ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Raoul said:
Its not rocket science. The international system can't work in a democratic context wherein international law (norms) are enforceable as long as there are authoritarian states who can disrupt the system. Once Russia and China flip from dictatorships to democracy (and they will), then the security council will be completely in sync in terms of norms and international law will actually mean something. Until that point, you have a conflict between democracies and authoritarian dictatorships.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely what the US and friends have been doing. Constantly shitting over the UN and various other international institutions if it came between them and their regional goals. You of all people know that the US buds up with the most nefarious authoritarian states on the planet, so your democracy vs dictatorship stand off theory doesn't work.

Perhaps when the US no longer becomes a corporatocracy at the mercy of corporations, the military-industrial complex and lobbyists, then we might also see some positive and harmonious changes on the world arena, in addition to the democratisation in Russia and China.
 
Kaos said:
Which is precisely what the US and friends have been doing. Constantly shitting over the UN and various other international institutions if it came between them and their regional goals. You of all people know that the US buds up with the most nefarious authoritarian states on the planet, so your democracy vs dictatorship stand off theory doesn't work.

Perhaps when the US no longer becomes a corporatocracy at the mercy of corporations, the military-industrial complex and lobbyists, then we might also see some positive and harmonious changes on the world arena, in addition to the democratisation in Russia and China.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the international system and international law. We've established that the world's most powerful state will set the agenda as long as there are authoritarian dictatorships in Russia and China that threaten the democratic order. The Saudis, Iranians, and all your favorite smaller dictatorships are irrelevant bottom feeders in this process. International law will never be a meaningful construct unless the entire global system is comprised of democratic states that share the same rules and norms. Until then it will be lopsided in favor of the US. Once it is democratic, the US will be incentivized the migrate towards international law over national interests.
 
Raoul said:
We're talking about the international system and international law. We've established that the world's most powerful state will set the agenda as long as there are authoritarian dictatorships in Russia and China that threaten the democratic order. The Saudis, Iranians, and all your favorite smaller dictatorships are irrelevant bottom feeders in this process. International law will never be a meaningful construct unless the entire global system is comprised of democratic states that share the same rules and norms. Until then it will be lopsided in favor of the US. Once it is democratic, the US will be incentivized the migrate towards international law over national interests.
Click to expand...

Not while its at the mercy of its broken corporatocracy it won't. See you're quick to point the finger at other states, scapegoating them for the failure of international law to cement, but are either completely oblivious or choosing to ignore the US's own gaping issues. Again, once it breaks away from the stranglehold of corporate cartels, the MIC and lobbyists, then we might see some progress.
 
Kaos said:
Not while its at the mercy of its broken corporatocracy it won't. See you're quick to point the finger at other states, scapegoating them for the failure of international law to cement, but are either completely oblivious or choosing to ignore the US's own gaping issues. Again, once it breaks away from the stranglehold of corporate cartels, the MIC and lobbyists, then we might see some progress.
Click to expand...

Corporations aren't going away, nor are they remotely relevant to this topic. The problem is that authoritarian dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and other corrupt states are unsustainable in an international system with common rules and norms. Until such time, the system will continue to be dominated by the world's lone superpower.
 
Raoul said:
Corporations aren't going away, nor are they remotely relevant to this topic. The problem is that authoritarian dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and other corrupt states are unsustainable in an international system with common rules and norms. Until such time, the system will continue to be dominated by the world's lone superpower.
Click to expand...

Of course they are consider they ultimately decide elections, legislation and policy, as do lobbyists and other groups with considerable leverage. To detach them from the US political process tells me that you either don't understand your own political system or (the more likely scenario) you're being deliberately obtuse in order to solely pin the blame on the nations you don't like.
 
Kaos said:
Of course they are consider they ultimately decide elections, legislation and policy, as do lobbyists and other groups with considerable leverage. To detach them from the US political process tells me that you either don't understand your own political system or (the more likely scenario) you're being deliberately obtuse in order to solely pin the blame on the nations you don't like.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a compliment given your affinity for dictatorships and terrorist organizations from Chavez to Hezbollah. ;)
 
So just to understand that: The USA is “disrupting” the international law because China and Russia are authoritarian dictatorships and not because of its own interest that are at odds with this law?:lol::wenger:
 
Raoul said:
Its not rocket science. The international system can't work in a democratic context wherein international law (norms) are enforceable as long as there are authoritarian states who can disrupt the system. Once Russia and China flip from dictatorships to democracy (and they will), then the security council will be completely in sync in terms of norms and international law will actually mean something. Until that point, you have a conflict between democracies and authoritarian dictatorships.
Click to expand...
Given the current Republican frontrunner it looks more likely America will turn into a dictatorship...
 
PedroMendez said:
So just to understand that: The USA is “disrupting” the international law because China and Russia are authoritarian dictatorships and not because of its own interest that are at odds with this law?:lol::wenger:
Click to expand...

Remember, when China and Russia become democratic states the US will suddenly drop its global interests and the corps and lobbyists will also simmer down :wenger:
 
It's fairly obvious the US involvement in the region has never stacked up. Adding China(?) and Russia to the argument just obfuscates their (the US's) involvement.

However, in regards to Syria specifically, I'm glad they were aiding the FSA as Assad is a monster that needs to be removed for the safety of the Syrian population. IS is an enemy, but they are not an imminent threat to the densely populated cities full of Syrians in Homs, Damascus, Aleppo, Idlib etc.
 
LeChuck said:
It's fairly obvious the US involvement in the region has never stacked up. Adding China(?) and Russia to the argument just obfuscates their (the US's) involvement.

However, in regards to Syria specifically, I'm glad they were aiding the FSA as Assad is a monster that needs to be removed for the safety of the Syrian population. IS is an enemy, but they are not an imminent threat to the densely populated cities full of Syrians in Homs, Damascus, Aleppo, Idlib etc.
Click to expand...

Al-Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and other Islamist groups (i.e. the most coherent and organised opposition forces) ARE however a threat to millions of Syrian Christians, Alawites, Shias and secular Sunnis who would otherwise not align to their vision. There's no place for their like in Syria or indeed anywhere in the world. There's a reason why millions of Syrians reluctantly support the regime over this macabre alternative.
 
Look's like the Turkmen militiamen are heavily regretting murdering that downed Russian pilot and gloating about it..

 
Silva said:
It'd be a whole lot grimmer if the opposition was in charge.
Click to expand...

Well, I am not sure about that. Numbers (which are obviously highly inaccurate) don´t necessarily support this claim. I think that is more or less as bad as it gets. Anyone who disagrees is in danger of being jailed/tortured/murdered. Anyone who is associated with opposition gets the same treatment. If you are silent and accept arbitrary encroachments, you might be okay. The situation isn´t hugely dissimilar to what the opposition is doing in their territories.

Nobody should expect that Christians, Alawites, Druze or other minorities accept an (Islamic) sunni government, that is going to discriminate heavily against them. At the same time nobody should expect, that Sunnis, who were brutalized by Assad for a very long time, accept Assad any longer. He lost any legitimacy to rule parts of Syria.
 
PedroMendez said:
Well, I am not sure about that. Numbers (which are obviously highly inaccurate) don´t necessarily support this claim. I think that is more or less as bad as it gets. Anyone who disagrees is in danger of being jailed/tortured/murdered. Anyone who is associated with opposition gets the same treatment. If you are silent and accept arbitrary encroachments, you might be okay. The situation isn´t hugely dissimilar to what the opposition is doing in their territories.

Nobody should expect that Christians, Alawites, Druze or other minorities accept an (Islamic) sunni government, that is going to discriminate heavily against them. At the same time nobody should expect, that Sunnis, who were brutalized by Assad for a very long time, accept Assad any longer. He lost any legitimacy to rule parts of Syria.
Click to expand...
Him losing legitimacy has little to do with it - the people who'd replace him at the top are cut from the same cloth and are basically fighting for their turn to be the brutal dictator, and I don't imagine they'll be kind to the people who currently support Assad. There's no way the people in Assad's strongholds will survive very long if the opposition takes over. Civilians are fecked no matter what happens.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
Him losing legitimacy has little to do with it - the people who'd replace him at the top are cut from the same cloth and are basically fighting for their turn to be the brutal dictator, and I don't imagine they'll be kind to the people who currently support Assad. There's no way the people in Assad's strongholds will survive very long if the opposition takes over. Civilians are fecked no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

It really has got quite a bit to do with it.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
It really has got quite a bit to do with it.
Click to expand...
It would if people were clamouring for any of the alternatives, but they're really really not. For the average Syrian on the ground every army and militia is another threat to their loved ones. There's no democratic process beyond what will help them survive the latest threat. Hence the mass exodus. And I'm fairly certain he'd get more votes than anyone else if there was an election today.
 
Last edited:
If Syria continues to exist as unified state, they need a new government that is able to integrate all major groups (similar to Lebanon). If they can´t do that (which I highly doubt), they need to separate. Forcing the entire country under the rule of one side of the conflict will lead to ethnic cleansing/mass killings/genocide. What ever you want to call it. In that context Assad wouldn´t be any better than ISIS. He would just target different groups.
 
PedroMendez said:
If Syria continues to exist as unified state, they need a new government that is able to integrate all major groups (similar to Lebanon). If they can´t do that (which I highly doubt), they need to separate. Forcing the entire country under the rule of one side of the conflict will lead to ethnic cleansing/mass killings/genocide. What ever you want to call it. In that context Assad wouldn´t be any better than ISIS. He would just target different groups.
Click to expand...
I've been for carving the region for longer than Uzz has thought the Saudi's are helping out. But actually taking the regime out will only let the crazies rule the house.
 
Just had an eye opening discussion with a table of customers, a family of Syrian alawites. I asked what they thought needed to be done so Assad could stay in power, their answer? feck Assad. Apparently the only support he has now is about 5% of the population (mostly alawites and other minorities) the vast majority of people (Alawites, Druze, christans, 12ers and Sunni) all want him to feck off.

I asked about ISIS and they replied that ISIS wouldn't even be there if Assad had stepped down at the beginning. In their opinion Syria can stay together without Assad but if push came to shove then they wouldn't oppose the break-up of the country... But Assad still has to go.

Make of that what you will.
 
RedTiger said:
Just had an eye opening discussion with a table of customers, a family of Syrian alawites. I asked what they thought needed to be done so Assad could stay in power, their answer? feck Assad. Apparently the only support he has now is about 5% of the population (mostly alawites and other minorities) the vast majority of people (Alawites, Druze, christans, 12ers and Sunni) all want him to feck off.

I asked about ISIS and they replied that ISIS wouldn't even be there if Assad had stepped down at the beginning. In their opinion Syria can stay together without Assad but if push came to shove then they wouldn't oppose the break-up of the country... But Assad still has to go.

Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right and hardly surprising.
 
RedTiger said:
It was surprising to me though, I assumed Assad had blanket Alawites backing.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple.

A majority of Syrians likely despise Assad but the situation on the ground has become so fubar that the best course of action is that he stays in power while extremist elements are neutralised. I'd wager that most reasonable Syrians wouldn't want him forcibly removed with no coherent succession plan, which is pretty much the Russian angle. It hasn't helped that the Saudis and their pathetic chums have channeled this into a sectarian conflict.
 
RedTiger said:
Just had an eye opening discussion with a table of customers, a family of Syrian alawites. I asked what they thought needed to be done so Assad could stay in power, their answer? feck Assad. Apparently the only support he has now is about 5% of the population (mostly alawites and other minorities) the vast majority of people (Alawites, Druze, christans, 12ers and Sunni) all want him to feck off.

I asked about ISIS and they replied that ISIS wouldn't even be there if Assad had stepped down at the beginning. In their opinion Syria can stay together without Assad but if push came to shove then they wouldn't oppose the break-up of the country... But Assad still has to go.

Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
Where did you ask them this question?
 
RedTiger said:
I own a restaurant. At work tonight.
Click to expand...
I think what Danny was alluding to was that Syrians abroad would have a different perspective to those living in Syria, which is a fair point. I can draw similar parallels to the Iraq war where Iraqis abroad were open to the idea of Saddam being forcibly removed whereas Iraqis were more apprehensive about the implications, and in hindsight it appears they were dignified.
 
Kaos said:
I think what Danny was alluding to was that Syrians abroad would have a different perspective to those living in Syria, which is a fair point. I can draw similar parallels to the Iraq war where Iraqis abroad were open to the idea of Saddam being forcibly removed whereas Iraqis were more apprehensive about the implications, and in hindsight it appears they were dignified.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought the same thing considering they were westernised, but the figure of 5% support ( they actually said 4% but I rounded up) was in regards to Syrians in Syria. You're probably right though, I took most of what they said at face value because they were quite westernised.
 
RedTiger said:
Yeah, I thought the same thing considering they were westernised, but the figure of 5% support ( they actually said 4% but I rounded up) was in regards to Syrians in Syria. You're probably right though, I took most of what they said at face value because they were quite westernised.
Click to expand...
I'd definitely question their arbitrary 5% figure. I'd say at least 15-20% have blanket support for him whereas a majority reluctantly prefer him to the alternative. But I'm also speculating. I doubt you'd get reliable figures anywhere.
 
Kaos said:
I think what Danny was alluding to was that Syrians abroad would have a different perspective to those living in Syria, which is a fair point. I can draw similar parallels to the Iraq war where Iraqis abroad were open to the idea of Saddam being forcibly removed whereas Iraqis were more apprehensive about the implications, and in hindsight it appears they were dignified.
Click to expand...
RedTiger said:
Yeah, I thought the same thing considering they were westernised, but the figure of 5% support ( they actually said 4% but I rounded up) was in regards to Syrians in Syria. You're probably right though, I took most of what they said at face value because they were quite westernised.
Click to expand...
Yeah what I meant actually in which country. There are common reasons for people not voicing their real opinion (especially if they suspected that they're talking to a Wahhabi or a Wahhabi sympathizer, not suggesting that you are of course or even suggesting that you give any signs that suggest that. Just being not 100% sure can be enough for them sometimes.).

True it can be that Alawites in the West might have a different opinion from those inside Syria (among which I'm pretty sure Assad now enjoys 100% support, because at least they know if he falls, they'll be slaughtered, just like other minorities), but I can tell you the chance is bigger that they're saying that out of fear or just trying to blend in with the mainstream Western opinion.

By the way, inside Syria Assad now enjoys far more "support" among the Sunnis than you think. And by "support" I mean they think it's not a big problem if he stayed in power and he's better than all the alternatives they have right now.

In the latest truce/deal between the rebels and Assad in the last neighbourhood in Homs (Al-Waer), there were around 2700 fighters inside, all fighters were allowed to choose to be transferred to Idlib (and north Hama) or drop their weapons and stay in the neighbourhood under SAA control, with guarantees about not punishing them for fighting the regime in the last 4 years. About 2000 of those took the second option and only 700 fighters were transferred to Idlib in the end.

In Daraa in the South hundreds of fighters are dropping their weapons to go back to SAA areas and this has been happening regularly in the last few months.. About 80% of the Syrians chose to live in the regime controlled areas.. Even in that joke of a conference in Riyadh, many attending were accused of being "Assad sympathisers".. Assad is now the number 1 ally for the Kurds inside Syria.....

The real to-the-death supporters of Assad might be around 25% in Syria right now (Alawites and other minorities), but a much bigger percentage are now ok with him staying, and actually prefer him to all current alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.