Syria - whose side are we on

[scherzkeks]

wtdoom said:

Forgive me , I thought I was having a discussion with an adult

Yes, then you descended into the depths of unintentionally comical monologue, and received the requisite response.

[scherzkeks]

Wonder how the Guardian let this one slip though. Good, and similar analysis to what some have already provided in this thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/...

[wtdoom]

scherzkeks said:

Yes, then you descended into the depths of unintentionally comical monologue, and received the requisite response.

You have the audacity to write this and then quote the Guardian ?
Words cannot describe how much you made me laugh , thank you


Anyway your point was we are currently in cahoots with Isis not we helped create the situation for these activities to flourish

[scherzkeks]

wtdoom said:

You have the audacity to write this and then quote the Guardian ?

Yes. And here is the DOD/DIA report.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

A little sunlight goes a long way.

wtdoom said:

Anyway your point was we are currently in cahoots with Isis

No, it wasn't.

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 8th September 10:58

[Cobnapint]

drivetrain said:

Smollet said:

Cobnapint said:

Too true. It's probably fair to say that none of this sh*tstorm would be going on if Saddam hadn't decided to invade Kuwait back in 1990.

Actually perhaps the nail has been hit on the head here.

Or if Kuwait hadn't been directional drilling into Iraqi fields close to the border?

Don't believe all you read on wiki.

Even if it were true, we've never invaded Spain or Iceland for nicking our fish have we.

[wtdoom]

scherzkeks said:

No, it wasn't.

Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 8th September 10:58

Preaching to the choir , again I'm not talking about the past . You are .
I'm talking about now and the serious fight against dash that you seem to think is a sham .

[Transmitter Man]

Mr Gearchange said:

We don't know who to support - it's a fking horrible mess.
I read the below recently which did a pretty good job of summarising the current situation:

"Syria has been ruled for decades by a military dictatorship run by a minority Islamic sect, the Alawites. As with most dictatorships they were reputed to have been brutal and repressive, but not incompetent. Although a minority sect, the substantial Christian minorities of Syria have backed them, possibly because if a regime representing the large Sunni Muslim majority took over, Christians could become oppressed (Egypt). Also, the regime receives substantial support from Shi'ite Iran, experts say it's to counterbalance the Sunni regimes in the rest of the Middle East, from China and especially Russia, for various geopolitical reasons.

Dictator Hafez al-Assad died in 2000, his heir apparent was killed in a car crash, so second son Bashshar (educated in London), gets the job. For most of the 2000’s, he tries to implement some gradual reforms.

Around 2006-2010 some natural events hurt Syria, their oil production slows down, plummeting by nearly half, from a peak of just under 610,000 barrels per day to approximately 385,000 bpd in 2010. Leading to huge food price increases and the country suffers severe drought. Their wheat harvest fails, farms fail, people move to cities so the infrastructure like water supply starts to fail. The Assad Government isn’t very sympathetic and doesn't implement effective solutions.

Then comes the 2011 'Arab Spring' protests. the Syrian government badly overreacts to these, killing protestors in ways guaranteed to inflame the people, especially the middle classes. They're very hard on journalists, and Sunni-run Al Jazeera takes great glee in endlessly replaying poor quality mobile phone videos of Syrian troops doing awful things to teenage protestors they caught spray painting Arab Spring slogans on a wall. The country's Internet is cut off. small rebel groups start a guerrilla war. Hundreds of thousands flee immediately, mostly to Turkey, who for reasons I’ll go into later (pipeline theory) don't much care for the Syrian regime.

Now the rebel armies show up. They're made up of civilians who've just had enough, Syrian defectors, and jihadists [not many at all at first, but as you’ll know now has significantly increased as time has passed]. At first, they're all about liberalising and freeing Syria; soon, they become all about jihad and imposing Sharia Laws on the country. Many Christians and urban liberals begin to have second thoughts, but it's too late. The regime troops have no qualms at all about killing non-combatants, and the rebels none about summarily executing anyone suspected of collaborating with the regime.

So expect a horrifying, entrenched civil war to continue on for another year or ten until the rebels get lucky and take out Assad. Then expect years of sectarian turmoil as anyone not willing to bow to Salafism gets killed or exiled. Then another military dictatorship, this time with extra fundamentalist Islam.
Nothing good will come of it for at least 20 years without intervention.

Who do we root for and who should we hate.. Assad’s Government, FSA or ISIS?

Syria’s military dictatorship isn’t what anyone would determine a good team to run a country, the list of atrocities committed and the happy killing of non-combat civilians and the flattening of villages and towns doesn't shout we’re going to look everyone once we win.
The Free Syrian Army was primarily Syrian army defectors and formerly peaceful protesters who were fed up with arbitrary arrest and torture. Their aim was to be like the other freedom loving arab spring people from a few years ago, but they joined up with ISIS and its not clear if their objective is now also Islamic State, there is some internal fighting but they're the same side.
ISIS is predominantly Iraq focused, but funding the Syria side too. I’ve got nothing good to say about ISIS their atrocities covered in the main stream media are I’m sure are the tip of the iceberg and we’re going to hear some horrible stuff in the future.
The country has been effectively destroyed by the fighting. Assad is losing, but slowly, and he's going down fighting.

Is this war all about gas pipelines?
As always the “familiar money interests” are at stake. a few years ago just as Syria's civil war was spreading , Iraq gave the green-light for the signing of a framework agreement for construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from Iran's South Pars field across Iraq, to Syria. The pipeline, which could be extended to Lebanon and into Europe, would potentially solidify Iran's position as a formidable global player.
The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan is a not in the interests of Qatar, who have plans for a countervailing pipeline running from Qatar's North field, part of the same reserve as Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, also with a view to supply European markets.
The difference is that this non-Iran pipeline would bypass Russia.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have received covert support from Washington in the funnelling of arms to the most virulent Islamist elements of the rebel movement, while Russia and Iran have supplied arms to Assad.
So without casting aspersions, is this another “Cold War but being fought in Syria” for the right to control who provides you the gas to heat your home & boil your kettle.
The origins of Syria's 'war by proxy' are therefore unmistakeable - the result of converging climate, oil and debt crises within a politically repressive state, the conflict's future continues to be at the mercy of rival foreign geopolitical interests in dominating the energy corridors of the Middle East and North Africa.
But whoever wins this New Game of Thrones, the Syrian people will end up losing.

Should we back our troops being sent in to Syria?
the first question is… whoes side will we be on? suppose we’re definitely not on ISIS’ side, we could fight them. But we’re not on Assad’s side, the government bombing is whats flattening and killing most of the civilians. Can you pick the non ISIS Free Syrian Army out? don't think so.
Then maybe a full intervention to take all side out, it could be problematic because:
Syria is much more heavily armed, especially with air defences, than Iraq or Libya were; the rebels too have billions of dollars of weapons, including the US weapons left by the retreating Iraqi troops.

who are we doing it for, if the rebels aren’t really the good guys either. which Syrian people or is it for the Oil pipelines?
Syria's state sponsors, specifically Iran and Russia, will make way more trouble than anyone did about Libya. Rebel supporters like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have the ear of the US and the EU.

Basically right from what I've read since 2011 however it's generally accepted that at present salafi's or groups affiliated to same are still in the minority across those that are opposing ass-wipe.

Phil

[CaptainSlow]

Smollet said:

Cobnapint said:

Too true. It's probably fair to say that none of this sh*tstorm would be going on if Saddam hadn't decided to invade Kuwait back in 1990.

Actually perhaps the nail has been hit on the head here.

Actually, no it hasn't.

Maybe look back a bit further and understand why Saddam "decided" to invade Kuwait. Why did he invade? Because the Kuwaitis were pushing oil prices down which is what the West wanted. Why did Saddam not like this? Because he needed higher prices to rebuild his economy. Why did his economy need rebuilding? Because it had suffered after a long and costly war with Iran. Why did he have a war with Iran? Any guesses?

[Puggit]

Map stolen from this article: Meet the Dutch teen who maps ISIS from his bedroom



Best thing about this? Someone doing some proper investigative journalism for once (the teen, not the article writer...)

[scherzkeks]

wtdoom said:

Preaching to the choir , again I'm not talking about the past . You are .
I'm talking about now and the serious fight against dash that you seem to think is a sham .

Please resubmit in comprehensible form.

[anonymous-user]

jimmybobby said:

Jimboka said:

Wasn't Assad our friend. Then our enemy. But now we're on his side, but cant really say so.
Funny how Putin usually makes the right call..

Yes. Yes. No. Yes

The No is a difficult one. We're not on his side, but we are fighting his enemies, in his country. Its a funny old world!

[wtdoom]

scherzkeks said:

Please resubmit in comprehensible form.

Apologies , Deash seems to have auto corrected to dash . Lol , my mistake

[scherzkeks]

wtdoom said:

Apologies , Deash seems to have auto corrected to dash . Lol , my mistake

I think you mean Daesh, and that wasn't the primary incomprehensible aspect of your post. I am not preaching to the choir, as we clearly don't agree. That DIA report runs counter to your position and supports the theory I and others have tossed out that ISIS's chaos is being managed/contained and used to weaken and ultimately force Assad from power. This is also something that the Guardian article touched on.

Now that the Russians are ramping up support for Syria, we may see what the endgame truly looks like. The US is already requesting that Greece and Bulgaria block airspace and has threatened the Russians not to get involved militarily. As usual, I see the same old neo-con policy in action. Transform the ME into the empire's image, secure access to petrochemical resources, and further isolate potential threats to ensure full spectrum dominance.

[jimmybobby]

Jimboka said:

jimmybobby said:

Jimboka said:

Wasn't Assad our friend. Then our enemy. But now we're on his side, but cant really say so.
Funny how Putin usually makes the right call..

Yes. Yes. No. Yes

The No is a difficult one. We're not on his side, but we are fighting his enemies, in his country. Its a funny old world!

There is a pretence of doing so. The reality is Western government will do anything they can to depose Assad. If we were truly fighting his enemies or our mutual enemies we would be working with him and using his intel he offered.

Edited by jimmybobby on Tuesday 8th September 15:58

[wtdoom]

scherzkeks said:

I think you mean Daesh, and that wasn't the primary incomprehensible aspect of your post. I am not preaching to the choir, as we clearly don't agree. That DIA report runs counter to your position and supports the theory I and others have tossed out that ISIS's chaos is being managed/contained and used to weaken and ultimately force Assad from power. This is also something that the Guardian article touched on.

Now that the Russians are ramping up support for Syria, we may see what the endgame truly looks like. The US is already requesting that Greece and Bulgaria block airspace and has threatened the Russians not to get involved militarily. As usual, I see the same old neo-con policy in action. Transform the ME into the empire's image, secure access to petrochemical resources, and further isolate potential threats to ensure full spectrum dominance.

We agree on aspects , I think you are being argumentative for no other reason . We initially created a situation that allows daesh to flourish . The warnings regarding ansar Al Islam / ansar Al Sunna / the foreign fighters and zarkawi were ignored . This much I don't dispute with you .
The west hesitated regarding regarding Assad . The small window of opera unity was missed , the situation escalated .

This is where we disagree . You think the coalition is somehow in cahoots with daesh . I'm telling you that is not in any way shape or form true . Nor is daesh being contained or used to weaken Assad , they are weakening Assad to an extent but that is a consequence . that does not mean there is no agenda from the USA. As for backing Assad , it's the Iranians who do this most successfully , interestingly enough they are also at the front of the fight against daesh .
Excuse my big fingers on a small phone
Best wishes from the Iraq Syria border

[anonymous-user]

wtdoom said:

Best wishes from the Iraq Syria border

Yeah but what do you know? Stay safe! Ish.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Standard British foreign policy states that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. With that knowledge you can become Foreign Secretary, and many have.

So to answer the question, IS are the baddies and the Syrian govt are goodies. Apart from the fact that the Syrian govt are the baddies. Col. Gadaffi hated Islamic fundamentalists, so he was a goody, which is why we killed him. And the Taliban who gave rise to IS are definitely the baddies, but the forerunners of the Taliban were the Mujahideen, who were the goodies, because they were fighting the Soviets, who were the baddies. Iran are the baddies too, which is why we supported Iraq, who were the goodies, until they invaded Kuwait, who were goodies, so Iraq became the baddies and Iran became goodies.

It's all perfectly straightforward.

[jimmybobby]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Standard British foreign policy states that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. With that knowledge you can become Foreign Secretary, and many have.

So to answer the question, IS are the baddies and the Syrian govt are goodies. Apart from the fact that the Syrian govt are the baddies. Col. Gadaffi hated Islamic fundamentalists, so he was a goody, which is why we killed him. And the Taliban who gave rise to IS are definitely the baddies, but the forerunners of the Taliban were the Mujahideen, who were the goodies, because they were fighting the Soviets, who were the baddies. Iran are the baddies too, which is why we supported Iraq, who were the goodies, until they invaded Kuwait, who were goodies, so Iraq became the baddies and Iran became goodies.

It's all perfectly straightforward.

[wtdoom]

fblm said:

Yeah but what do you know? Stay safe! Ish.

I make a mean peanut butter sandwich , and no one can dispute that by the power of grey skull !

[RedTrident]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Standard British foreign policy states that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. With that knowledge you can become Foreign Secretary, and many have.

So to answer the question, IS are the baddies and the Syrian govt are goodies. Apart from the fact that the Syrian govt are the baddies. Col. Gadaffi hated Islamic fundamentalists, so he was a goody, which is why we killed him. And the Taliban who gave rise to IS are definitely the baddies, but the forerunners of the Taliban were the Mujahideen, who were the goodies, because they were fighting the Soviets, who were the baddies. Iran are the baddies too, which is why we supported Iraq, who were the goodies, until they invaded Kuwait, who were goodies, so Iraq became the baddies and Iran became goodies.

It's all perfectly straightforward.

That's not bad