|
|
|
Genocide is taking place in Syria for too long.
Yesterday a decision was made in Geneva, to overthrow the Syrian president from his chair.
Assad of course did not comment on that decision. Does anyone think we can force him to give up?
Does anyone think that without intervention of the world killing will be stopped in Syria?
Actually, this wouldn't be a bad real thread topic. According to search, the last thread on this we had was very specific (about New Dawn) and lasted only 20 posts. P'raps we need a proper one.
I vote that we do with this what we did with the "embargo on Iran" thread. The bot even helpfully provides a couple of actual discussion points.
For the record, I doubt anyone can force this madman to give up - it'll take a bodily kick to get him off his throne, so to speak. Morally, maybe I'm being simplistic, but I see little difference between this and the Libya issue, and we intervened there - I think we should intervene here too, because I don't see much chance of the killing coming to a close otherwise.
Let's sail in this sea of charms
Let's drown underneath the stars
#3
Morally, I think it's similar, but practically the differences are huge. There isn't the same consensus about military action, Russia is a closer ally to Syria than it was to Libya and the Arab opinion isn't as close-ranked yet. I haven't followed it as closely as I ought to, but I believe that might be changing. Hopefully Mr. Carrot will show up at some point, he's good at these threads (though I hope he brings a glossary this time!).
Doltmarines, for the Emprah: the place to play Dawn of War: Soulstorm
"The ecosystem! We destroy that and this is ovah! CHAAAARGE!" - Lomax
Blood and Balls: the Relicnews Doltathon Blood Bowl Blog (awaiting renovation)
"I'd probably lose my shit if I saw a mushroom with a mouth, eyes, and legs walking toward me in real life. That doesn't make me afraid to play Mario." - Starblade
I don't understand why we haven't wiped out their military already. Sure Russia (and one other country I think) are against any form of interference, they should just suck it up. Should do embargoes against Russia for supporting a nation that directly goes against the human rights.
#5
Unfortunately, "they should just suck it up" is not a principle one can run with in international politics.
#6
Embargoing Russia would mean Europe loses its natural gas next winter. Have fun with that.
Russia needs warm weather ports. They're going to work pretty hard to keep the access they get from Syria. Shooting war hard? Probably not. But delay delay delay? Already in progress.
#7
Solution: Sign an agreement with Russia guaranteeing them access to Syria as a port post-action (Or fuck, let them have Syria), and Syria can enjoy dealing with the US and Russian armies
"Fear nothing except in the certainty that you are your enemy's begetter and its only hope of healing. For everything that does evil is in pain."
-The Maestro Sartori, Imajica by Clive Barker
#8
Well, yes, that could work if Russia and the US weren't busy jockeying for influence everywhere. Syria becoming a shared responsibility represents a loss for Russia, even if they retain port access - they'll lose a friendly regime and might not get something as friendly back.
I think haki baba is a paid troll/ opinion bot spreading rubbish online.
Its out loud and proud that the "rebels" are Al'CIAda fresh out of wrecking Libya.
The massacre of Houma was originally reported as an artillery strike later it turned out they were slaughtered with knife and small arms by non uniformed personnel. No credible witnesses either way saying who these men were, only that it was confirmed NOT an artillery strike. Probable Al'CIAda false flag.
Not saying Assad is a saint but he aint the baby eating bastard of Babylon either.
Please please please be aware anyone who reads this you must be aware they LIE all the time ok Assad ain't Jesus but if we invade tens of thousands more will die be aware we are being PLAYED.
It is a farce already that took that long to get to this point.
Regardless of the media, fact is that somebody is slaughtering the civilian population in a fashion that has been seen a few times ago (ymmv).
Regarding Russia, I don't know what to say really. With Putin back on the throne after a very questionable democratic moment, hmm.
BF Bad Company 2 - Name: Groovechamp
Homeworld Fanfiction in progress:
Tales of the Vjel-Amaj - feat. a unique Kiith
Act I; Act II; Act III
Discussion Thread/ Forum Blog
#11
I'm perfectly willing to believe western media is distorting things or getting them flat out wrong, but stories like this are very hard to square with "oh it's all an AL-qaeda false flag operation". If that's true, then why are soldiers defecting? Why are western journalists getting killed in artillery strikes? Everything I've read at this point indicates that this is already a civil war, just a very, very lopsided one that isn't getting a lot of media attention due to lack of access.
For all of this to be engineered would be an incredible feat, and so it's very unlikely that this is just a total fabrication of the media.
It`s never engineered to that degree and it always blew up in the face of the one who tried to manipulate unstable countries.Originally Posted by Starfisher
But to answer your questions:
If the army is defecting then why are they defecting to turkey and not the rebel army? Well maybe they are just humans and don`t want to die for their dictator, or get blown up by us/uk/france or dont want to be executed after tortures by the rebels which they will most certainly do to anyone who has connection to the old regime after they win. It`s the same story like in libya. Running to turkey is a safe bet, you probably wont get tortured/killed that easy. Furthermore 50 guys is far from mass defections.
As for jurnalists killed. You know they were killed by artillery right? This type of weaponry is inaccurate by definition. Its not an execution. I bet its the same old story, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, being in a warzone is not safe.
As for the rebels. If it isn`t clear to anyone that they are hardcore islamist who take everything in the koran - especially war on the unbelivers veeery seriously then i don`t know what to say. Maybe the way in which they present ultimatums to christians to leave town can clear things up http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...led-syria.html. Christians had luck though, i read reports that rebels are just killing religious minorities - especially other branches of islam and then call the western press to present it as victims of Assad.
Oh and one more thing if were talking about journalists:
http://endthelie.com/2012/06/09/syri...#axzz1zbSCElSW
The truth always lies somewhere in the middle, so we need to take every comment from both sides with a grain of salt.
#13
The Syrian army outclasses the rebels in every possible category to the point where this can't even be called a civil war yet. You don't defect when your country is being invaded by foreign terrorists and your army is guaranteed to win. You defect when the political situation is cloudy and you don't support the actions of the regime for whatever reason.
If this were simply Al-Qaeda stirring shit up so the west had an excuse to blow up Syria, none of the stuff I posted makes any sense. It only makes sense in the context of your typical civil war, with some non-trivial percentage of the population resisting the dominant power. I'm not saying journalists were killed intentionally, though it wouldn't surprise me, I'm pointing out that if this is all a giant fabrication, it's one that involves shooting artillery at civilian population centers for long periods of time. That's a civil war, not a false flag operation.
If you want to talk false flag, let's take a look at Turkey flying into Syrian territorial waters and Syria shooting that jet down. That seemed like a test to see if it would be enough to draw NATO into the war. So far, it wasn't. Who was running that test and why is an open question, and fits right into the narrative of outside powers trying to maneuver themselves into position to insert themselves into things. But to suggest that Syria isn't part of the broader arab spring phenomenon, with all the chaos that follows in its wake, and is instead an Al-qaeda invasion/false flag operation seems inconsistent with the available evidence.
Question: How will Russia fair on the international political and social scene if they continue to twart NATO responds now that the torture centres and crimes are coming to light? How far would Russia be held accountable for violating the Universal Human Rights by supporting and assisting the current regime?
Evidence is still fuzzy, but from what I read in the media, a lot of torture stories from refugees and defectors correspond with each other. Saying that, from a political point of view, anyone who is now against a military intervention is my enemy. And anyone who is for will get my vote next elections.
#15
You need to make less emotionally charged personal appeals in discussions, just a helpful hint.
Syria is a civil war that has unfortunately pulled in the American/Russian influence struggle, and western media has established that it sees the Arab Spring as a universal liberal democratic shift and thus any Arab rebellion is an entire people's cry for democracy rather than the same old business of simmering ethnic and sectarian conflict.
I doubt Assad is purposefully targeting western journos with artillery, as CorsairX has said, a war correspondent has a habit of getting into warzones and all the potential dangers that come with them.
He also makes a good point about the defections, it's interesting to note that the armed forces aren't mass-defecting. We have to accept that right or wrong, Assad's regime has enough popular support to keep them in a fight (It's a rare conflict in which some helicopters and tanks magically protect a regime from the very power base of it's people it draws its support and existence from).
Gaddafi likewise had enough support to maintain his position, the Libyan rebels only won because of western air support to be fair, as indicated by the fact that even with western support the rebellion has been nothing but weak, took months to 'win' and has consistently been riddled with logistical problems and leadership, kept together only by the common goal of 'anyone but Gaddafi'.
Also I've yet to read anything on the Syrian rebels (like the Libyans) that paint them as especially morally superior. Arab Spring uprisings and revolutions have been fairly marked by the large Islamist elements to them which opposed to the western image of democratic flowering seems more of a resurgence of Islamic conservatism.
So geoncide?
Perhaps, in so much as both sides are killing, and the fight is at least in conventional terms one-sided with Assad's side in control of the professional armed forces and equipment.
I'm more inclined to think civil war with the good old Cold War era US-Russian interests, but I have not been following the conflict hair-width closely and thus lack most of the vital on-the-ground facts to make what I feel is a solid determination.
Somehow I doubt the Belgian armed forces are going to single-handedly crusade to Syria to save the innocent and oppressed.
Also if I may suggest your position seems somewhat strong (in the intensity sense). Even if Assad was a raving madman bent on all sorts of kitten-stomping evil, why should any country feel somehow obliged to expend its blood and resources?
Arguments for interventionist wars very often rely solely on crude emotionally charged ethical arguments.
'For the greater good' isn't really valid when bombing campaigns simply exchange the murder of one side for the murder of the other (Gaddafi loyalists were human beings with families and loved ones, if you can believe such a thing) and often waste a lot of resources (human lives, military assets, money, diplomatic prestige, even the support of our local allies) for little real gain.
And when measurable practical gain IS possible, it usually wounds any ethical argument anyway as choosing a side simply to secure resources hardly makes one a beacon of moral integrity.
So yeah, I fail to see in this case much value morally or tangibly in foreign intervention in Syria, at best we'll see aid being funnelled to one side or the other.
My requirement for intervention was focused on the whole torture on a rather large scale. I think I was a bit too vague with it though. I did mean only if those rumours/stories are true. Torture centres are a nono. I know the hypocrisy that lies in that comment since the west (lets not name countries), has/had one or two too. As for the "my enemy" comment, it was pointed towards "anyone willing to support regimes that violate human rights and is against intervening to assist the populace and uphold those rights is my enemy. Enemy may have been a poor chose of words though. But I can't think of any other atm.
The question or issue of "leader X of regime Y has enough support to stay in power". There's the technology issue of military that crops up. Previously when a civilian population rises up against it's government to overthrow it, it was a "fair" fight, sticks, stones, swords, spears against soldiers with some body armour and swords and spears etc. Now, as long as the military stays by the leader's side, there's little the people can do. This also leads to the issue of people and military members alike that want to help overthrow the current regime, but realise the chance of dying is huge and thus remain inactive. That would be most part of the population I think.
But yeah, intervene to help population overthrown dictatorial regime is not really necessary, only when that regime starts to use brutal methods that go too far; such as mas scale torture, genocide, and so forth. It's one thing to shoot a mob that assaults a government building. It's another to bomb 1/3th of a city because there may or may not be rebels.
#17
not really any different today than yesterday guilliman, in a historical sense. there were a hell of a lot of rebellions of various scales that didn't go anywhere so long as the men with swords were against it.
I don't really know what anyone who wants to intervene in syria thinks we should do really. what exactly are we going to bomb? will it even be productive? what's going on is essentially a political problem, and a bombing campaign may prove a rallying point for pro-Assad factions.
Remember: you're a blogger. Pretense is your co-pilot.
Well "technically" there's already a semi-ish intervention going on. Large scale military involvement isn't the only tool states have at their disposal
Wouldn't be surprised if let's say, the CIA, Mossad, MI6, FSB etc.. have guys running around (Unofficially) right now.
In this day and age intelligence agencies are running the show and the big military get's to sit around more often than they used to be back in the past 60 years.
(I know it's wired, but dangerroom is still a more interesting source for these things than most military related blogs.)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cia-syria/
Now just add the NRO and NSA among things into the mix to monitor the entire show from the sky and attack the Syrian government online and you have a lot of nice support for the rebels that isn't as politically volatile as a full scale intervention would be.
Still it's going to be far more interesting to see where this will be at in let's say, a year or so in my opinion.
Except at the same time its not. If the US wanted to kick Assad out, they would have done it already. At this point, I think the US is quite happy with the current situation where Assad is clinging to power and too weak from constantly fighting internal elements to have any external influence and while they bitch and moan about the Assads, it is basically all theatre. The truth is that Syria is more a Saudi/Russia proxy conflict. The Saudis want to ursurp influence from the Iranians while the Russians want to keep their naval base in the Meditteranian. Both the Iranians and the US have been fairly low-key in this conflict, a lot of it probably having to do with the US and Iran going at eachother's throats.
Libya was odd, the eastern rebels started the fight and put the face on the rebels, but their fighting ability was nothing short of miserable, even with NATO air support backing them. The war was only won after the western half of the country decided to get rid of Gaddafi, and they were the ones that more or less pushed Gaddafi out of Tripoli while the eastern front was stagnant up until the last days of the war.Gaddafi likewise had enough support to maintain his position, the Libyan rebels only won because of western air support to be fair, as indicated by the fact that even with western support the rebellion has been nothing but weak, took months to 'win' and has consistently been riddled with logistical problems and leadership, kept together only by the common goal of 'anyone but Gaddafi'.
As much as some might hate to admit it, Gaddafi was almost universally hated in his own country. His main backers came from African dictators and rebels (especially the Tuareg) whom were getting quite a bit of money from Gaddafi.
Funny thing is, Gaddafi's overthrow is his own fault. He never gave a shit about governing his own country, he basically blew his money on international plots (mainly backing terrorists/rebels) in the hopes of becoming a major player. This was also what caused him to run afoul of the US and the rest of the West, and even the Arabs eventually wanted nothing to do with him which caused him to go all 'African uber alles'.
This has also been a mixed bag. A western, secular candidate won the Libyan elections so it is not all turbans and Islam. Even then, we are not exactly sure what kind of Islam we are going to see, weither it is the Iranian brand of Islam (Extremist and hostile to us), the Saudi brand of Islam (Extremist but friendly to us), or the Turkey brand of Islam (People tend to forget that an Islamist party is in power in Turkey).Also I've yet to read anything on the Syrian rebels (like the Libyans) that paint them as especially morally superior. Arab Spring uprisings and revolutions have been fairly marked by the large Islamist elements to them which opposed to the western image of democratic flowering seems more of a resurgence of Islamic conservatism.
People tend to forget that massive, transformative movements often take decades before their implications become clear. After all, even after the US won the revolutionary war it took six years before the current US Constitution was signed and ratified, and during that period the US was a complete mess.
#20
"Military intervention" is a very broad term. The intervention in Libya worked because it was limited to a no-fly zone, some gun running, and bombing a few tanks. The revolutionaries supplied the ground forces which did the actual claiming of territory, while the West simply provided fire support. If we are going to pull off something similar in Syria, the Syrian revolutionaries must have the capacity to actually take and hold ground. I don't see any way a Western ground invasion could work.
#21
I think regardless of the situation, people need to stop using the term "genocide" in this context. Genocide is the mass killing of civilians because they belong to a certain ethnic or religious groups. For example, Hitler's Holocaust was a genocide because it targeted Jewish people for the reason that they were Jewish. On the other hand, Stalin's reign of murders and arrests is [in]not genocide[/i] (by and large) because he cracked down on people and groups who opposed him. Thus, genocide is killing for ethnic reasons whereas Syria looks like a civil war or, if you want to be very pro-rebel, a mass murder.
Lots of countries violate human rights or support countries that violate human rights. Indeed, much of the Western World gets its oil from Saudi Arabia - a country that suppresses dissidents, and generally craps all over women's rights (with it being illegal for a woman to even leave her house without a male member of her family with her). I'm not saying that this is morally right, but what I am saying is that if you do adopt the position that we ought to embargo states that violate human rights, considerable difficulty would face the Western World as it would be cut off from the oil of the Middle East, the manufacturing centres of China and the raw materials of much of Africa.Question: How will Russia fair on the international political and social scene if they continue to twart NATO responds now that the torture centres and crimes are coming to light? How far would Russia be held accountable for violating the Universal Human Rights by supporting and assisting the current regime?
As for the Syrian situation, I don't foresee any Western nation sticking its neck out for the Syrians; at least not at this point. There's not that much you can objectively gain in return for the expenditure of lives, money and political capital. The sad fact of the world today is that if you go around knocking over every regime that oppresses its people, you'll very quickly be broke and surrounded by enemies.
In Soviet Russia, forums moderate YOU!
Then you should require US intervention across the entire Africa, because there are some nasty, large scale cutting of arm/legs/tits happening in several countries there. Assad's government has nothing on those guys, seriously.My requirement for intervention was focused on the whole torture on a rather large scale
#23
Well that's not really an argument. Either you think something justifies intervention or not. Generally speaking, just because something might be difficult or impossible to do in every case does not mean it should never be tried if a particular case favors it.
Africa's interesting anyhow.
If you'd care to actually look into things you'd notice there's specific groups within the US Military and most likely the CIA that have been prancing around for a while now in quite a few African nations to provide "advise" on how to deal with certain things.
Coverups <3
I'm just too much of an optimist. My teachers tell me this too, I expect too much from humanity. What I hope to see is a world government that oversees mankind's development. Gone with any oppression and all that. Ala Star Trek Federation*. Too bad most people cant see further than their own nose and show no sign of ever wanting to become more than what they are.
As for Syria; more reports of potential chemical weapon usage has me horrified.
*nothing is perfect, and it has it's flaws. But give me that over anything we have now.
#26
I fear you;re a modern day Icarus, Guilly, and your hopes and aspirations will just end up burning your wings.
Best to be a bit more pragmatic.
@Guli: glad i'm not the only one who'd like that kind of future.
@Nuri: I don;t think guli's any more the wide eye'd optomist than i am. But dosen't mean we can't dream.
I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.
Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.
#28
Dreaming is necessary for the creation of a better world. However, a dream is how the world ought to act and should be considered separately from how the world does act. Basing your actions on how you think the world should behave in defiance of how the world actually does work on a geopolitical scale is just asking for trouble. That said, I think we have reached a point where it is becoming increasingly difficult for Great Powers to act with utter impunity in the face of public opinion (though the Iraq escapade shows that it is merely difficult, not impossible) and that in this regard, we are making progress on the world scale.
If you're looking for a Federation approach Guilly, they wouldn't interfere no matter what horrors someone was inflicting on their own people, they would just refuse all contact and probably blockade any weapons sales. Along with the non oppression and all that built into the concept of Star Trek's Federation is the philosophy that you cannot force your ideals on anyone, no matter how superior they may be or how heartwrenching the situation. Situations are too complex, too fluid and people are too imperfect to be able to foresee the outcome of every well intentioned intervention.Gone with any oppression and all that. Ala Star Trek Federation*.
I'm not a big Star Trek fan, but I like to think we can aspire to that sort of state as well. We've climbed slowly out of religious wars, race wars. empires and ego driven wars (mostly), maybe in the next few centuries we can climb out of tribalism and consumerism as well.
That was more or less what i was trying to say. Just very poorly.Dreaming is necessary for the creation of a better world. However, a dream is how the world ought to act and should be considered separately from how the world does act.
To me the real sorrow is that far too many give up on the dream, they become permanent cynics unwilling to believe a better world is possible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
