: My Imaginary GF posted:Sort of, he was invited as a way to discredit him as a coward in case he refused to return to Syria to die. He knew he was a dead man walking, only question was whether he wanted to die with dignity and have the comforting thought that his death would save his extended relatives, or die in disgrace without hearing from his family again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Why does America and/or Israel need to be at war with those actors? Hezbollah is a lot less rational than the western media gives them credit for, but eventually they might realize that Salafis literally do want to exterminate them, while a Herzog government might be a willing partner. You can think whatever you want, just don't pretend it is somehow being a realist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Muffiner posted:Hey MIGF, could you please tell me who you're talking about in this post: he is probably making it all up, because migf is immune to correct information
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:The Washington Post just released an interview with Sisi, wherein the similarities to the Foreign Affairs interview with Assad are pretty stark. His referring to himself in the third person is particularly creepy. I've bolded some choice responses from him, but it's probably better read on the website. I know this is from a few pages/days ago, but what specific points that Sisi made does this thread disagree with? And more importantly, why is the argument that the human garbage of the Muslim Brotherhood would tear down Pharohnic historical sites so hard to believe? Their goals are the exact same as those of Daesh; they only differ in their methods and tactics, and not very much in those. If Daesh/ISIS was an actual political party in Egypt and won an election, would you all be saying we should support their "government"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The rebels can do even less, and are/have been defecting to ISIS in increasing numbers by the minute. Their FSA has been a gutted shell for multiple years now, and every attempt to arm a "moderate" opposition has failed and led to more and more weapons and equipment falling to ISIS. Earlier in the thread you argued that if the US had created a no-fly zone that America's popularity with Syrians would skyrocket, but I think that's a pipe-dream considering how it ignores the very substantial number of people in Syria who do, really, no actually, prefer Assad to nonexistent rebel leadership and the insanity of ISIS. It's a pipe dream today as we enter year 4, but that wasn't the case a few years ago. I don't think there's a whole lot of middle ground. I haven't seen any interviews of people who support the revolution but think it's failing and giving into Assad is the best course of action. The ones who do prefer Assad have done so all along and can be summed up by their catchy slogan: "Assad or we burn the country." illrepute posted:People have said a lot of things about how the US would be viewed more positively if we'd intervened, but I'm highly skeptical about that since it reeks of "We'll be greeted as Liberators!" The majority of Iraqis detested Saddam, but they hated us even worse after the occupation started in earnest. It happened in Libya. The US had a higher approval rating in Libya than they did in Canada until they up and left one of the weakest governments in the region with one of the worst security situations in the region and said "good luck!" The Iraq War is hardly the gold standard of what an intervention looks like. Kim Jong Il posted:Do you honestly think that a scenario other than Assad, ISIS, and Nusra emerging as the three main actors is likely? Assad deliberately has been giving ISIS a free hand, and unfortunately it has worked brilliantly. If/when the west gets on board (and I think at the same time the remaining non-Nusra opposition will fall or join Nusra), they'll stop holding back against ISIS and comfortably cripple them. A Sunni guerilla movement will likely continue indefinitely, but I think a majority of civilians/refugees would go with an armistice. That's irrelevant. The argument is over whether a scenario where Assad controls everything again is plausible, and it's not. I totally agree that Assad has prioritized fighting against forces like the SRF and the FSA over ISIS, but he's not even making gains against them. He doesn't even have anything close to total control his own capital, because a huge chunk has been held for years by the people he most wants to fight, and he can't push them out. And it's a matter of opinion, but if Assad did somehow magically "win," I think it's guaranteeing Zaatari and such become permanent cities rather than refugee camps, because no one wants to subject themselves to the whims of the old regime that is now more paranoid and more prioritized on crushing dissent. You wouldn't have true peace. You'd have a cease-fire while the opposition attempted to re-arm and regroup. We'd be right back here later on down the road. Liberal_L33t posted:I know this is from a few pages/days ago, but what specific points that Sisi made does this thread disagree with? Good luck trying to draw equivalence between what Morsi's government did and the outright fascism and brutality committed by Sisi's government, much less trying to compare them to daesh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If Daesh/ISIS was an actual political party in Egypt and won an election, would you all be saying we should support their "government"? Yeah man, what if they did something awful, like overthrow a democratically elected government, and have thousands of peaceful protesters killed or arrested on trumped up charges! Wouldn't that be awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
I'm struck by how the current Middle East conflict appears o be the dawn of a post-state era of middle east history. There is today a crescent, stretching from Lebanon to Iraq, where no government can be said to hold a monopoly on authority. Instead power is held by sub or trans-nationalist forces, Hezbollah, ISIS, various Kurdish groups, the many Shia militias of Iraq. Authority in this new post-state system as often as not comes from pre-national tribal and clan networks, which, contrary to the predictions of 20th century political theorists, have not only survived the rise of nationalism, but have steadily increased their power and autonomy from the state. I have never heard any strategy seriously proposing how to reconstruct these states, and the current status quo in which sub and trans-national actors are the real powers in the region seems likely to continue indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Squalid posted:
I guess they didn't forsee how damaging to state and public authority western interventions would be over time, coupled with how fragile authoritarian client states are to begin with. Left alone, arab states could have continued to rule over and manage any other possible alternative to authority, tribal or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what should be my opinion of Pakistan as a state/human rights record?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Out of curiosity, what should be my opinion of Pakistan as a state/human rights record? Oh, they're pretty awful. The government is just barely kept in line by the US to keep them from pulling the nuclear trigger against India, before their nuclear program really got going we mostly ignored them due to them being dicks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's irrelevant. The argument is over whether a scenario where Assad controls everything again is plausible, and it's not. I totally agree that Assad has prioritized fighting against forces like the SRF and the FSA over ISIS, but he's not even making gains against them. He doesn't even have anything close to total control his own capital, because a huge chunk has been held for years by the people he most wants to fight, and he can't push them out. And it's a matter of opinion, but if Assad did somehow magically "win," I think it's guaranteeing Zaatari and such become permanent cities rather than refugee camps, because no one wants to subject themselves to the whims of the old regime that is now more paranoid and more prioritized on crushing dissent. You wouldn't have true peace. You'd have a cease-fire while the opposition attempted to re-arm and regroup. We'd be right back here later on down the road. Yeah, I'm with you. I really don't get how appeasing Assad would change the situation at all. What would actually change if the West announced tomorrow that they could work with Assad after all? It's not like the FSA would say "you know what, this guy may have murdered our friends, terrorized our communities, and driven our families from their homes, but the Americans like him now, so I'm sure we can work with him." It's not like ISIS or Al-Nusra would decide to just put down their AKs and black flags and go home. The only way the Assad regime can reunite Syria (if such a thing is even possible) is through massive bloodshed and why should we think they''re even capable of such a task when the last four years have shown otherwise? I get that this thread is a magnet for pseudo-Machiavellian dipshittery and the moral arguments against supporting a gang of fascist war criminals in their quest to murder their way back into power will probably fall on deaf ears, but even when I put on my standard issue D&D Realpolitik Goggles (available only in shades of gray), I still can't see any reason to work with Assad. The Ba'athists might as well write "Failed Regime" in the sky above Damascus for all the legitimacy they have left. Maybe four years ago,it would have been worth making a deal with the devil, but these days they just don't have enough to offer. Iggore posted:I guess they didn't forsee how damaging to state and public authority western interventions would be over time, coupled with how fragile authoritarian client states are to begin with. The first part of this has some truth, but the second statement is still a ridiculous counter-factual. World history (certainly Middle Eastern history) is full of states rising and falling without any sort of direct outside intervention. Western powers have certainly earned a fair share of blame for Middle East's problems, but blaming all instability in the region on outside influence is completely spurious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:he is probably making it all up, because migf is immune to correct information how, after all these posts, are people STILL taking migf seriously? it's such a transparently obvious and awful gimmick
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I know this is from a few pages/days ago, but what specific points that Sisi made does this thread disagree with? That's a damned fine strawman you've built for yourself. You could set it on fire and host your own Burning Man with it. MB might be reactionary morons, but in terms of government policy are only slightly worse than the American religious right. They aren't loving DAESH you damned loony. Supporting a military dictator because you think every religiously motivated muslim is loving ISIS is stupid. A more relevant question would be if you supported a military coup in America if Rick Santorum won the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Yeah man, what if they did something awful, like overthrow a democratically elected government, and have thousands of peaceful protesters killed or arrested on trumped up charges! They forfeited their right to participate in the democratic process when they made the decision to join a movement headed by a man who has been quite explicit and consistent in advocating the execution of apostates. The fact that he and his followers claim to "only" want to execute and enforce religious law on fellow muslims does not make them meaningfully better than Daesh. People attempting to overthrow a constitutional government and replace it with theocracy being framed as "peaceful protestors" rankles me, even if their conduct was not immediately violent (although in the case of the pro-Morsi protesters, it certainly WAS violent in at least some cases). Supporting a party like the Muslim brotherhood when it has a realistic chance of seizing power is effectively an incipient act of violence against every non-Muslim and modernist Muslim in Egypt. The non-Islamists were well justified in expecting the military to protect them from the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood regime. If temporary suspension of democracy is required to stop the Islamists from taking over, it is a price well worth paying. Morsi was gutting the constitution and stuffing it with Islamist language, making him a criminal, not a legitimate elected leader, regardless of how the vote went. The Sisi regime will be very dependent on western diplomatic and materiel support to survive and keep control - when the Islamist parties are no longer in danger of taking over, pressure can be brought against Sisi or his successor to restore a more pure democracy. But as long as they are keeping those who would turn Egypt into another Iran or Saudi Arabia out of power, the military-supported government absolutely deserves our support, if not admiration. Edit: Schizotek posted:That's a damned fine strawman you've built for yourself. You could set it on fire and host your own Burning Man with it. MB might be reactionary morons, but in terms of government policy are only slightly worse than the American religious right. They aren't loving DAESH you damned loony. Supporting a military dictator because you think every religiously motivated muslim is loving ISIS is stupid. A more relevant question would be if you supported a military coup in America if Rick Santorum won the presidency. I'm no great fan of the G.O.P., but they are not remotely comparable to an explicitly theocratic party like the MB which makes no pretense of supporting religious or individual liberty. Their actions are often motivated by a religious base and they often use religious language, but no major Republican leader has explicitly called for theocracy or revoking the Bill of Rights. If Rick Santorum was elected and changed the constitution to make the U.S. explicitly a Christian nation and announced his intention to implement old testament Biblical law, I not only would support a military coup, I'd be first in line to pick up a gun regardless of which side the military was on. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
Would you prefer if I compared Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood government to Nazis? Since they are generally vocal fans of Hitler and not afraid to say so, it seems a fair connection to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Calling the MB "human garbage" and saying they "forfeited" their right to democracy was already sending my sociopathic bullshit detector off the charts even before you tried to sugarcoat the phrase "temporary suspension of democracy." Oh, and none of your fearmongering about Islamic tyrany even begins to explain why Sisi has cracked down on thousands of secular democratic protestors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:. This is basically the same as the U.S. (successfully) arguing that pacifist speech isn't protected by the First Amendment because of its implicit violence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Thought it sounded a bit like people were jumping to conclusions.quote:US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to say on Sunday he would be willing to talk with Syrian president Bashar Assad to stem that nation’s violence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's a pipe dream today as we enter year 4, but that wasn't the case a few years ago. I don't think there's a whole lot of middle ground. I haven't seen any interviews of people who support the revolution but think it's failing and giving into Assad is the best course of action. The ones who do prefer Assad have done so all along and can be summed up by their catchy slogan: "Assad or we burn the country." Volkerball posted:It happened in Libya. The US had a higher approval rating in Libya than they did in Canada until they up and left one of the weakest governments in the region with one of the worst security situations in the region and said "good luck!" The Iraq War is hardly the gold standard of what an intervention looks like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
illrepute posted:I mean, yeah, there's definitely those types. But I think with the revolution entering its fifth year now there's probably a lot of people who just wish they could go back to the way things were before all the cities were rubble and ISIS controlled half the country. Not that that's possible.. One thing to keep in mind with "the way things were before" is that Assad was considered to be generally a modernizing force. There were economic reforms and things of that nature that gave people a false sense of hope. It's part of the reason people felt they could push for things like an independent judiciary and peaceful political transfers of power without thinking of consequences like "Aleppo is going to be gone." But Assad showed himself to be so much worse than they ever could've imagined. There's a lot of finger-pointing over who's fault it is. Who in power was so painfully unaware of how the regime would respond. But no matter the case, there was a naivety there that people will never get back. The way things used to be must feel like a million years ago. I absolutely agree that a lot of people dream of not hearing the bombs constantly exploding and being surrounded in death at all hours of the day, and would do almost anything to return to that. But people also want to know where their children, brothers, sisters, and cousins are, who were abducted by the regime and haven't been seen or heard from since. They want accountability for the people responsible for destroying the country and slaughtering hundreds of thousands in a greedy attempt to remain in power. They want justice for the lives of the protesters, people they celebrate, who were killed for having a voice. I'm sure it varies from person to person, but many would honestly rather die than let the regime control them again for even 5 minutes, not just out of anger, but also out of fear. I don't think there's so much of a debate over whether to submit to Assad among activists, refugees, and fighters in Syria who are disenfranchised with the opposition, so much as exploring what happened to the FSA and fighting to fix it, and continuing to appeal to the international community. This video is really enlightening in that regard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhSBtJGuZTE It's a parody from an anti-regime, anti-FSA protester who disappeared a couple years ago. The "head coach" is a reference to the leadership of the opposition on the ground. quote:Right, well, the problem in my view is that "it happened in Libya" because the US didn't stick around for a costly occupation. We were in, we were out; and we left the Libyans to their own devices, which is fine, and great, and probably a lot better than sticking around for an occupation and busting people's doors down to drag them off to Guantanamo. Here's the deal though: the Libyan revolution wasn't centralized, didn't have a clear leadership, and immediately turned on itself and is presently devouring the country. The rebels in Libya are disorganized in a way that reminds me a lot of the rebels in Syria. If we intervened in Syria Libya-style I'm worried the same thing would repeat itself on a much larger scale. Well yeah, costly occupations generally don't go over well with the locals. So much so that it's generally counter-productive to do so, especially given the current state of the military. That whole "hearts and minds  " philosophy that doesn't do a whole lot in the interest of the host nations security. But that's not the only way to help a government provide stability. The bigger issue in Libya to me was Benghazi forcing blanket abandonment of Libya onto the table, and the US following through with that. There were clear warning signs that the security situation was devolving and no one responded to them. Clear as in "militants just walked into the parliament building and kidnapped some people" clear. Resolving that security situation was by no means an easy task, and even if handled completely properly, it potentially could've failed, but the US and friends didn't attempt to build up the Libyan government so that it could police the country and establish rule of law. They sat back and watched it decay as militias that had worked within the government began to sense there was a bigger piece of the pie to be had.As far as how that applies to Syria, it doesn't very much. I still think a no-fly zone to prevent indiscriminate barrel bombs from blowing hospitals to pieces all over the country is a net positive no matter how you slice it, but with the introduction of ISIS, any attempt to oust Assad would have to be handled with the precision of a surgeon, and that's a tall order. The only way forward is Assad losing control of power, and attempting to negotiate a deal between his successors and the moderate opposition so that they can make amends and fight ISIS together. But those negotiations are a total crapshoot, and there can't be a moment of weakness for ISIS to exploit, or both factions will collapse in the face of their advance. I suppose if you carpet bomb ISIS forces to prevent them from capitalizing too much in the power vacuum, it might buy you time, but it's still a scary proposition, and could very easily end up being yet another case study on a spectacular failure of an intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:They forfeited their right to participate in the democratic process when they made the decision to join a movement headed by a man who has been quite explicit and consistent in advocating the execution of apostates. The fact that he and his followers claim to "only" want to execute and enforce religious law on fellow muslims does not make them meaningfully better than Daesh. Fukken lol. The cherry on the poo poo sundae here is that if this was like ten (or even thirty) years ago you'd be saying the exact same things about Mubarak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:18
|
|
