Jump to content

Syria

Recommended Posts

With all the violence going on in Syria, one must wonder, what is the world to do?

We know that any choice we make will have a profound effect on the entire region, and on the international community. Though Russia and China are urging no action be taken, many can agree that when we see things like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?start=26&v=kwZ7C2WQJ58, action MUST be taken, but then arises the question, what, do we arm the rebels, do we strike key military points, do we continue to wait and see? Leave your ideas below.
Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like there is a real civil war in Syria. Usually, any foreign intervention in any civil war leads to prolongation of agony and longer term problems. Spain, Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Libya - so many examples...

 

Being a Russian by origin I think I know better what it feels when foreign powers try to intervene in your country's internal affairs. Following the Russian October revolution the Allies tried to support the White Russian forces (they were really crossed, justifiably so, with Bolshevik's making separate peace with Germany), which greatly increased the distrust and paranoia of the revolutionaries towards the West, allowed the more extremist forces to take power (Stalin), ultimately, I believe, encouraged Hitler to start WWII and then helped bring about the Cold War afterwards.

 

All of it might have happened without the Allied interventions, for sure, but maybe not to the same extent - if Russians were not antagonised so much by the Allies in the first place.

 

So, to intervene or not to intervene?

 

I would say, if anyone were to be prepared to go in with overwhelming force, decapitate and disable both the "rebels" and the "regime", declare the country a colony under emergency rule and be prepared to stay there for 50 years, spending g'zillions in investment and disregard casualties that will result... well, then go for it.

 

But if people just want to send a few advisors, sell a lot of obsolete weapons (to clear up their own stocks to make space from new things) to one side and then step back and watch what happens... well, we have seen all this not so long ago and the results were less than impressive before, why would they be any different in this case?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

There is nothing we can do honestly, Assad may be bad but what's next might even be worse so forcing him to leave might make things worse, nor is assasinating him a moral option either. The only decent thing we can do is hope someone there appears who has some leadership skills and who is more or less a nice guy and who can gain popularity and unite the rebels. But that's not up to us. Conquering Syria for the sake of humanity if it was actually done properly might have been a moral option but then who would rule it and why that county? Syrians might live better then but It would cause much worse long-term geopolitical problems.. So we're back to Russia's and China's passivity. USA can talk all it wants but untill there even is an alternative leader we can do nothing, you want to really help, sponsor a leader there.

Share this post


Link to post
Assad may be bad but what's next might even be worse so forcing him to leave might make things worse, nor is assasinating him a moral option either.

 

If Assad dies, his whole facist government will collapse.

On a somewhat related subject, Syria is confermed to have stockpiled nerve gas and is ready to use them as the government looses control of the situation. Hezbollah terrorists and Iranian revolutionary guards are fighting for the facist government and try to destabalize Syria when the government loses the war.

Share this post


Link to post

I would say, if anyone were to be prepared to go in with overwhelming force, decapitate and disable both the "rebels" and the "regime", declare the country a colony under emergency rule and be prepared to stay there for 50 years, spending g'zillions in investment and disregard casualties that will result... well, then go for it.

 

Try to imagine doing that in one of your examples.

Share this post


Link to post
If Assad dies, his whole facist government will collapse.

 

But what will replace it?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Try to imagine doing that in one of your examples.

 

I did and I don't see it happening, which kind of was my point, what is yours?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
If Assad dies, his whole facist government will collapse.

 

But what will replace it?

 

Regards

 

There are several ansers to that. The government could be replaced by the opposition, which may create a democratic country, or something different. Assad may be replced by someone who may prosecute the war further or make peace. There's a diverse range of answers here. keep in mind the nerve gas stockpiles that could be used to change the war completly.

Share this post


Link to post

More likely it will be a hard-line Sunni islamist regime, which will immediately set about exterminating the Alawite Shiites who are currently in power. There is no good outcome for Syria from this civil war regardless who wins.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
More likely it will be a hard-line Sunni islamist regime, which will immediately set about exterminating the Alawite Shiites who are currently in power. There is no good outcome for Syria from this civil war regardless who wins.

 

Regards

 

Actually, there is some good. the civil war might cripple Syria for a long time and if your predition comes true, another civil war might set the country straight. What I'm getting at here is that war between muslims means less muslim to threaten the US and Isreal. I do wonder how you came up with that prediction/assumtion (or whatever you want to call it).

Share this post


Link to post

So, it is "let's them fight each other, so they won't bother us"? This sounds good but, in practice, usually backfires.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
So, it is "let's them fight each other, so they won't bother us"? This sounds good but, in practice, usually backfires.

 

Regards

 

It can, sometimes. Frontlines:Fuel of War has an example of that backfiring. I think here though, that might work. If lots of them die in these civil wars there won't be many ways it can backfire. One way it can is if the government gives their nerve gas to Hezbollah terrorists or attacks Isreal. Let's wait and see what happens first, before something hasty is done that we might regert later.

 

EDIT: No-one is posting here any more. did I prove my point?

Share this post


Link to post

Well, things are heating up again, unconfirmed reports of chemical warfare are coming in. 70000-80000 dead since the civil war began.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, now there are CONFIRMED reports of chemical warfare in Syria. They crossed the "red line", and the West STILL will not help. What the hell does it take to get NATO to get off their asses and do something?

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, now there are CONFIRMED reports of chemical warfare in Syria. They crossed the "red line", and the West STILL will not help. What the hell does it take to get NATO to get off their asses and do something?
Approximately $17 trillion.

Share this post


Link to post
...or a threat made directly to one of the European members of NATO.

 

How about the possibility of chemical terrorism?

Share this post


Link to post
It isn't an immediate and direct threat, so nobody cares in Europe.

 

Of course. Not a single person will care or consider something unless it is upon them.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.