ISIS in Iraq and Syria

berbatrick said:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.675898

Report: Russia, U.S., Saudi Arabia in Talks Over Easing Assad Out of Power
Bloomberg reports U.S. and Russian officials say Russia have been signaling willingness to see Syrian president as ceremonial interim head of state.
Click to expand...

I doubt Russia would be fine with anyone other than Assad in power since it would jeopardize their naval base. Same thing happened in Ukraine where they invaded and are occupying Crimea to among other things, secure their Naval assets there.

The only plausible scenario under which Assad may stay on in the interim is if sufficient pressure is put on him to where he is willing to negotiate a path forward with the opposition. That probably won't happen since he, much like Putin, will want to cling to absolute power for fear of future prosecution.
 
Raoul said:
I doubt Russia would be fine with anyone other than Assad in power since it would jeopardize their naval base. Same thing happened in Ukraine where they invaded and are occupying Crimea to among other things, secure their Naval assets there.

The only plausible scenario under which Assad may stay on in the interim is if sufficient pressure is put on him to where he is willing to negotiate a path forward with the opposition. That probably won't happen since he, much like Putin, will want to cling to absolute power for fear of future prosecution.
Click to expand...

"Syria has always been Russian...just look at this history book."
 
Sir Matt said:
"Syria has always been Russian...just look at this history book."
Click to expand...

Actually it would not surprise me to see, if it hasn't happened already, Russia pointing to the dangers facing Syria's Orthodox Christians as a justification for their involvement - the Tsarist Empire was officially granted a special status as protector of the Ottoman Empire's Orthodox Christians in the late 18th century, and a subsequent squabble over the issue with the French helped spark the Crimean War.
 
Russian troops and weapons on the ground in Syria to prop up Assad will only increase the chances of US involvement on the ground imo, even under Obama.
 
Raoul said:
This pretty much underscores the lack of will and fight on the Iraqi side at the moment. They are being propped up by Shi'a militias, Iranian Quds forces, and US air strikes on ISIS positions because their regular military lack the will due to sectarian mismanagement.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the will to fight, they are the same Iraqis here and there. It's just that the regular forces is heavily infiltrated by traitors (even at the highest ranks), thanks to ISIS' political backers.
 
Danny1982 said:
It has nothing to do with the will to fight, they are the same Iraqis here and there. It's just that the regular forces is heavily infiltrated by traitors (even at the highest ranks), thanks to ISIS' political backers.
Click to expand...

That's the same thing - if they are infiltrated and as such are unable to fight due to a lack of will or allegiance, then it can surely be traced to the sectarian mismanagement that allowed such a situation to happen.
 
Assad was never going to step down, which sort of renders irrelevant everything else in the story.
 
Raoul said:
Assad was never going to step down, which sort of renders irrelevant everything else in the story.
Click to expand...


You can't claim that Russia is one of the main obstacles in this situation without assuming it has a significant hold on Assad.
 
berbatrick said:
You can't claim that Russia is one of the main obstacles in this situation without assuming it has a significant hold on Assad.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are an obstacle at all - well not until this week when they put tanks and boots on the ground. Its clear that its all about propping Assad up for a variety of reasons - an ally in the region
- a free naval base
- advancing domestic and international perceptions of Russia being a legitimate global power broker
- balancing US policy in the region
- and least of all, fighting terror.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think they are an obstacle at all - well not until this week when they put tanks and boots on the ground. Its clear that its all about propping Assad up for a variety of reasons - an ally in the region
- a free naval base
- advancing domestic and international perceptions of Russia being a legitimate global power broker
- balancing US policy in the region
- and least of all, fighting terror.
Click to expand...

I would think the compromise would have been getting a replacement for Assad who would allow the naval base and not be hostile to them. Given the reports of Russia having supplied him for years, it's obvious he's completely dependent on them.
 
berbatrick said:
I would think the compromise would have been getting a replacement for Assad who would allow the naval base and not be hostile to them. Given the reports of Russia having supplied him for years, it's obvious he's completely dependent on them.
Click to expand...

I don't think Assad himself would step down. His wife and family have at various times moved out of the country, but the odds of him leaving would be quite low imo.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think they are an obstacle at all - well not until this week when they put tanks and boots on the ground. Its clear that its all about propping Assad up for a variety of reasons - an ally in the region
- a free naval base
- advancing domestic and international perceptions of Russia being a legitimate global power broker
- balancing US policy in the region
- and least of all, fighting terror.
Click to expand...

Can't see anything wrong with any of these reasons. As for fighting terrorists being the least, let Americans lead the way since they're the biggest culprits behind those terrorist organizations becoming so powerful and dominating in the Middle East. It's only fair they get to fix the mess they've created. But knowing how the US government operates, you know they'll just make it even worse.
 
antihenry said:
Can't see anything wrong with any of these reasons. As for fighting terrorists being the least, let Americans lead the way since they're the biggest culprits behind those terrorist organizations becoming so powerful and dominating in the Middle East. It's only fair they get to fix the mess they've created. But knowing how the US government operates, you know they'll just make it even worse.
Click to expand...

As opposed to Russia's smashingly successful time in Afghanistan? I think Putin is taking a big risk in doing this when his own economy is in deep recession and Assad may fall at some point anyway.
 
berbatrick said:
I would think the compromise would have been getting a replacement for Assad who would allow the naval base and not be hostile to them. Given the reports of Russia having supplied him for years, it's obvious he's completely dependent on them.
Click to expand...
Reports of Russia having supplied him for years? That actually is a fact not a report. The Assads have been firmly in the Soviet/Russian camp for decades. Why do you think every time they fought the Israeli's it was all that nice Soviet/Russian equipment being used by the Syrians?
 
Raoul said:
ISIS is obviously the bigger problem at the moment, but long term there is no realistic future for Assad in Syria. He's an unelected, minority dictator and his continued presence will only keep the fighting going irrespective of whether ISIS exists or not.
Click to expand...
and we need to stop trying to "give" western democracy to some areas in the world, so far didn't work and we are creating even more problems, Iraq and Libya as an example.
 
barros said:
and we need to stop trying to "give" western democracy to some areas in the world, so far didn't work and we are creating even more problems, Iraq and Libya as an example.
Click to expand...

We're not giving anything. Let the people decide (ie Democracy) is not being forced on anyone. Even in Iraq, they don't have to be Democratic, although they aren't likely to go back to totalitarian dictatorship now that the people have had a whiff of freedom. Same thing will happen in Syria. Once you peek behind the curtain you can't deny what you've seen and there's no way back to dictatorship.
 
Raoul said:
We're not giving anything. Let the people decide (ie Democracy) is not being forced on anyone. Even in Iraq, they don't have to be Democratic, although they aren't likely to go back to totalitarian dictatorship now that the people have had a whiff of freedom. Same thing will happen in Syria. Once you peek behind the curtain you can't deny what you've seen and there's no way back to dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Just like Egypt, right?
 
Raoul said:
Brilliant analysis.
Click to expand...
He will not take troops to the ground because the democrat party - Hillary, will lose a lot of the independent votes for next elections and even a lot of Republicans - myself included are against US to be involved in any war that's not a threat to our country or to our TRUE allies.
 
2cents said:
Just like Egypt, right?
Click to expand...

I don't think Egypt's cycle of government change is over. They will eventually be a normal democracy, just as every Arab country will be. There's too much substate pressure and social upheaval that's being driven by technology and changing social norms to sustain authoritarian systems - 20-30 years from now there will be few, if any, remaining in the world.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think Egypt's cycle of government change is over. They will eventually be a normal democracy, just as every Arab country will be. There's too much substate pressure and social upheaval that's being driven by technology and changing social norms to sustain authoritarian systems - 20-30 years from now there will be few, if any, remaining in the world.
Click to expand...

@Raoul, you're the most optimistic (some might say naive) guy I've ever come across who has spent a significant amount of time in a Middle Eastern war zone, or in the region in general. Fair play.
 
2cents said:
@Raoul, you're the most optimistic (some might say naive) guy I've ever come across who has spent a significant amount of time in a Middle Eastern war zone, or in the region in general. Fair play.
Click to expand...

It's more down to a general analysis of where human society is going - to a place where technology is rapidly changing social norms by spreading new ideas, especially in repressive systems. Those systems can therefore either reform or be overthrown by the humans who live within them, who are seeing their fellow humans in places like the west achieve relatively peaceful, stable, and prosperous lives. Ultimately all people deserve access to those same freedoms, which is why I don't buy into the bullshit stereotype that humans who happen to be born in the west deserve democracy and peace, whilst the other 70% in the developing world deserve misery and tyranny. That scenario is now slowly playing out and we are only in the beginning phase of a process that should take up to 30 years to materialize. My experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, although quite bleak, also opened my eyes to this idea that all humans deserve access to the same prosperity that people in the west often take for granted.
 
Raoul said:
As opposed to Russia's smashingly successful time in Afghanistan? I think Putin is taking a big risk in doing this when his own economy is in deep recession and Assad may fall at some point anyway.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan invasion was 36 years ago. I have lost count of American feck ups since then.
 
antihenry said:
Afghanistan invasion was 36 years ago. I have lost count of American feck ups since then.
Click to expand...

It wasn't long enough ago enough to be forgotten apparently. And this latest escapade is nothing more than a cynical attempt by Putin to distract from domestic economic failure.
 
Fecking hell, this came up on Reddit. Wish it wasn't Galloway sounding prophetic:

 
Raoul said:
Assad was never going to step down, which sort of renders irrelevant everything else in the story.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue, what was concerning was how the US simply refused the offer, suggesting they preferred the violent option over diplomacy.
 
Kaos said:
That's not the issue, what was concerning was how the US simply refused the offer, suggesting they preferred the violent option over diplomacy.
Click to expand...

That's a rather bizarre interpretation. Of course the US would prefer Assad and ISIS out of Syria - unlike yourself who would like the dictatorship to continue. Assad was never going to step down from his father's dictatorship and this idea that the Russians who are generally a bit impotent on the geopolitical scene outside the former Soviet sphere, could've made him do so is quite speculative.
 
Raoul said:
It wasn't long enough ago enough to be forgotten apparently. And this latest escapade is nothing more than a cynical attempt by Putin to distract from domestic economic failure.
Click to expand...

Soviet invasion of 1979 was a disaster and I have no problem admitting it. It was however decades ago and has nothing to do with what's going at Syria. You on the other hand feel that America should not be held responsible for Iraq war and all the hell that followed because it happened under previous administration, right? I distinctly remember you mention something of that nature in the Ukraine thread on more than one occasion.
 
antihenry said:
Soviet invasion of 1979 was a disaster and I have no problem admitting it. It was however decades ago and has nothing to do with what's going at Syria. You on the other hand feel that America should not be held responsible for Iraq war and all the hell that followed because it happened under previous administration, right? I distinctly remember you mention something of that nature in the Ukraine thread on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with those who invaded being held accountable - including Rumsfeld, Cheney etc.
 
Kaos said:
Never got round to replying to this, my bad had a busy week, but here goes anyway.

I knew the second you were quoting facts that you were going to quote them from the SOHR, which is essentially one man in his Coventry appartment. Ignoring the fact they (or he?) have been notoriously known for selective in what they report and also for fabricating stories to suit their clear anti-regime agenda. But even if these figures we're somewhat genuine what do they actually tell us? Are those deaths caused by Assad just civilians? Or do they include ISIS and FSA casualties too? And what about the deaths caused by the FSA and their allies - why no mention of them anywhere?

Saddam and Qadaffi were called monsters because they largely were, as is Bashar. In the former two examples forced regime change was a bad idea that produced terrible consequences, yet people advocate the same for the latter. That's the only laughable thing really. Speaking of which I find it very peculiar how you're vehemently opposed to the US's war on Iraq and their involvement in Afghanistan, yet you seem to genuinely believe that they've suddenly decided to turn over a new benevolent leaf in Syria by promoting democracy via their FSA conduit. Its utterly bizarre. The fact of the matter is the US has been trying to force regime change in Syria since 2006, and their involvement to this date is an extension of that.

I hate to break it to you but they're not interested in creating a stable, progressive democracy in Syria. Iraq, Libya, Afghansitan and the dozens of other countries they've intervened in the last half century or so have been testament to that.
Click to expand...
I honestly can't believe that's your argument. The SOHR has been widely cited as the most reliable evidence. And tbh, even from other avenues of information the numbers don't lie. Assad is worse than IS. How can you even dispute that? We're going in circles here, but whatever way you want to look at it, he has caused more death and destruction. He has barrel bombed large densely populated cities. IS own sparsely populated desert land. They can't even compete with the bloodshed of Assad (even though they do try). The majority of the deaths by the FSA have been on the regime. Why would they kill the people they want to defend? Also, I mean - if you believe they are doing so, please show me the evidence. Or put up the numbers. I can show you statistic after statistic from different sources that back up my claim. The killings, the rapes, the torture, the chemical weapons. It's all there in front of you, and I just don't understand how you can't see it and continue to defend that murderous pig.

And again - this situation isn't analogous to Saddam and Qadaffi. The US and NATO led invasion was bound to fail with ulterior motives and questionable reasons. In Syria, this change has come from the people, it hasn't been put upon them, and also, Libya was never this organised and readily mobilised. The people who can run the country are already there. They're ex military and gov't personnel. There's no one better placed tbh. They're about pluralism and representation. It's not rocket science. Now, as Russia have boots on the ground, I think we'll see US boots on the ground. Do I agree with it? Not entirely, but Assad is the greatest evil here. If the West/US provide military and financial aid to the opposition rebels, I'd be for it but only if those in command were the rebels and it wasn't a US led intervention, i.e. the rebels would say what they need and how they need it. Whether this will happen is another question.

Agree with you on the last bit though. But neither is Assad. And I'm sick to my fecking teeth seeing Syrians killed, and killed, and killed again.
 
Uzz said:
I honestly can't believe that's your argument. The SOHR has been widely cited as the most reliable evidence. And tbh, even from other avenues of information the numbers don't lie. Assad is worse than IS. How can you even dispute that? We're going in circles here, but whatever way you want to look at it, he has caused more death and destruction. He has barrel bombed large densely populated cities. IS own sparsely populated desert land. They can't even compete with the bloodshed of Assad (even though they do try). The majority of the deaths by the FSA have been on the regime. Why would they kill the people they want to defend? Also, I mean - if you believe they are doing so, please show me the evidence. Or put up the numbers. I can show you statistic after statistic from different sources that back up my claim. The killings, the rapes, the torture, the chemical weapons. It's all there in front of you, and I just don't understand how you can't see it and continue to defend that murderous pig.

And again - this situation isn't analogous to Saddam and Qadaffi. The US and NATO led invasion was bound to fail with ulterior motives and questionable reasons. In Syria, this change has come from the people, it hasn't been put upon them, and also, Libya was never this organised and readily mobilised. The people who can run the country are already there. They're ex military and gov't personnel. There's no one better placed tbh. They're about pluralism and representation. It's not rocket science. Now, as Russia have boots on the ground, I think we'll see US boots on the ground. Do I agree with it? Not entirely, but Assad is the greatest evil here. If the West/US provide military and financial aid to the opposition rebels, I'd be for it but only if those in command were the rebels and it wasn't a US led intervention, i.e. the rebels would say what they need and how they need it. Whether this will happen is another question.

Agree with you on the last bit though. But neither is Assad. And I'm sick to my fecking teeth seeing Syrians killed, and killed, and killed again.
Click to expand...

Sadly this will continue until a new inclusive government is formed and of course ISIS are sent packing.
 
Raoul said:
I have no issue with those who invaded being held accountable - including Rumsfeld, Cheney etc.
Click to expand...

Held accountable by who? Yeah right, like that is ever going to happen.

What about Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and now Syria?
 
antihenry said:
Held accountable by who? Yeah right, like that is ever going to happen.

What about Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and now Syria?
Click to expand...

Libya - that was a NATO affair with the US in the background

Egypt - The US should not have supported dictatorship for decades, but was certainly not at fault for the revolution,.

Afghanistan - Completely justifiable as this is where Bin Laden was using a nation state to plot attacks against the west.

Yugoslavia - You can thank Milosevic for that.

Syria - Hardly a US project is it. If anything, Russia's support of Assad should be in question. It was his dictatorship that gave rise to the Arab spring style protests that led us down the path where we are today, and which Russia is now supporting by sending tanks and troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.