Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Frumple]

Here's a thought: Declare Assad illegitimate due to crimes against humanity and straight up give Syria to Putin. Maybe temporarily until a stable government can form, maybe just go "Screw it, you're part of Russia now." Why? Well, he's already got folks there, and stiffing him with the proverbial bill could result in rather amusing reactions. Plus an opportunity to show the rest of the world how to properly deal with a destabilized country! Think of the PR, ahaha!

Good idea or best idea?

[Reelya]

The rebels were holding up well before the West started sending in weapons. The whole region is awash with arms after the fall of Libya, and the various Islamist groups have plenty of backers in the Gulf.

I don't know about that, there are articles talking about the rebels being supplied with western arms from back in mid 2011. So for a "before" time you have to go back pretty far. I can't find the articles right this minute but they were written in about august 2011 and talk about britain and france providing support and planning for the uprising. This was in articles written well before ISIS was a thing, so it's not like retroactively trying to blame the West for that.

[Sheb]

Western arms doesn't mean "supplied by the West".

[Reelya]

No the articles specially talked about britain and france being involved in the early uprisings. Not about the types of weapons. The Americans aren't implicated in this, at the start, the earliest references to US involvement seem to be from 2012.

Basically, the west became very active in the region in 2012, and there was talk about it in mid 2011. Now, that talk about the west (specifically britain and france) being involved in setting up the insurgency could be seen as baseless slander (I linked the 2011 article in this forum before, but haven't been able to google the same article right now). Britain and France subsequently became publically active in supporting the insurgency after the articles were published. Which makes them quite likely to be accurate reports rather than pure fiction. Also, since they were published well before ISIS was a thing, it can't be seen as baseless slander to implicate britain and france in allowing ISIS to run amok. So it's pretty credible that outside forces had a hand in backing the insuregency right from the start.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, Assad's forces are still killing two or three times as many civilians than ISIS. Plus, after all the crap he's done (gassing civilians...) there simply is no way to negotiate a peace settlements with the non-ISIS rebels that keep him in power. He needs to go, that's it.

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
Ruskies got it right

Also one important thing to mention is why Assad's forces have killed more than ISIS; Lion Loyalists use indiscriminate artillery and bombing to strike their enemy and keep themselves safe whilst ISIS has had their armour and artillery bombed to hell by Western forces - they do not have equal means, but this speaks to no show of intent. The allied strategic bombing over the Germans was out of no intent of genocide, it was an attempt to win the war and it can't be forgotten that the Syrian government is ultimately at war for their survival. Were ISIS to win I do not believe they would be nearly as reasonable to Western negotiations as Assad would be, as Assad can be coerced and forced in ways that would also not destroy what's left of Syria. The most stable of two evils, as it were. Just as dismantling Iraq's army left a power vacuum as soon as US forces left, dismantling the Syrian army will do exactly the same thing. People seem to have forgotten how quickly the "moderate rebels" Western nations funded turned into ISIS. The longer the war goes on the worse things will get, the more people will die and the more human rights abuses will continue. Counter productively, it will also mean people in Assad's regime will go unpunished, as the chaos means international law does nothing for Syria.

Here's a thought: Declare Assad illegitimate due to crimes against humanity and straight up give Syria to Putin. Maybe temporarily until a stable government can form, maybe just go "Screw it, you're part of Russia now." Why? Well, he's already got folks there, and stiffing him with the proverbial bill could result in rather amusing reactions. Plus an opportunity to show the rest of the world how to properly deal with a destabilized country! Think of the PR, ahaha!
Good idea or best idea?

To be honest Russia is late to the game, we've long had British SAS "advisers" advising ISIS commanders on how to get acquainted with bullets and some American advisers even got involved in one of the firefights over an airport in Syria. As for taking up Syria? That's a white elephant if I've ever seen one. Only the elephant is trying to kill you. I suppose the only difference is is in who the Russian advisers are advising. Get mo Kurd kreds slavs

[mainiac]

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
Ruskies got it right

Did the Assad camp actually agree to the proposal?  Russian support certainly would have helped with a deal if negotiation hasn't even started yet...  And keep in mind that diplomacy being what it is, proposals that are secretly DOA are suggested all the time.

[Culise]

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'
Ruskies got it right

Did the Assad camp actually agree to the proposal?  Russian support certainly would have helped with a deal if negotiation hasn't even started yet...  And keep in mind that diplomacy being what it is, proposals that are secretly DOA are suggested all the time.

Nah, it was purely an unofficial line from the Russian diplomat that, in return for a concrete end to "Western support" for the rebels (which is mostly actually being done by nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar to the discontent of those Western powers that don't like seeing military aid to allies of Al Qaeda, but can't exactly gainsay their "allies" in a situation where they're fighting some of their enemies), promised an eventual end to Assad's rule at some indeterminate point, but only in the sense of him personally rather than the Ba'athist autocracy.  Neither Assad nor the rebels were consulted, nor their agreement or disagreement considered; it would have purely been a diktat of the colonizing powers against the colonial state (and yes, that is how it would have been perceived).  I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Western counterparts rejected it because they selfishly wanted to have their cake and eat it, too, but it sounds like it was a trap to me.

[mainiac]

they selfishly wanted to have their cake and eat it

Unlike the people who said "you unilaterally give us everything and we promise to look into giving you some of what you want later on."  They totally wouldn't want to have their cake after eating it right off the bat.

[Culise]

Heh, I didn't say the Russians didn't want the cake, too.  I mean, cake is delicious.  Who wouldn't want cake? 

[Frumple]

Diabetics?

[Culise]

Sugar-free recipes.  _Heretics.

[Frumple]

... what would a sugar-free recipe even look like in this scenario? Mutual peaceful disarmament?

[Sheb]

I'd like it if you could find that article. I though that at the time Western support mostly amounted to loudly complaining about Assad and organizing meetings with the opposition.

[martinuzz]

Also one important thing to mention is why Assad's forces have killed more than ISIS; Lion Loyalists use indiscriminate artillery and bombing to strike their enemy and keep themselves safe whilst ISIS has had their armour and artillery bombed to hell by Western forces - they do not have equal means, but this speaks to no show of intent. The allied strategic bombing over the Germans was out of no intent of genocide, it was an attempt to win the war and it can't be forgotten that the Syrian government is ultimately at war for their survival. Were ISIS to win I do not believe they would be nearly as reasonable to Western negotiations as Assad would be, as Assad can be coerced and forced in ways that would also not destroy what's left of Syria. The most stable of two evils, as it were. Just as dismantling Iraq's army left a power vacuum as soon as US forces left, dismantling the Syrian army will do exactly the same thing. People seem to have forgotten how quickly the "moderate rebels" Western nations funded turned into ISIS. The longer the war goes on the worse things will get, the more people will die and the more human rights abuses will continue. Counter productively, it will also mean people in Assad's regime will go unpunished, as the chaos means international law does nothing for Syria.

I have to agree with you there. War is terrible. Civilians will die in war (especially when the enemy uses them as human shields). Bombs are blind. I have been saying for years that one of the biggest mistakes made in Syria by the West, is to have demonized and alienated Assad. IS might have never gotten a hold on Syria if UN had sent forces to support Assad a few years ago. Hell, Assad would probably never have felt he would need to use gas and fuel bombs (or at least not dared do so with coalition forces riding next to him) on his population if he had had UN help.
It's not like Assad is doing worse things than for example, the US did to Vietnamese villages. Hey, they were hiding and supporting VC, right? Arguably, he is doing less bad, since he is not invading a foreign country, but defending his own.

[Sheb]

[img=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34264942]http://So migrants stuck in Serbia are now moving through Croatia (which is a EU, but not a Schengen country). Numbers arent high enough to be a strain yet. Austria started imposing border controls, and Hungary is talking of expending its fence to the Romanian border.[/img]

As for Assad, I disagree. Sure, civilians will die in war, but Assad has been targeting civilians. His place is in a cell in The Hague.

Once upon a time, an Assad victory, or a peace settlement that included Assad might have been doable. That ship has sailed.

As for the "IS might have never gotten a hold on Syria if UN had sent forces to support Assad a few years ago." I just cannot imagine a situation where the UN sending troops to quell an insurgency against a dictator would make sense. We are however paying the price of non-intervention: IS wouldnt be such a threat if the Americans had managed to stay in Iraq after 2011. IS wouldnt be such an issue if Western support had toppled Assad relatively quickly like in Libya.