Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Oberon]

The climate really didn't help either, drought conditions just added to the tinderbox which would spark the uprisings.
It was a shame, but at the same time, taking a step back, it would have required a lot of resources in order to keep the new Syrian government in place, the immediate aftermath of any overthrow of Assad would be marked with a lot of instability which would have helped radical Islam to spread in the outer regions. Then there's a lot of geo-political shockwaves spreading out from the sudden change which would affect Iraq, Turkey, Russia, Israel and Iran.
It would have been nice to have avoided this bloody civil war, to have given the people of Syria the same freedoms and opportunities that we in the west take almost for granted...but such things do not happen quickly, alas, nor are they inexpensive. The spectre of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya hangs over every single action by the west in the Middle East, anyone who took action in Syria would have been committing political suicide, as the votes in Congress and Parliament made abundantly clear.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Too bad the US dropped the ball on this, we could have helped those people free themselves from the dictatorship.

I don't think anybody in the middle east likes US involvement. You guys aren't exactly popular down there (even less so than us and we're certainly not loved either) and any meddling would have resulted in some form of backlash. It would have turned into another Iraq with the winner being accused of being a US puppet.

[Onkel Neal]

True, and that's too bad as well.

Oh well, I guess Syria will work itself out, with the Russians and Iranians supporting Assad. Too bad so many had to die.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I found an interesting video on the origins of the Syrian civil war



Too bad the US dropped the ball on this, we could have helped those people free themselves from the dictatorship. Nothing in this video hints that the people trying to liberate their land were Islamic extremists. They were just people who wanted freedom.

Look at who made this video. That media outlet is known to, ahem, bend the facts a bit when talking about the Islamist radicals. Like that time when they changed the meaning of one Islamist's statement regarding their policy towards religeous minorities in Syria in their translation (from arabic to english).

The sad truth is that western liberal democracy doesn't work for those people, nor was the rebel movement ever viable, I mean you have case studies of Lybia (rebels won, civil war never ended), Iraq and Afghanistan (government changed under western ocupation force, islamists remained). So US supporting the muslim spring was, in my opinion, stupid and did more harm than good.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

[...]
The sad truth is that western liberal democracy doesn't work for those people, nor was the rebel movement ever viable, I mean you have case studies of Lybia (rebels won, civil war never ended), Iraq and Afghanistan (government changed under western ocupation force, islamists remained). So US supporting the muslim spring was, in my opinion, stupid and did more harm than good.

I disagree. If the movements had been successfull, and it first looked like it, it would have been an advantage not only for the people there, but also for the world. And if you look closely there was no support at all from western nations. Nor from Russia i might say. Evacuating citizens with military is no support of a country.
But the the arabian spring was not about democracy, it was against illegitimate (as arabians see it) governments.

It all boils down to the partitioning of the Middle East by western nations:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...e-history.html
and the following exploitation, and power plays.

I do not think that Obama was so wrong in holding out a hand and trying to get into negotiations. It could not be expected from all those countries to just smile, say ok and forgive the Sykes-Picot treaty, but it was a geste that could have worked.

The usual broadsides from the right wing did not help either. "How can a nation leader be reasonable and even apologize for arbitrary border dissection, exploitation, war and torture! What a whimp!"
But while there was at least some discussion about that in the US, i have not heard believable discussions by russian politicians. Errm i mean the perfect democrat Putin It is all about national interests.

I do not have anything against you personally, but RT is even worse than Fox news. National propaganda and a lot of bovine scatology.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

stuff

First of all, western powers did support Arab Spring revolutions, it was just another regime change operation using the normal means. Then western powers supported the rebels if they chose armed rebellion - Lybia (arms, special force, air support) and Syria (arms) are well studied examples.

However, because liberal democratic movements in those countries are marginal at best, they (predictably) failed. The core problem here is the post cold war ideological belief that the liberal democratic ideology is universal.

Regarding Russian activities in Syria - they are legal, as they were conducted via an agreement with the legitimate goverment of the country. Morever now there is an billateral agreement regarding our group of forces in Syria, which as far as I understand releaves any legal responsibility from Russian forces in Syria.

p.s. if you want to know about how the decision was made in Russia to intervene openly - it was made through the usual democratic procedures. Overall the decision appears to be popular, as it goes with the demand for strong foreighn policy by Russian population, especially after Kremlin decided not to strong arm Ukraine into submission, which was viewed as an act of weakness.

[Oberon]

Rumour has it (CNN so 50/50) that the DoD is considering recommending that the US send troops to Syria. So that'll end well.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Rumour has it (CNN so 50/50) that the DoD is considering recommending that the US send troops to Syria. So that'll end well.

I saw that too, if it is true(and who knows?) it just shows that they have short memories and no common sense!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by eddie

I saw that too, if it is true(and who knows?) it just shows that they have short memories and no common sense!

I imagine, and hope, that it's just one of those things that's thought up in a thinktank and then used by the media to generate alarmist headlines. It would be political suicide for Trump (unless that's what he's trying to do, heaven knows some of his actions and words lately suggest it) to send conventional military ground forces into Syria unless there had been a major terrorist attack on the US by Daesh beforehand.

[August]

You do realize that there are already US troops in Syria right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/u...isis.html?_r=0

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

You do realize that there are already US troops in Syria right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/u...isis.html?_r=0

Yeah, Special Operations forces mainly, but I believe the report was referring to conventional forces.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Yeah, Special Operations forces mainly, but I believe the report was referring to conventional forces.

I understand that but there's over 5 thousand military personnel there now. I'd be surprised if even half of them were SOF.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

I understand that but there's over 5 thousand military personnel there now. I'd be surprised if even half of them were SOF.

Really? Last I heard there was no more than 500. That's including the 200 that were penned to be sent out back in December:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/u...isis.html?_r=0

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7466996.html

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Rumour has it (CNN so 50/50) that the DoD is considering recommending that the US send troops to Syria. So that'll end well.

That whole piece is speculation, Syria is nothing but a bag of cats.


not sure if the U.S. is still providing material support to any of the "rebel" factions, if they are, then putting regular forces on the ground in Syria is a non-starter. You have 6-7 major players in a three-cornered fight right now, if you put a major U.S. force on the ground in Syria (even if their only task is to take on ISIS), odds are She'll get drawn into the civil war by one of the other factions.

[Catfish]

Well there's not much talk here of Assad using poison gas any more. Or that he just killed ~13,000 prisoners.

"Assad regime kills so many detainees it amounts to 'extermination' of civilian population, UN says":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6860876.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...l-says-amnesty

Good man, we should all support him.
Somehow there seems to be some reluctance of just assigning a commando, infiltrate, and get rid of the worst dictators without official war and destroying infrastructure. I wonder why.