Jump to content
Sicarii

Syria's War Nearing Resolution?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, tuco said:

Right, but what does in mean, in realpolitik terms?

I can understand the outrage. I can even agree that violence against a tyrant is justified. But how does outrage or kick in the balls help to end the violence in Syria?

It's showing that the world is adjudicating as to what is not permissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tuco said:

Right, but what does in mean, in realpolitik terms?

I can understand the outrage. I can even agree that violence against a tyrant is justified. But how does outrage or kick in the balls help to end the violence in Syria? Let's not forget, this is not about us, what we feel or think, this is about millions of Syrians in the first place.

In other words, what you gonna do about the despot? Seriously, I am all ears. 

Good point, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get the stick out and wave it in the direction of the balls; one year ago that was firing on the airfield that launched that atrocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, geordief said:

"longer"? Damn these dumb phones:rolleyes:

Yes, I meant "longer than a week". Thank you. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, tuco said:

In other words, what you gonna do about the despot? Seriously, I am all ears

I suspect a combination of approaches will be required, and none are certain to achieve success.

First, this needs to be a global effort, not directed by US in isolation. Second, we need to strike their planes (basically destroy their entire air force) and setup no fly zones. Third, we need to setup refugee protection so people can be safe while other paths play themselves out. Fourth, we need to put economic pressure on those who have been supporting Assad so they no longer have his back. There are a few to whom this applies, but Russia is obviously a major one. If Putin stops supporting Assad, Assad stops having power. That's really the biggest obstacle I can see. Fifth, if Assad is ousted, a leader with the respect of their people will need to take office and they will need help rebuilding and strengthening a broken country. This will take over a decade, and nobody wants to get into another middle east boondoggle or do "nation building" again so the support is probably lacking. 

Your core point is right on. The will isn't there to follow-through. It's certainly possible, but we're so busy being distracted by other things that it's unlikely.

Perhaps an alternative option that would be simpler is to just open more refugee acceptance opportunities across all of the other countries in the area (like Jordan has done, but everywhere) and let the people flow out of Syria like water through a hole, but the support isn't there for that, either. There's too much extremist right-wing isolationism and xenophobia right now, so this last approach could even lead to worse outcomes like triggering another world war.

So, we toss a few bombs over and then start playing candy crush again. Sad.

The interesting part of this scenario is Trumps response will send a signal to Iran and N.Korea where he really wants to make a legacy. If he shows weakness, then his negotiations with those other nations crumble. The question is how does he decide to show strength and what does that ultimately turn into? Your guess is as good as mine.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, iNow said:

I suspect a combination of approaches will be required, and none are certain to achieve success.

First, this needs to be a global effort, not directed by US in isolation. Second, we need to strike their planes and setup no fly zones. Third, we need to setup refugee protection so people can be safe while other paths play themselves out. Fourth, we need to put economic pressure on those who have been supporting Assad so they no longer have his back. There are a few to whom this applies, but Russia is obviously a major one. If Putin stops supporting Assad, Assad stops having power. Fifth, if Assad is ousted, a leader with the respect of their people will need to take office and they will need help rebuilding and strengthening a broken country. This will take over a decade, and nobody wants to get into another middle east boondoggle again. 

Your core point is right on. The will isn't there to follow-through. It's certainly possible, but we're so busy being distracted by other things that it's unlikely.

Perhaps an alternative option that would be simpler is to just open more refugee acceptance opportunities across all of the other countries in the area (like Jordan has done, but everywhere) and let the people flow out of Syria like water through a hole, but the support isn't there for that, either. There's too much extremist right-wing isolationism and xenophobia right now, so this last approach could trigger another world war.

So, we toss a few bombs over and then start playing candy crush again. Sad.

The interesting part of this scenario is Trumps response will send a signal to Iran and N.Korea where he really wants to make a legacy. If he shows weakness, then his negotiations with those other nations crumble. The question is how does he decide to show strength and what does that ultimately turn into? Your guess is as good as mine.

Sometimes war is inevitable, I just hope a timely kick in the balls is enough, but Putin seems to be wearing a box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's showing that the world is adjudicating as to what is not permissible.

Right, so does a joint statement, for example. If you believe that launching rockets from a ship, like last time, is the proverbial kick in the balls and is more effective than a joint statement, then I nor anyone else will be able to convince you otherwise. To me its more like a spit on shoes but that is just my opinion.

Approach through the UN is problematic in the same sense Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. There is the veto.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tuco said:

Right, so does a joint statement, for example. If you believe that launching rockets from a ship, like last time, is the proverbial kick in the balls and is more effective than a joint statement, then I nor anyone else will be able to convince you otherwise. To me its more like a spit on shoes but that is just my opinion.

Approach through the UN is problematic in the same sense Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. There is the veto.  

Just keep hitting them and keep talking. Sometimes it needs both in tandem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, iNow said:

I suspect a combination of approaches will be required, and none are certain to achieve success.

First, this needs to be a global effort, not directed by US in isolation. Second, we need to strike their planes (basically destroy their entire air force) and setup no fly zones. Third, we need to setup refugee protection so people can be safe while other paths play themselves out. Fourth, we need to put economic pressure on those who have been supporting Assad so they no longer have his back. There are a few to whom this applies, but Russia is obviously a major one. If Putin stops supporting Assad, Assad stops having power. That's really the biggest obstacle I can see. Fifth, if Assad is ousted, a leader with the respect of their people will need to take office and they will need help rebuilding and strengthening a broken country. This will take over a decade, and nobody wants to get into another middle east boondoggle or do "nation building" again so the support is probably lacking. 

Your core point is right on. The will isn't there to follow-through. It's certainly possible, but we're so busy being distracted by other things that it's unlikely.

Perhaps an alternative option that would be simpler is to just open more refugee acceptance opportunities across all of the other countries in the area (like Jordan has done, but everywhere) and let the people flow out of Syria like water through a hole, but the support isn't there for that, either. There's too much extremist right-wing isolationism and xenophobia right now, so this last approach could even lead to worse outcomes like triggering another world war.

So, we toss a few bombs over and then start playing candy crush again. Sad.

The interesting part of this scenario is Trumps response will send a signal to Iran and N.Korea where he really wants to make a legacy. If he shows weakness, then his negotiations with those other nations crumble. The question is how does he decide to show strength and what does that ultimately turn into? Your guess is as good as mine.

Top U.S. general: Fair to say Assad "won" Syrian civil war - https://www.axios.com/top-us-general-not-too-strong-to-say-assad-has-won-syrian-war-1520967906-fd26dca0-108d-4578-8721-b5f0d135083f.html

To me, accepting this is the starting point. 

No fly zone has to be agreed by Russia as Russia can veto.

Refugee camps are not a long-term solution. In this regard, who is "we"? You or me? Apparently, my fellow citizens are not willing to let any Syrian refugees into the country. So who will take them? Besides, refugee camps are looming catastrophe as kids are not getting education, adults cannot work, conditions are far from decent etc. 

Not sure about economic pressure, sanctions, as in my opinion they showed mostly ineffective in past, recently after the Crimea affair.

No argument about helping to rebuild. After all, our companies will not do it for free so I imagine they are eager to get some juicy contracts.

---

btw what you are suggesting is about 6 or 7 years late.

And personal note, if my kid was killed by chemical attack or conventional or a sniper or died from hunger or lack of basic medicine, I am not sure it would make much difference to me which one it was. Seems to me, the chemical attack is for some like waving a red cloth in front of a bull. Not sure the dead are as outraged as some of us are. 

Edited by tuco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think it's better to leave it to Israel to give them a whack as it seems rather complicated for NATO at this point. I will say that I was pretty pissed off to read that chemical weapons are being used blatantly and probably with Russian support when you consider what they've just done in the UK.  I was happy to read about the Israeli missile response anyway.

There's literally no evidence either of these attacks were not false flags. In both cases, ask yourself who benefits. Why would Assad use chemical weapons right as he's clearing up the last rebel areas? It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

I suspect a combination of approaches will be required, and none are certain to achieve success.

First, this needs to be a global effort, not directed by US in isolation. Second, we need to strike their planes (basically destroy their entire air force) and setup no fly zones. Third, we need to setup refugee protection so people can be safe while other paths play themselves out. Fourth, we need to put economic pressure on those who have been supporting Assad so they no longer have his back. There are a few to whom this applies, but Russia is obviously a major one. If Putin stops supporting Assad, Assad stops having power. That's really the biggest obstacle I can see. Fifth, if Assad is ousted, a leader with the respect of their people will need to take office and they will need help rebuilding and strengthening a broken country. This will take over a decade, and nobody wants to get into another middle east boondoggle or do "nation building" again so the support is probably lacking. 

Why? Because of a false flag gas attack likely committed by people opposed to Assad? Where is your evidence he did this? Another country around Israel destroyed. How convenient for Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tuco said:

btw what you are suggesting is about 6 or 7 years late.

Indeed. Probably 10, actually

4 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Where is your evidence he did this?

While past behavior is not a valid indicator of future performance, there's a history here that would be ignorant to ignore. I'm open to the idea that this was a false flag, but the evidence doesn't support that stance either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Indeed. Probably 10, actually

While past behavior is not a valid indicator of future performance, there's a history here that would be ignorant to ignore. I'm open to the idea that this was a false flag, but the evidence doesn't support that stance either.

What evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

What evidence?

You mean the like the Syrian government helicopter that dropped the barrels on Saturday, the barrels that dispersed a substance which caused people to begin suffocating, foaming at the mouth, and emitting a chlorine odor?

I see your tactics, and have seen them before. We'll have to agree to disagree. You believe other actors are the more likely aggressor in these chemical attacks and I see the evidence as part of a clear trend. You wish to sow FUD, and I wish to ignore people like you for being consistently disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

There's literally no evidence either of these attacks were not false flags.

In my experience, people who use the term 'false flag', also tend to use terms like 'we the people', 'marriage is between a man and a woman', and 'thug'. They also seem anxious to defend conspiracy theories, concepts of race, and the idea that gays are abnormal.

Not saying that is you of course. Just sharing an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, iNow said:

You mean the like the Syrian government helicopter that dropped the barrels on Saturday, the barrels that dispersed a substance which caused people to begin suffocating, foaming at the mouth, and emitting a chlorine odor?

According to who? The Islamists attacking the Syrian government (in line with Israel's destabilisation plan for the Middle East to increase Israeli security see e.g. the invasion of Iraq) who are backed into a corner and about to be captured? Why on Earth would Assad drop chlorine in this situation and attract Western strikes? The only people who benefit are Islamist rebels and Israel, either of which, or both, are more likely culprits.

Quote

I see your tactics, and have seen them before. We'll have to agree to disagree. You believe other actors are the more likely aggressor in these chemical attacks and I see the evidence as part of a clear trend. You wish to sow FUD, and I wish to ignore people like you for being consistently disingenuous.

My tactic of asking for evidence?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In my experience, people who use the term 'false flag', also tend to use terms like 'we the people', 'marriage is between a man and a woman', and 'thug'. They also seem anxious to defend conspiracy theories, concepts of race, and the idea that gays are abnormal.

Not saying that is you of course. Just sharing an observation.

In my experience people who try to push stories with no evidence to back them up tend to resort to lame ad hominems to distract from their weak position on the issue at hand.

Edited by Stevie Wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stevie Wonder said:

 

My tactic of asking for evidence?

 

16 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

What evidence?

Since you seem to be a big proponent of evidence, will you please provide evidence that indicates this gas attack was a 'false flag'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Since you seem to be a big proponent of evidence, will you please provide evidence that indicates this gas attack was a 'false flag'?

We don't have any evidence either way (yet, previous false flag chem attacks have been proven, such as the one proven by MIT). So why assume Assad did it?

Edited by Stevie Wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stevie Wonder said:

We don't have any evidence either way. So why assume Assad did it?

 

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

While past behavior is not a valid indicator of future performance, there's a history here that would be ignorant to ignore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

We don't have any evidence either way (yet, previous false flag chem attacks have been proven, such as the one proven by MIT). So why assume Assad did it?

If we don't have any evidence either way, then why say "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag"?

Surely you must have some evidence if you are going to make such a claim.

14 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

In my experience people who try to push stories with no evidence to back them up tend to resort to lame ad hominems to distract from their weak position on the issue at hand.

You mean like pushing the idea that "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If we don't have any evidence either way, then why say "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag"?

Surely you must have some evidence if you are going to make such a claim.

You mean like pushing the idea that "It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag."?

Given the circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely zero military advantage to Assad doing this. The only effect would be to make Western nations angry because of the dead children in rebel areas (only in rebel areas) we all see on our TVs 24/7. The circumstantial evidence points strongly towards rebels/Israel. We don't have conclusive evidence either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

There is absolutely zero military advantage to Assad doing this. The only effect would be to make Western nations angry

Argument from incredulity is a pretty basic and easily avoidable logical fallacy and should not be conflated with evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Given the circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely zero military advantage to Assad doing this. The only effect would be to make Western nations angry because of the dead children in rebel areas (only in rebel areas) we all see on our TVs 24/7. The circumstantial evidence points strongly towards rebels/Israel. We don't have conclusive evidence either way.

I see. So using your logic, I can conclude this is probably a Double Secret False Flag. That is, since using chemical weapons on your own people would be too stupid, and therefore fingers would be pointed at the rebels/Israel, we can conclude that the rebels/Israel would never do it either because we would see through their ruse. But Assad knew rebels/Israel would be blamed, and therefore he dropped the chemical weapons himself in order to make his enemies look bad.

Then again, maybe it's a Double Double Secret False Flag, where...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I see. So using your logic, I can conclude this is probably a Double Secret False Flag. That is, since using chemical weapons on your own people would be too stupid, and therefore fingers would be pointed at the rebels/Israel, we can conclude that the rebels/Israel would never do it either because we would see through their ruse. But Assad knew rebels/Israel would be blamed, and therefore he dropped the chemical weapons himself in order to make his enemies look bad.

Then again, maybe it's a Double Double Secret False Flag, where...

So who do you think did this? And why? Or do you not know?

5acb9a6eea85a.png

Edited by Stevie Wonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested in let's say broader analysis of the situation in Syria see this blog: Syria Comment - http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

For example here: A Sustainable United States Policy for North Syria, the Kurds, Turkey and the Syrian Government – by Landis and Barber

Quote

U.S. accomplishments in the region now stand thus: No regime change has been effected in Syria. Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq all have pro-Iranian governments and Iran has more influence in the Levant/Iraq than ever before. By promoting Kurdish nationalism to “rollback Iran,” the U.S. has pushed its ally Turkey into the sphere of Russian influence and caused Turkey’s interests to align with those of Damascus. And finally, even the sole partner the U.S. has in the area—the Kurds—are now upset because they’ve lost one of their important homelands in Syria. Such is the price of a policy based around an obsession with Iran.

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/a-sustainable-united-states-policy-for-north-syria-the-kurds-turkey-and-the-syrian-government-by-landis-and-barber/

Edited by tuco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iNow said:

The interesting part of this scenario is Trumps response will send a signal to Iran and N.Korea where he really wants to make a legacy. If he shows weakness, then his negotiations with those other nations crumble. The question is how does he decide to show strength and what does that ultimately turn into? Your guess is as good as mine.

He already has shown weakness. We were in this exact same place last year. Trump came out and talked tough, Tillerson said the was no role for Assad in govt and then no formal policy position followed and then just last week Trump was talking about a quick withdraw. I don't believe Trump actually wants to do anything. I don't believe he considers Syrian lives worth the cost (money added to his already huge budget deficit). Trump seems to be hope that tough talk will be enough to appease his base.  

Quote

 

Tillerson: Assad regime is responsible for chemical attack  3:55 PM ET Thu, 6 April 2017 | 02:18

The Trump administration signaled Thursday that it seeks to remove Bashar Assad from power in Syria, an apparent reversal after a suspected chemical attack that the White House has blamed on the Syrian government.

President Donald Trump told reporters Thursday that "something should happen" with the Syrian president following the attack, which left dozens dead, including children.

"I think what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity. He's there and I guess he's running things, so something should happen," Trump told reporters while flying to a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

In a separate news conference Thursday afternoon, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assad's actions suggest "it would seem there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people." Just last week, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that Assad's hold on power in Syria was a "political reality that we have to accept."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/trump-tillerson-suggest-assad-should-be-removed-in-apparent-reversal.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

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.