Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50 ... 136

Author Topic: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat.  (Read 207261 times)

Guardian G.I.

  • Bay Watcher
  • "And it ducks, and it covers!"
    • View Profile

Western backers of the FSA demand Russia to cease air strikes.
Coming up next - a real life recreation of Top Gun films.  :P
Logged
this means that a donation of 30 dollars to a developer that did not deliver would equal 4.769*10^-14 hitlers stolen from you
that's like half a femtohitler
and that is terrible
Sigtext

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH

I disagree. we are way past the scenario that without any central government a power vacuum might occur and Jihadism takes it place. it has already happened and we are witnessing the full horrors of that scenario for the past 3 years now. Syria is already divided and Assad only remaining power is his ability to bomb civilians and because of his history, he or anyone remotely close to him will never be able to govern or control the parts of Syria outside the alawites and shiites regions.
The Druze might be willing to remain living under that regime, because the Druze faith puts them in a position to always favour their host (It's literally their religious duty) but the regime forces will never be able to fend off Al-Nusra from those parts without a strong commitment and active cooperation by the Druze and so far they haven't joined the regime military by large numbers and probably will not do so even if Assad steps down only for another Alawite to replace him.
As seen by the Kurds, the most effective way to combat the Jihadists is through Nationalistic sentiments. ISIS/Al qaeda/Al nusra/Jaysh Al Islam will struggle to penetrate into a dominant alawite, druze or kurdish states as they can easily do so in a relatively more plural areas with bigger Sunni population and the partitioning is already taking place sometimes naturally (Shiites running away from Sunnis etc) and sometimes intentionally (Cease fire agreements between Hezbollah and Jaysh Al Fateh that involve population exchanges of Shiites and Sunnis) so the future states are already taking shape and it proves a good method for keeping back areas relatively stable by moving the battles to those new fronts. There are a few "tricky" parts in such a general partition plan and yeah, there will still remain some contested areas, but i believe that there would be far less casualties. The best way to prevent sectarian conflicts is to keep those sects apart.
Regime change =/= Balkanizing Syria

Separating people along ethnic, cultural and/or religious lines only works when there are strong geographical boundaries to enforce peace between them, ensuring relations can never get too hot and best case scenario trade and exchange without infringing on each others turf. This will not work for Syria. Assuming all agreed to split Syria apart, what you'd be left with are several nations genociding each other just like the dismal failure of Sudan. That's whilst ignoring Turkish, Israeli, Persian and Arab efforts to attain dominance in the fractured country, now too fractured to oppose any of the four - its people will suffer for it.
When all this jihadism kerfluffle can be traced back to creating a power vacuum in Iraq how on earth is creating a power vacuum in Syria going to make anything better?
Also the best defence against ISIS is actually under a unified government and unified command, the Syrian government certainly started off with the largest army and still has the largest army compared to any one opposing faction. Drumming up Kurdish nationalism will also have possible worrying future implications. If the West kills the Syrian secularist opposition to Sunni Jihadism and then stirs up a war between the secularist Turkey and secularist Kurdistan then you've just kneecapped three major opponents whilst doing nothing to fight the jihadists.

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile

Western backers of the FSA demand Russia to cease air strikes.
Coming up next - a real life recreation of Top Gun films.  :P
I'm honestly thinking that this would be a good time to give Putin the full Afghanistan package and start downing Russian jets, all while doing the 'We have nothing to do with this, we're \totally\innocent' shtick Russia is so fond of.
Quote from: Marxy Marx
Hegel bemerkte irgendwo, daß alle großen weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen und Personen sich sozusagen zweimal ereignen. Er hat vergessen, hinzuzufügen: das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Zangi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Western backers of the FSA demand Russia to cease air strikes.
Coming up next - a real life recreation of Top Gun films.  :P
I'm honestly thinking that this would be a good time to give Putin the full Afghanistan package and start downing Russian jets, all while doing the 'We have nothing to do with this, we're \totally\innocent' shtick Russia is so fond of.
Quote from: Marxy Marx
Hegel bemerkte irgendwo, daß alle großen weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen und Personen sich sozusagen zweimal ereignen. Er hat vergessen, hinzuzufügen: das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce.
inb4 ISIS takes control of anti-aircraft equipment.
Logged
All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu...  This is the truth! This is my belief! ... At least for now...
FMA/FMA:B Recommendation

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Western backers of the FSA demand Russia to cease air strikes.
Coming up next - a real life recreation of Top Gun films.  :P
I'm honestly thinking that this would be a good time to give Putin the full Afghanistan package and start downing Russian jets, all while doing the 'We have nothing to do with this, we're \totally\innocent' shtick Russia is so fond of.
Quote from: Marxy Marx
Hegel bemerkte irgendwo, daß alle großen weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen und Personen sich sozusagen zweimal ereignen. Er hat vergessen, hinzuzufügen: das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce.

If you Germans want to, okay, but I don't think the US should stoop to that level.

Also, offtopic, I thought 'farce' was an english word, heh.
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile

It's French for 'stuffing', apparently.

There's no way in hell Germany will ever do something like this, but I'd be very glad to see some of the Eastern EU members take proactive measures like this against Russia. Poland, maybe? They're an up-and-coming player, they could make a name for themselves...
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile

That assumes that Eastern EU members have free funds to waste on arming rebels in Syria with highly technological weapons. And since Eastern EU is not USA...
Logged
._.

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile

And that Poland would be any better at this than the US.

P.S. Farce is also french for farce. And stuffing. Because you know, farces are nice, like stuffing.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 12:20:32 pm by Sheb »
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Vilanat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Regime change =/= Balkanizing Syria

Separating people along ethnic, cultural and/or religious lines only works when there are strong geographical boundaries to enforce peace between them, ensuring relations can never get too hot and best case scenario trade and exchange without infringing on each others turf. This will not work for Syria. Assuming all agreed to split Syria apart, what you'd be left with are several nations genociding each other just like the dismal failure of Sudan. That's whilst ignoring Turkish, Israeli, Persian and Arab efforts to attain dominance in the fractured country, now too fractured to oppose any of the four - its people will suffer for it.
When all this jihadism kerfluffle can be traced back to creating a power vacuum in Iraq how on earth is creating a power vacuum in Syria going to make anything better?
Also the best defence against ISIS is actually under a unified government and unified command, the Syrian government certainly started off with the largest army and still has the largest army compared to any one opposing faction. Drumming up Kurdish nationalism will also have possible worrying future implications. If the West kills the Syrian secularist opposition to Sunni Jihadism and then stirs up a war between the secularist Turkey and secularist Kurdistan then you've just kneecapped three major opponents whilst doing nothing to fight the jihadists.

What creating a potential power vacuum are you speaking about? there already is a power vaccum! Assad lack of real governmental power is the vacuum to which the region already got divided to Kurds, Shia/Alawites, Druze and Sunnis. There will be no Unified command anymore. nobody can restore it. not the U.S, not the U.N and not Russia.

The best way to prevent Iran, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia/Qatar from meddling in Syria, is to actually separate their meddling capabilities. Where there are no Shias/Alawites control in a region, there is no Iranian influence. If the Kurds take control of the Turkish borders, ISIS is basically dead in the water as it is locked from the flow of foreign jihadists and supplies that Turkey allows. The other Jihadists might make it through since they got their supplies from the Jordanian border, so not only the Kurds will have it easier fighting off ISIS, the other Sunni elements will be able to sweep ISIS and claim territory from them. not that i like those groups, but they are at least better than ISIS. Plus, once a Kurdish state is recognized by the U.N, Turkey will have far harder times bombing it without taking severe international heat for it. Now, even though the Kurds are pictured as the Seculars, i am not sure that Kurdish state will be a progressive secular state. it has the potential to be a good state, but it also has the potential to fall into already existing rivalries and turn out a backward religious state.

If the Druze form a state in the South, Israel will not need to do anything on this border because contrary to your claims, Israel has no interests in Syria except fighting off Iranian and Hezbollah from the Golan heights border. Well, they also have it in their interest to take care of the Druze in Syria because of the large Druze population in Israel which is considered very loyal. the only way i can see Israel steps in is if Hezbollah manage to take a major foothold on that border. other than that, It has absolutely no interest in conquering any new parts of Syria and once There's a Druze state, Hezbollah won't be able to just take control of it without getting itself bombed the hell out by Israel and the U.S, and Lebanon will not look at it nicely if Hezbollah goes fighting a foreign war against the Druze. there are already growing concerns about Hezbollah doing exactly that in Syria and Iraq and it's only because they advertised it as fighting ISIS that the Lebanese are willing to put up with it. but the harmless Druze? no way.

The Sunnis will not be able to attack recognized states as easily and they will not get a Western support if they do. The Gulf states can funnel arms and money to the Jihadists so long as the excuse is ousting Assad who is seen an oppressor but they will have no excuse attacking States where they are not oppressed. the next logical step for them would be to Unite against ISIS and have their own State without those ISIS lunatics, which they could easily carry out, since they are weakened by Assad, so such a State will actually empower them over ISIS. will it be a successful state afterwords? i highly doubt that, but it would at least be better than keeping the situation as is.

an Alawite/Shiite State in mostly the coastal area and perhaps the Lebanese border which is protected by Russia will be safer from the genocidal threat they are in right now as part of a greater Syria and Sunni/Kurdish resentment. its also something they preferred to a greater Syria during the french mandate.

In short, Syria is already partitioned. making it officially recognized by the U.N can only calm things down and bring some order to this mess. it's true that it would have been better if there were more natural border possibilities, but even without those (And there are partial ones), a border drawn and accepted by all parties is far better than no border at all which only results in civilians getting in the line of fire. If Russia, the U.N and the United States/West push for it, it could be accepted by all sides.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 05:14:23 pm by Vilanat »
Logged

FritzPL

  • Bay Watcher
  • Changing avatar text since 2013
    • View Profile

I'd be very glad to see some of the Eastern EU members take proactive measures like this against Russia. Poland, maybe? They're an up-and-coming player, they could make a name for themselves...

There are forces within this nation that would be able to do such things as the forementioned downing of Russian jets by fighters bearing no insignia, but...
- the technology would have to come from the West
- absolutely no chance this would happen without permission from NATO, discreet or not
- the nation as a whole is not yet prepared for such level of perfidy in warfare.
We're getting more and more nationalist sentiment here in Poland - with its' population already being quite conservative - and Russia's shitting in Ukraine's soup has fueled a boon in military classes; they doubled in number since last year - there's so many of them now, that in fact they decided to organize for something named as First Convention of Pro-defensive Organisations and Military Classes(literal translations, forgive the grammar) and there were suppousedly few thousand in attendance.
We're still not ready for something like this. Sure, we have a discord with Russia - lately even more so, as some historical monuments of generals percieved by them as heroes and by us as war criminals have been taken down on our soil - naturally, they followed suit in retaliation. Tensions are not as high as ever - they're level and not quite going either way - so something proper would have to happen for us to justify such actions. I get that they're suppoused to be clandestine operations, unknown to the public - but this is about preparing the public for when the truth comes out - as it always does - and instead of praying that they judge mercifully, have them react positively and favorably to the concept.
This is all, of course, assuming NATO gives green light - which it won't - and people saying that Poland can defend its' borders alone - which it can't - stop demonstrating our suppoused dependence upon the Organization in the news, politics, media outlets, social media and instead do something useful with their lives, like understand that 2010 wasn't a Russian assassination, but a tragic catastrophe.

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile

I wasn't being entirely serious... I guess what I'm saying is: I'd love to see the EU countries become more active on the global stage, and this seems like a perfect opportunity to shit in Russia's soup. Since Western Europe is either too self-absorbed or too weary after a couple centuries of global dominance, the driving force for such an act would have to come from Eastern Europe - and that means Poland.

This would have some beneficial intra-EU consequences as well: We'd finally have a truly strong Eastern member. Right now the big capitals are Berlin, Paris, and London (not necessarily in that order). It would do us much good to see Warsaw in that list.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

FritzPL

  • Bay Watcher
  • Changing avatar text since 2013
    • View Profile

Apologies, sensing sarcasm isn't my best trait, I'll admit.
Thing is, we're not thinking outside the box - we're mostly counting on the world policemen, whoever that may be at the time, to tell us what to do so that we can complain about it, complain some more and then do it anyway. With the upcoming elections in a month I believe, putting Poland on a position-establishing focus in Eastern Europe would be a good kiełbasa wyborcza and at the same time it'd show how far the people are really willing to go with our born-in dislike for the Russians. It's doubtful anyone will use that, though, as politicians here prefer to smear shit on eachother more than in any other democracy - it's basically a regular tactic at this point.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH

-snip-
In Syria it's a power struggle, the Syrian armies of each faction are all quite strong relatively. It is not a vacuum the same way that Iraq's military disappearing caused. Restoration of Syria is possible with regime change and a powerful government, for example a lot of the land lost by the Syrian government has been lost to Sunni proxy groups of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
The best way to prevent Iran, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia/Qatar from meddling in Syria, is to actually separate their meddling capabilities. Where there are no Shias/Alawites control in a region, there is no Iranian influence.
I'm trying to be as polite as possible but you're making this very difficult for me :P
This will very simply not work. All it will do is bolster Iranian, Turkish, Israeli and Arab influence. They will no longer be funding proxy groups, but proxy countries. Countries which will begin slaughtering each other entirely on the behalf of foreign instigators.
If the Kurds take control of the Turkish borders, ISIS is basically dead in the water as it is locked from the flow of foreign jihadists and supplies that Turkey allows.
On the bright side the Kurds have steadily been doing so. It won't end ISIS immediately however, the Syrian borders are quite porous and other routes exist through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. Foreign Jihadists are better off stopped at the source.
A lot of things are better than ISIS, nonetheless you do not want them in control. Do not trade one fundamentalist militancy with another.
As for Turkey and the Kurds, well they've already bombed them and they don't really give a shit about what the world thinks about their policing since they can just call it peacekeeping or conduct hybrid warfare. One of the main opponents to a Kurdish state is Turkey itself. Do not forget that to the United Nations, Turkey is much more important in peacekeeping than Kurdistan.
Now, even though the Kurds are pictured as the Seculars, i am not sure that Kurdish state will be a progressive secular state. it has the potential to be a good state, but it also has the potential to fall into already existing rivalries and turn out a backward religious state.
Did I say progressive? No. I said secular. Same way Turkey is a secular state, in that religion and governance are separated despite Sunni Islam's great influence and indeed Turkey being a Muslim nation.
If the Druze form a state in the South, Israel will not need to do anything on this border because contrary to your claims, Israel has no interests in Syria except fighting off Iranian and Hezbollah from the Golan heights border.
No interests except balkanizing it, ensuring their dominance - even if such balkanizing will result in internecine and deadly sectarian warfare. I also do not see Israeli expansionism stopping any time soon, once they secure a buffer zone and immensely settle it they seek new buffer zones. Fighting off Iranian and Hezbollah from the Golan heights border translates into colonizing the Golan heights.
Well, they also have it in their interest to take care of the Druze in Syria because of the large Druze population in Israel which is considered very loyal.
Cute, but Israel does not work like this.
The Sunnis will not be able to attack recognized states as easily and they will not get a Western support if they do.
Absolutely nothing stopping them from destabilizing those states from within. Look at Yemen, Oman, Bahrein or indeed - Syria and Iraq. Proxy groups from all corners of the middle east all tugging at their own corners.
The Gulf states can funnel arms and money to the Jihadists so long as the excuse is ousting Assad who is seen an oppressor but they will have no excuse attacking States where they are not oppressed.
The world aint California, people don't think like this - progressive myopia at work
On the topic of balkanizing the middle east, when South Sudan gained independence and joined the U.N. it immediately descended into civil war between its largest ethnic groups. Contrast with Nigeria, split between Christian, Muslim, Hausa, Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba, that even after a civil war for independence remained together. Nigeria is the giant of Africa who relative to African states is doing incredibly well and it has its state divided on geographic and ethnic and religious lines, it could have balkanized. Yet it remained together, and remaining together calmed things down whereas in places like Sudan, partitioning merely ended with jumping from one civil war to another.
it's true that it would have been better if there were more natural border possibilities, but even without those (And there are partial ones), a border drawn and accepted by all parties is far better than no border at all which only results in civilians getting in the line of fire.
No it's not better than nothing, it's worse than nothing. You'd think that people will have learned by now that drawing borders with no consideration for geography and people will incur failure. Ideally you'd want homogeneous states, but that is impossible without strong geographical boundaries between the states otherwise they'll just end up in conflict with each other once more. Where geographical boundaries do not exist, you must keep a single national identity to keep everyone from killing each other and a single national authority to resist foreign influence whilst the most ethnically homogeneous regions are given autonomy and see no reason to conflict with their neighbours.
If Russia, the U.N and the United States/West push for it, it could be accepted by all sides.
And the obvious question is why would you want to push for this?
I wasn't being entirely serious... I guess what I'm saying is: I'd love to see the EU countries become more active on the global stage, and this seems like a perfect opportunity to shit in Russia's soup. Since Western Europe is either too self-absorbed or too weary after a couple centuries of global dominance, the driving force for such an act would have to come from Eastern Europe - and that means Poland.
Excuse you :P The British have been sending more aid and more air strikes than Germany despite having much less money. Whilst Germany has been too "self absorbed" to do more than demand Syrians work in her factories whilst Greeks, Balkanites and Italians paid the price for German incompetency, the British have been active on the global stage trying to fix this mess. Likewise Poland is already busy in Afghanistan and you know... Poland. They are safeguarding Eastern Europe from Russia, and no doubt they're worried that they border Belarus. That's why British soldiers are also garrisoning Poland. German troops are nowhere to be seen, unless you count 1939
Likewise whilst you slag off France they're currently mobilizing even more to fight the ISIS-Boko Haram love triangle, and have begun air strikes in Syria. I mean it's cheeki enough for Germany to bring the Syrian crisis to southern and central europe but to then accuse Western Yurop of being self-absorbed sloths that is too breeki m8, cos whilst Western Europe sends aid to the middle east and actually fights militants Germany wants Syrians to pay her old people's pensions and lags behind Western Europe in actually helping
This would have some beneficial intra-EU consequences as well: We'd finally have a truly strong Eastern member. Right now the big capitals are Berlin, Paris, and London (not necessarily in that order). It would do us much good to see Warsaw in that list.
Whether the Poles want to invite globalization on themselves and lose their capital to it should be up to the Poles, not Germans :P
The big three in Europe are called the big three for a reason, they have force projection capabilities. Though I'm quite sour and salty over Germans saying Poles should fight for them when the Germans refused themselves to do any fighting, seems suspicious to me hahahaha

Vilanat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

In Syria it's a power struggle, the Syrian armies of each faction are all quite strong relatively. It is not a vacuum the same way that Iraq's military disappearing caused. Restoration of Syria is possible with regime change and a powerful government, for example a lot of the land lost by the Syrian government has been lost to Sunni proxy groups of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

Well, No. i don't think even Assad believe Syria can be the same/whole again.

Quote
I'm trying to be as polite as possible but you're making this very difficult for me :P
This will very simply not work. All it will do is bolster Iranian, Turkish, Israeli and Arab influence. They will no longer be funding proxy groups, but proxy countries. Countries which will begin slaughtering each other entirely on the behalf of foreign instigators.

Yeah, i had the exact same feeling.  :P

the Kurds and the Druze will not slaughter anyone. the Alawites will be glad they are not facing a threat of a genocide and keep quiet so the only risk is coming from the suggested Sunni country which will not be able to slaughter any of the other Countries because they will be bombed to hell if they do, by either Iran, Russia, Israel or the U.S etc.

The U.N and the international community is far more effective protecting States and resolving conflicts between States than conflicts between groups within a state.

Quote
On the bright side the Kurds have steadily been doing so. It won't end ISIS immediately however, the Syrian borders are quite porous and other routes exist through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. Foreign Jihadists are better off stopped at the source.
A lot of things are better than ISIS, nonetheless you do not want them in control. Do not trade one fundamentalist militancy with another.
As for Turkey and the Kurds, well they've already bombed them and they don't really give a shit about what the world thinks about their policing since they can just call it peacekeeping or conduct hybrid warfare. One of the main opponents to a Kurdish state is Turkey itself. Do not forget that to the United Nations, Turkey is much more important in peacekeeping than Kurdistan.

What is the source and how you suggest we stop them at it?

Lebanon is not a source for ISIS operatives. Saudi Arabia has no border with Syria and Jordan will not allow a flow of ISIS through it, since Jordan does what the U.S tells them to do. that only leaves Turkey (And Iraq, but that country is another debate all together). if Turkey is the only method for ISIS to remain in existence, maybe it should be slapped into place as it evidently do not provide for any peacekeeping in Syria. and the only reason it can bomb in Syria is because of the civil war. once a Kurdish state forms, it will not be as easy for them.

Quote
No interests except balkanizing it, ensuring their dominance - even if such balkanizing will result in internecine and deadly sectarian warfare. I also do not see Israeli expansionism stopping any time soon, once they secure a buffer zone and immensely settle it they seek new buffer zones. Fighting off Iranian and Hezbollah from the Golan heights border translates into colonizing the Golan heights.

No. Israel safest border in the last 40 years was the Syrian one. they would rather deal with Assad and his ancient military than with terrorists.

Your theory regarding Israel has a slight conflict with history and reality. the Druze in the Golan heights are extremely happy right now that Israel never gave it back and Israel will never give it back, they have absolutely no interest expanding it and when people move into the Golan Heights, its not nearly for the same reasons and its not nearly the people as in the settlements in the West Bank.

The irony is that if Israel ever create a buffer zone in Syria, it would be to protect the Druze, not so it could gain new territory for itself.

Quote
Cute, but Israel does not work like this.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.663511
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21654660-israel-has-warned-syrian-rebels-steer-clear-one-particular-minority-dont

Quote
Absolutely nothing stopping them from destabilizing those states from within. Look at Yemen, Oman, Bahrein or indeed - Syria and Iraq. Proxy groups from all corners of the middle east all tugging at their own corners.

How the will the Sunni states destabilize states without sunnis in them? They can't.

Quote
The world aint California, people don't think like this - progressive myopia at work
On the topic of balkanizing the middle east, when South Sudan gained independence and joined the U.N. it immediately descended into civil war between its largest ethnic groups. Contrast with Nigeria, split between Christian, Muslim, Hausa, Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba, that even after a civil war for independence remained together. Nigeria is the giant of Africa who relative to African states is doing incredibly well and it has its state divided on geographic and ethnic and religious lines, it could have balkanized. Yet it remained together, and remaining together calmed things down whereas in places like Sudan, partitioning merely ended with jumping from one civil war to another.

There will be one ethnic group in each of these states, so how will a civil war erupt in any of them? and obviously keeping the ethnic groups together hasn't helped Syria so far. let me remind you that this civil war is hardly the first time Sunni and Alawites fought for control.

Nigeria situation was vastly different than the one in Syria.

Quote
And the obvious question is why would you want to push for this?

To end the civil war, save civilian lives and weaken ISIS.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH

Well, No. i don't think even Assad believe Syria can be the same/whole again.
Well then we are in disagreement over what can be accomplished, and indeed, what must be accomplished..

the Kurds and the Druze will not slaughter anyone.
We do not know this. In a short span of time the peaceful protesters in Syria became militants cutting peoples hearts out and they became the cornucopia of Jihadists we see now. There is nothing unique to the Sunni or exclusive to Kurds or Druze which rules out ruthlessness, it is no secret that Kurdish soldiers have committed atrocities upon captured soldiers; I am in agreement on backing the Kurds but any possibility for slaughter must be cut, a chance is a chance too much.

the Alawites will be glad they are not facing a threat of a genocide and keep quiet
Except they will be facing the threat of genocide and of being overrun by neighbouring states.

so the only risk is coming from the suggested Sunni country which will not be able to slaughter any of the other Countries because they will be bombed to hell if they do, by either Iran, Russia, Israel or the U.S etc.
Unless aforementioned Sunni country has the backing of a nation like the US or Saudi Arabia.

The U.N and the international community is far more effective protecting States and resolving conflicts between States than conflicts between groups within a state.
Like in Ukraine?

What is the source and how you suggest we stop them at it?
Well I don't know who your 'we' is. There is no one source, they're coming from across the world. Each nation must do its own part to ensure that no Jihadists leave their country to fight in Syria.

Lebanon is not a source for ISIS operatives.
It ostensibly is.

Saudi Arabia has no border with Syria
You are aware of their Iraqi border?

and Jordan will not allow a flow of ISIS through it, since Jordan does what the U.S tells them to do.
What Jordan wants and what Jordan is capable of enforcing are two different things.

that only leaves Turkey (And Iraq, but that country is another debate all together).
Iraq is a part of the same debate, the same war.

if Turkey is the only method for ISIS to remain in existence, maybe it should be slapped into place as it evidently do not provide for any peacekeeping in Syria.
Yes, what could go wrong with eliminating Turkey for no reason. I see nothing wrong with this plan at all. I agree with calls for a sarcasm font.

and the only reason it can bomb in Syria is because of the civil war. once a Kurdish state forms, it will not be as easy for them.
Why will it not be easy for them to do so? You keep making lots of assertions but not much in the way of explanation. Isolating a state so it is without the protection of the full force of the Syrian army will only leave it even more vulnerable to Turkish strikes.

No. Israel safest border in the last 40 years was the Syrian one. they would rather deal with Assad and his ancient military than with terrorists.
Your theory regarding Israel has a slight conflict with history and reality. the Druze in the Golan heights are extremely happy right now that Israel never gave it back and Israel will never give it back, they have absolutely no interest expanding it and when people move into the Golan Heights, its not nearly for the same reasons and its not nearly the people as in the settlements in the West Bank.
The Israeli have been confiscating Druze lands and building settlements on it, upon which Israeli settlers will move in.
You're trying to refute what is happening. Did you read what I posted?
Quote
That growth is tiny compared with the aggressive development goal — 100,000 new residents across the Golan in five years — being promoted by Naftali Bennett, a senior Israeli minister and one of many Israeli leaders and thinkers seizing on the chaos in Syria to solidify Israel’s hold on the Golan.
My theory is not a theory, it is an Israeli strategy to see its neighbours ineffectual and incapable of resisting Israeli expansion. It's the same method the Russians historically used, the British before them, the Mughals before them, all the way down to antiquity with the Babylonians.
Also, you know. Right now.

The irony is that if Israel ever create a buffer zone in Syria, it would be to protect the Druze, not so it could gain new territory for itself.
Quote
Salman Fakhreddin, spokesman for Al-Marsad, a human-rights group in Golan, complained that Israelis confiscate Druse lands, and do not share water and other resources equitably.
The justification that leads to the end result.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.663511
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21654660-israel-has-warned-syrian-rebels-steer-clear-one-particular-minority-dont
You're posting two sources, both declarations of intent from Jerusalem. I find this as believable as Russian media talking about protecting Russians in other people's land or Chinese media talking about protecting Chinese "historical" sovereignty. Also you know, this isn't theory. They're building on seized lands right now.

How the will the Sunni states destabilize states without sunnis in them? They can't.
...
I could write an essay on this sentence alone. I'm tempted to. I might do, but now I do not have the time. Fuck :P

There will be one ethnic group in each of these states, so how will a civil war erupt in any of them?
Look, assuming you somehow manage to make each state 100% ethnically homogenous, 100% religiously homogenous, and you manage to move everyone from their homes generations have resided in since time immemorial - it would be an amazing sight to see. Let's assume all those miraculous things happen. What are you left with? A dozen or so states with clear grievances against their new neighbours who will be wanting to reclaim their homes and exact vengeance. Hey ho, ethnic cleansing we go.

and obviously keeping the ethnic groups together hasn't helped Syria so far. let me remind you that this civil war is hardly the first time Sunni and Alawites fought for control.
When was the last time the USA had a civil war?

Nigeria situation was vastly different than the one in Syria.
Not as much as you think.

To end the civil war, save civilian lives and weaken ISIS.
Nice intentions, but it fails to do the former, the middle and removes ISIS's opposition whilst entrenching its support base.
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50 ... 136