|
I`m sure that the FSA would try their hardest to get US planes to target regime forces. Very difficult to trust them when they want you to get entangled for their benefit.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
What do these gains mean if Aleppo is encircled? How important is Aleppo to the rebels?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
They are the modern army of a Sunni state. They can easily revert to nonconventional resistance if another state moves in. Why aren't public overtures to moderates in that territory made? Is putting Humpty Dumpty back together again more important than regional stability?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It should be noted that Iraqi nationalism is falling as the years go on according to polls. While the vast majority still identify as Iraqis before identifying down sectarian lines, that could change in the future, at which point, partition might be on the table. Partition is on the table. The 3 main groups in Iraq control their own territory, for the most part. Kurds have for what...24 years(could be wrong on that). The problem is the group representing the Sunni's is unpalatable to the west in particular.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The Iraqis don't want it. I've seen one Sunni tribal leader advocate partition and that's it. Would you really support the west going into a country drawing and redrawing borders that the majority of people living within that region don't support? That's a really stupid thing to do. I don't support the west going in and redrawing borders. They, with foreign help on all sides, seem to be doing it themselves. You could argue its a proxy war and you wouldn't be wrong. However, clearly the idea of an Iraqi state with integrated Sunni's and without a defacto Kurdish state is off the table. How repressive would the Shia need to be to hold onto Sunni areas while KSA and other gulf state money pours into the hands of those who would fight? Some form of Sunni Awakening part 2 is the goal I suppose. I'm not saying you are wrong, but do you see a way out other than partition?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
British night bombing was less accurate than barrel bombing, end stop. No need to resort to that level of foolish hyperbole. Something like half of the bombs missed by 2 miles from the aim point, and that is assuming the aim point was correct.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
This theoretical flood of Arabs into Syria would likely be the most radicalized people anyway, likely to join Al-Nusra and Daesh. The US obviously can't support either. That plays into the regimes strategy to an extent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Is there a muted pro-Assad narrative being pushed by the west? With the UN meeting coming to those conclusions... The first pro Assad media in Canada I heard on the radio, and the frontline doc was in the same vein.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Coup over this would be stupid for the military to pull, for many reasons, counting the fact he defanged them and has had control of senior military leadership for so many years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Less so, but a legitimate US sponsored coup, all the way to US media, happened in what 2003? Let alone the Iraq war which from known records and sources from the US and Britain is very ginned up and the song for war was sung on command.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Do Syria and Russia have a codified alliance?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They've had a formal non-aggression pact since 1950. The USSR was an instigator of the coup that put Hafez Assad (Bashar's father) in 1970. Ok, so, no alliance. I was more wondering what international rules they might use to justify striking back at the Saudi's directly, if they moved in. Obviously the UNSC would be gridlocked and the US would use a veto(begrudgingly perhaps). I just don't see a viable way they can intervene more that won't drag Iran in more, and they can throw more men into the problem than the Saudi's. Would the Saudi's be able to form their own militias by recruiting from the Sunni world like Iran has from the Shia world?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I'm just making fun of some people here who arbitrarily decided one side is their perfect communist race people and slavishly praise their fighting prowess for no reason even when you point out their track record and political flaws and their part in this disaster. YPG is not allied with Al-Qaeda, so they get US support. They have also been more than willing to integrate Arab forces under Arab commanders. They are helping in the immediate term US goal of dealing with IS. Their part in this disaster...don't blame them for Assad. They are simply the most palatable faction in Syria right now, by a large margin. I don't fault the Rebels for being quite religious, the Assad's and those before them removed as much civil society as they could, but removing the mosque is impossible, so people gather and complain and commiserate in the only place they can. Ideally the US shouldn't stick it's dick in the hornet's nest at all. At least it's just the IP.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Don't move the goalposts. You were asked why the US didn't establish a no fly zone, and you gave an extremely wrong answer. Let's get some methodology on that polling, I've got a feeling it's pretty questionable and I'm surprised you bit your tongue and didn't say the US was more popular in Libya than Canada, as you are wont to do. You don't need a UN resolution to intervene, correct. But if you have shown the Russians and the Chinese that no fly zones can easily turn into regime change, they won't support it. Russia may well have supported Syria to the extent it did, regardless of the UNSC resolution. It was definitely influenced by how things played out. They learned that it is a way to knock out states that weren't aligned with western interests. You continue to blame liberals for the issues facing us today, but the actions of neo-cons have so poisoned the idea of radical intervention that it is unpalatable to the public. You have said before that the Iraq war soured the US on wars like this, which meant letting a bad war, with a clear bad guy, fester. That lays at the feet of the Bush administration.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Thank you Volkerball for the polling data, seems sound, if a snapshot, as a Canadian, if the US said the sky was blue, there would be enough people willing to call it red. Don't you see yet that the US can't win these wars though? I have come to the conclusion that modern democracies can't beat insurgents on foreign soil. Point to the awakening, fine, but that was unsustainable. They know, like the Vietcong knew, that you can just wait. So say you get your warmonger for the next problem in the Middle East, how many years will you get? 12 at best. I guess I want to know if you disagree with current US strategy? Your opinions on what could have been are pretty valid, but can you point to a US intervention you didn't support?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Sorry, forgot to respond to this. I don't think the awakening was inherently unsustainable. ISIS wasn't lying in wait. They were losing all their fighters and resorting to speaking in hushed tones in back alleys. They were falling apart. Whether that collapse was sustainable or not was based on whether or not the Iraqi government could've maintained a sense of inclusion among Sunni's that encouraged people that the process was working, and inspired belief that this was the way forward. Instead, Maliki disbanded the Sahwat, purged Sunni politicians, and then came after Sunni protests about it. Had that not happened, I think the awakening would've been sustainable. I wasn't really big into politics at the time the Iraq War was kicking off, and I didn't know anything about the Middle East, but I can say with 100% certainty if it kicked off today I would have had some serious reservations about it to say the least. That critical mass theory makes tons of sense, I'll have to look into it.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Well gently caress, other than very informative posts by Brownmoses and fade5, what are we doing here?! What are the chances of serious division within the SDF when Arab SDF forces end up in control of substantial territory? If it gets turned into a frozen conflict, which is looking ideal compared to the status quo, why wouldn't the Arab SDF, who are partially FSA anyway, defect to FSA at their convenience. Is my assumption of a frozen conflict reasonable? Can any of these factions ever unite for a peace accord, I don't think so. Basically in reference to the Manbij offensive and its conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:How long will it take to capture Damascus? 2 days
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:There is also a thing called "tyranny of the majority", as much as I hate using the term but it makes some sort of sense in this context. It's called democracy, the same reason MB should have had a real chance at governing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Fighters tend to get the food in sieges. Yes, substantial enough captive population.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:There is also a small chance they want to halt Kurdish progress against ISIS. Losing ISIS while also not being able to claim responsibility for the victory would be detrimental to the regime on the propaganda side, allow the SDF/Kurds to consolidate prior to the inevitable SAA attempt to murder them back into line, and means a lot more rebels can focus on the SAA with secure territories behind them. I think that's part of it. The other part I think is YPG moving resources around the airbase, tightening the noose, but not initiating hanging. At some point the local commander felt he was being threatened by their actions, and acted against the most egregious threats. Escalating against the YPG right now offers very little in the way of gains, but does come at a time where they are quite occupied, and are quite far away. I doubt they have the resources to fight ISIS across the Euphrates and take two urban centers from the regime. Good a time as any to do some preventative action.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Especially considering it seems like Russian focus is soon to be be focused more on Ukraine and Eastern Europe Yeah Russian basing of strategic bombers in Iran really makes me think they are pivoting. They can't pivot effectively to EE any more than US can to China.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Well they are winning, slowly, I guess it's less interesting. Tons of reporting out of Erbil.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
It's about authoritarian regimes having similar problems due to focus on political reliability over competence. It doesn't need to be racist or orientalist. It is a trend, not a rule, and obviously there are exceptions. I think national/religious liberation movements tend to allow the best to rise to the top more effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Unless he proposes enforcing this no fly zone, it's meaningless. I don't think he is willing to shoot down Russian planes in Syria, especially after rapprochement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:I'm assuming he means a no-fly zone for US planes supporting Kurdish forces. I didn't even mention the possibility of him shooting US planes down, because it's insane. However, you got me thinking that he can enforce it diplomatically, with shutting down Incirlik...again. unfortunately for him, that just makes the job for the US a little harder, what with their air refueling capability.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Wouldn't a standard AA gun with proximity fuses and a radar directed fire control solve the problem? These are all tested technologies that shouldn't be too hard to dust off. I guess some optical technology could be used to scan and detect better than a human eye.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:It's a real shame Gore wasn't elected, a real testament to how not-democratic US politics are. Had he been, how much differently things would've gone. 9/11 probably still would've happened, but no silly invasion of Iraq to line the pockets of Dick Cheney's trust fund. Then the GOP would have immediately blamed the Democrats, swept both houses in the midterms, and probably invade Iraq after their Hardline nominee won a sweeping victory against 12 years of American weakness. Then again, 4 extra years.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Kinda playing devils advocate here, but I think them having a monopoly of certain types of forces is the reason things are so disparate. Rebels have no compunctions against retaliating against civilians with mortars or rockets, they just don't have the supply. You can see them exercising that against the YPG in Sheik Maqsoud, showing that it isn't just them responding to regime atrocities.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So I've been ignoring world affairs for like five or six years now and only recently started trying to catch up with what the hell is going on in the world. They let in civilian aid to their enemies as much as Assads government does. Questions of scale are the issue. But as to who has airpower and who is killing civvies, SA and the Regime are on the same page.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The Turkish army is bigger than the rest of non-US NATO combined. Without Turkey NATO would have been outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact. The Russians will be pouring through the Fulda Gap any day now. Its been 25 years. Warsaw Pact holy gently caress. Erdogan is only going to get worse, his slide to despotism has been consistent. His support for anti-US jihadist groups is undeniable. He is still strategically important, but the US would be wise to find another airbase to police the region when Erdogan has been willing to shut down Incirlik
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
loving sleepwalkers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
What a surprise! Having the ISF try to handle things alone is a bad idea. The Peshmerga and PMUs should have a more prominent role rather than being sidelined. The article on the way both seiges are covered is very funny, hadn't realized it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
So you are saying Aleppo won't fall, while they fight each other. You say never ever while using a map which shows the Syrian Kurds, who are now quite aligned with Assad, as fellow rebels. Trump is president, France will soon have a pro Assad leader. What makes you hold onto hope. The revolution is collapsing. The pockets in the south are being closed after dehousing and bombing of civilians, freeing up troops. It's like the past year hasn't happened in your mind. You are delusional. Edit: sorry, you didn't say Aleppo wouldn't fall. Precisely what is going to reverse the regimes momentum? Turkey going to straight up war with the regime is the only thing enabling a reversal that I see unless Donald Trump is browbeaten by his Generals. Coldwar timewarp fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I agree with some of the criticism, but also the Gulf states could decide to turn it into even more of Afghanistan 1985. I see that as a possibility as well, but I think it would effectively end the US-Gulf alliance. Supply of MANPADS to jihadists hasn't happened for a reason. Trump doesn't seem to want this conflict to drag on further, as predictable as he is. Washing his hands of Syria and leaving it to the Russians and Iranians is effectively a reversion to the pre-war status quo, not a bad option to a lot of people. Maybe he will let them off the leash, who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:"ethnic militias" How is the Sunni uprising any different? Are sectarian militias more pure? I think the duty of the oppressed is to resist, but it seems like they wanted to be the new boot on the Kurds necks, otherwise why not offer federalization or autonomy. Don't delude yourself into thinking your sympathies are anything but partisan. Wahhabism kept ethnic and religious minorities on the side of a despot, they yearn for freedom as much as any Sunni, but the alternative was deemed to be worse? Why would they side with the butcher unless they thought the replacement would be worse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Why would refugees even want to go to either Russia or Iran? Especially considering their role in the conflict. Probably end up in a dungeon somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Intervention in Libya is roughly analogous to the west deciding to intervene against the Syria in the. Hama uprising. People die, there is repression, the state survives. The lives of Libyans are qualitatively worse. That is the result of western intervention. If it was "done right" whatever the gently caress that means, an unravelling after the western forces inevitably withdraw would happen. The new state would be seen as collaborators and have little legitimacy, the civil war happens anyway. If there is to be a civil war when Ghadaffi dies, then there is one, but one left to an undetermined future is better than the mess we have currently. It also poisoned Russia even considering playing ball in these humanitarian interventions ever again. We don't see you interventionists trying to stick your dick in the Congo, why try to in MENA over and over again? It's nakedly transparent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Squalid posted:He's well connected, opposes islamists and is a competent military commander, all more important to foreign powers than his aspirations to autocracy. All it needs to do is free up manpower and reduce frontage. I'm sure the Assad regime is using the soft touch where it can. We have seen some reports corroborating that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 06:47
|
|