Answer me this Uzz; Do you honestly believe that the ME would be all rozy without the west's involvement? I know 'the west' haven't been saints throughout history but blaming everything wrong with the world right now is really too easy. You keep talking as if there wouldn't be any conflicts without the west's involvement but I'm pretty sure you know that's absolute bullshit.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
If the US learnt their lesson as you said, does that mean that the Russians may have not learnt theirs after Afghanistan (1979-1989) and, to some extent, Chechenya?
Would you want a middle eastern country to intervene in a Spanish civil war (I'm assuming you're Spanish, apologies if I'm wrong)? I'm curious.
Edit: I've realised my question doesn't make much sense in context of what you are saying to Uzz but I'm curious anyway.
That's the point though, there would be the same civil war without them intervening so I wouldn't blame everything on them if that scenario took place.
Nobody likes wars and bloodshed (unless you're a sociopath) but blaming 'the west' for everything doesn't seem like a part of the solution to me. We might be responsible for a lot of shit out there but would the alternative have been so much better?
Last edited:
Yeah just ignore me.
You would hope the USA has also learnt from Afghanistan (1979-1989) that your enemies enemy is not necessarily your friend
No, it's a good question. If Spain was still a dictatorial mess like it was and the violence spiralled out of control I would welcome outside forces who would try to bring stability. There would of course be a big part of the population questioning their motives like is happening now. Tin foil hats will always be the favourite accessory of some people.
Isn't this pretty much exactly what happened during the Spanish Civil War? Every power with the capability got involved backing their own factions?
I know that. However, I was talking rather about the Russians' military intervention since it's the most glaring topic at the moment. I can't say that Russian military interventions since 1979 have had a high success ratio either.
I don't know much about the Spanish civil war or history as a whole. All I know is that Franco was a fascist cnut with a lot of blood on his hands. Even worse, he's also the reason my parents fled Spain and I had to grow up in rainy, shitty Belgium.
This is the reason why it riles me up no end when people show no compassion with the syrian refugees while in the comfort of their safe home.
Or why he helped funnel them into Iraq the previous five plus years. Or why Assad and ISIS didn't really attack one another for long periods(ISIS attacked Assad's forces in 13% of their attacks in Syria while Assad attacked ISIS in 6% of their operations in 2014).
The play by Assad was to get rid of the rebels first, leaving a choice of him or ISIS for the rest of the world. They both work to eliminate the alternatives in hopes of eventually winning out. It's why Russian attacks are focusing on rebels rather than ISIS--eliminating any alternative or political solution that could threaten Assad. If there were a sizable group of moderate rebels, there would be some expectation of a political solution that would reduce Assad's power and create the potential for a threat to Russia's naval base.
One thing about the Russian naval base: why are the Russians so afraid of losing it if the lease contract is something that is both legal and still in effect regardless? By legal, I mean basically mean that the agreement was signed so Syrians cannot invade the area as much as no one can invade an embassy, of what it would be an act of war that would justify a response/retaliation. Also, the US were probably worried about losing Guantanamo Bay Naval Base when Castro arrived in power in 1959 and then during the 1962 Missile Crisis, but nothing ever happened in the end despite intimidation tactics here and there by the Cubans during the Cold War.
Yup. Pretty much what I've been saying in this thread for a while now. The narrative of a straight Assad vs. ISIS fight suits both sides. Assad gets to portray the war as being directed solely against the worst jihadi group going, ISIS get to portray themselves as the only protectors of the Sunnis of the Middle East.
Russia (as a country) didn't exist in 1979. You're talking about Soviet Union.
The Syrian Rebels aren't going to respect any agreements like that. The thing that has pushed Russia into action is that the Jaysh Al-Fatah jihadist coalition, led by Jabhat Al-Nusra, have recently completed conquering Idlib Province, from where they pose a direct threat to the coast and the Alawite populated hinterlands.
Yes, really. They can always re-negotiate the lease with ISIS or Al Qaeda, whichever takes over those bases, once Assad is out.
Even if that was the case, can the rebels afford to take such a risk and then 1) give the Russians the justification they want to attack and 2) thus lose a big chunk of their legitimacy because of that? The Cubans could have attacked Guantanamo many times if they wanted since the lease was signed by the old government in the 1930s and not legitimate to Castro, but they also knew it was a risk not worth taking considering the infancy of the new Castro regime at the time.
Basically, there is just too much to lose for whatever faction that is tempted to take over that base.
Why are they releasing unverified information that only incriminates the regime?
They've been trying to get rid of Assad for a decade! The only reason they've failed is because of Russian and Iranian support. If Saddam was able to boast the same support, he likely wouldn't have been overthrown either.
Sisi is another scrooge but the best thing he did was take out the Muslim Brotherhood, last thing we needed was another mentalist Sharia state run by a bunch of medieval degenerates.
Forget Al Nusra, do you consider Hamas a terrorist organisation?
Anyone's guess really. Perhaps he thought they might be a corrosive and divisive effect within the opposition forces.
Eh, there are almost no parrallels with whats happening now and those two examples. For starters Chechnya was an internal problem, and Afghanistan was a soviet invasion, since then only the US and Saudi Arabia have been invading nations in the Middle East.
For those of you whining: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-jets-strike-command-centre-syria-090737916.html#Q4yVcfo
Also, its surprising to see how those of you outraged at Russian mostly targeting the rebels have had nothing to say about the Turks almost solely targeting the Kurds, despite the latter currently being the most effective anti-ISIS fighting force.
Also, its surprising to see how those of you outraged at Russian mostly targeting the rebels have had nothing to say about the Turks almost solely targeting the Kurds, despite the latter currently being the most effective anti-ISIS fighting force.
Can you enlighten me with the names of nations invaded by Saudi's?
Bahrain
Edit: Sorry, I should have been fair and added Iraq's invasions of both Iran and Kuwait.
Some of the posters here should remember this sentence very well.
The only reason US and alies got nowhere in eliminating ISIS is because that was never their intention. Strongly suggest them to wake up to reality.
Al-Nusra, Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda!!!, all of the sudden became "anti-Assad opposition moderate rebels". Have we conveniently forgot who America was supposedly fighting for the last fourteen years?
This is getting ridiculous.
At the behest of Bahrain's ruling family, but I understand where you're coming from.
And Yemen.
You said nations.
Although not welcome or right, I wouldn't call Bahrain an invasion. They were asked to intervene by Bahraini rulers to avoid civil unrest and bloodshed.
Still waiting on reading his answer on this.
Ain't Russia and Iran doing the same thing in Syria?
It's a bit late. Intervention should have been earlier. They have already destroyed a nation with thousands killed and displaced and have given rise to ISIS(L).
I am of the opinion getting rid of Assad is, will be just as detrimental as has proved getting rid of Saddam.
The answer is simple.
Any person, organisation or country killing civilians indiscriminately, deliberately or by miscalculated policy or agendas are terrorists. I include many Western countries in that equation.
Yep. A few years ago I thought that Assad is the root of all evil there, and he should be removed but it has become clear that the alternative is far worse. Despite that there might be moderate rebels there who aren't religious fanatics, the truth is that if/when Assad is removed the power will be to a few religious extreme groups until one of them will win the next civil war. It is basically a choice between Assad, ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Of course. But Uzz, has called Hezbollah terrorists (which they are) for basically helping Assad, but hasn't done this for Al-Qaeda/Al-Nusra and Hamas.
I wasn't aware Hamas were in Syria, and if they are complicit in killing or causing problems they are just as much to blame as others.
I don't think they are. Kaos just made him that question.
Spot on. It amazes me how those who opposed the Iraq war are now beating the drum to force regime change in Syria.
The problem now is the damage is too deep rooted. It's a mess of gigantic proportions. Assad cannot rule, and equally I cannot see any other group capable of making a nation of Syria again.
Freudian slip?
I can't understand some of you here, the regime killed many of my friends and my friends family members, there's almost no sunni person in Syria who didn't have someone close to them killed by the regime, and yet some of you think syrian people should be okay with the regime staying, yes ISIS are really bad but the regime is worse, I know I said it a million times but it still hurt to this day that when we had a completely peacefull protest in our college that Alawitie students were hitting people(including myself) with electric sticks, one of whom was taking the same class as me and you just think we, and I mean sunni Syrians btw, should overlook everything and accept the regime staying.
I know; I just don't understand those people either. Any government that attacks its own people on an arbitrary basis that does not make common sense doesn't deserve the right to govern anymore because it failed to follow the concept of a accountability that any government must have.
Earlier, there was someone who wrote that democracy doesn't for everyone. However, does that ever justify not trying even harder to make sure it works at the end? What are human beings different from animals if not for the persevance to make society become ever better? All current democracies were born from various contexts in which the government lost its legitimate right to govern because people just had enough of the various forms of abuse. I never say that a path to demoracy would not be painful, but replacing one form of government that either lost or never had any form of legitimacy for another is never something that should be tolerated for any person who wants a better future for his or her own society.