|
cgeq posted:You could argue that if the more secular/liberal elements of the uprising had been given greater support earlier in the conflict, then all the extremist groups wouldn't have grown so powerful. It seems like a fine argument. I don't think arming the rebels earlier would have had much of a difference in the long run. You can give a guy the best gun around but he'll still need to know how to shoot it accurately for it to be any use. Alot of their learning was done as they went along, and the extremists that have joined the fight have a number of veterans in their ranks so their infusion into the rebel forces was necessary.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Give everybody a gun, let God sort them out. Isn't that the proper American way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Give everybody a gun, let God sort them out. Isn't that the proper American way? I believe the proper American way is to sell everyone a gun and then let God sort them out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I believe the proper American way is to sell everyone a gun and then let God sort them out. Actually thats a European thing historically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:I don't think arming the rebels earlier would have had much of a difference in the long run. You can give a guy the best gun around but he'll still need to know how to shoot it accurately for it to be any use. Alot of their learning was done as they went along, and the extremists that have joined the fight have a number of veterans in their ranks so their infusion into the rebel forces was necessary. I can't really disagree with your conclusion, but weren't there more military defections earlier in all this? I imagine ex-military who didn't want to fire on their own people would also have the conscience to not engage in revenge attacks after overthrowing the regime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Actually thats a European thing historically. The United States has essentially cornered the international arms market, with $66.3 billion in overseas sales last year. Russia is a distant second with $4.8 billion in sales. Buy American. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
That's due to sales of high-end high price equipment like jets and radars and such. I suspect the small arms market U.S. is behind Russia, Belgium and Germany. edit: though if you count small arms sold to Americans I suppose America would be up there. second edit: Not that any of this matters, arms are arms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:When in history has the US chosen to arm leftists over theocrats? Well there's Mujahadeen-e-Khalq.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:That's due to sales of high-end high price equipment like jets and radars and such. I suspect the small arms market U.S. is behind Russia, Belgium and Germany. True. I mean the FAL was adopted in neaely 80 countries far more than used the M16. Small arms sales are still driven by European companies, they make quality stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
A lot of this also ignores the fact that the SNC lost legitimacy as a viable means of democracy in the eyes of many Syrians for being unable to procure any weapons while Assad was shooting protesters and attacking cities 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:True. I mean the FAL was adopted in neaely 80 countries far more than used the M16. Small arms sales are still driven by European companies, they make quality stuff. Fabrique Nationale was the manufacturer of my M-16 when I was in, too. (Also, all our machine guns except the M2 and Mk 19). They're everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
cgeq posted:You could argue that if the more secular/liberal elements of the uprising had been given greater support earlier in the conflict, then all the extremist groups wouldn't have grown so powerful. It seems like a fine argument. Its still getting involved and taking sides in a cival war. Not to say we dont have a bad history of that, because we do, but 9 times out of 10 it seems to bite us in the rear end in the end. Its about time we just let countries resolve their differences on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Its still getting involved and taking sides in a cival war. Not to say we dont have a bad history of that, because we do, but 9 times out of 10 it seems to bite us in the rear end in the end. Its about time we just let countries resolve their differences on their own. And this has led to a massive refugee crisis for two of our allies and the potential of chemical weapons being used by a desperate regime, go non-interventionism!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Fabrique Nationale was the manufacturer of my M-16 when I was in, too. (Also, all our machine guns except the M2 and Mk 19). They're everywhere. Oh yeah, FN does lots of US stuff and has snatched some of the M16/M4 business from Colt since certain exclusivity contracts expired. They make and made some awesome stuff. Hoping to pick up a Hi-Power soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:That's due to sales of high-end high price equipment like jets and radars and such. I suspect the small arms market U.S. is behind Russia, Belgium and Germany. Though if you count small arms sold to Americans I suppose America would be up there. Actually the United States also tops the small arms export market as well, but not nearly to the same extent (a mild plurality versus 77% of the total international arms market). Of course one of the things skewing the small arms statistics is that Western nations (and the US in particular) are also the biggest markets for civilian small arms. Mostly the Western nations sell to themselves, while the third-world is still going through the massive stockpiles that are left from the Cold War. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/weapons-and-markets/transfers/exporters.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
The refugee crisis would happen anyway, and the conundrum of dealing with the poison gas would be there anyway. Bombing it outright is not an easy answer - remember Gulf War Syndrome? The fallout of "US complicit in massacre?" is not good, and based on our history, the odds of us drastically improving the situation via our violence is not great either. Bombs do not just fall on bad people with no friends, and "The United States government" is not an entity consistently given the benefit of the doubt in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
I have a semi ignorant Middle East question. There's no doubt that the dictators we put in place during the cold war are/were giant pieces of poo poo.....but what is better: Secular Dictators or people like Morsi or other religious guys in the region? Is the answer that it doesn't matter as long as the religious people are elected democratically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:And this has led to a massive refugee crisis for two of our allies and the potential of chemical weapons being used by a desperate regime, go non-interventionism! And intervening would've prevented any of that how? Even if it would've somehow prevented any of that, you can't see any way where intervening may have caused an even worse outcome than sitting by and not intervening militarily? Foreign policy isn't like some loving movie where the choices are a) roll in and save the day without anything bad possibly happening at all to anyone "good" or b) sit idly by while evilly twirling your mustache and letting wars go on just because you can. Some (most) of the time your options are a) do (or not do) something and still have some really bad poo poo happen because the world is a lovely place with lovely people or b) do something else without thinking it through and have some even worse poo poo happen due to your action. Believe it or not, those of us advocating for not arming people willy-nilly or getting the U.S. involved in its fourth Middle Eastern War in the past decade aren't evil folks who just enjoy seeing poor brown folks die. I firmly believe that a western military intervention would be even worse for the country and its people than the current policy of providing humanitarian and other non-military aid. Simplistic thinking like what you're arguing is what has led to every foreign policy blunder by the U.S. since WWII. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I have a semi ignorant Middle East question. I think that there's too many variables to come up with a blanket rule. "Democracy at any cost" is no better a motto than "Stability at any cost". A lenient secular dictator is better than a harsh "democratically-elected" theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Of course, not doing anything also leads to the possibility of radicalized terrorist groups fill in the vacuum and provide the weapons that many people have been asking for and hijack the movement because no one wanted to get involved and actually help the democratic movements which leads to a drawn out civil war with 40,000 casualties and the possibility of gas being used as an act of desperation. The alternative being that the SNC could have been armed in the beginning and allowed the protest movement to actually unify and defend themselves without being harassed by Assad constantly. Edit: the only difference now is that we'll be taking sides after the fact
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I have a semi ignorant Middle East question. Today on World Have Your Say some expat and a MB spokeswoman were going at it. The MB rep was talking about democracy and the expat said "but the Islamists are taking it upon themselves to write the constitution after everyone else has left. The constitution comes before democracy, you need consensus to write it." I think what's best is that we stop thinking in terms of "who is the best guy to put in there" because "that guy" will never have legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Of course, not doing anything also leads to the possibility of radicalized terrorist groups fill in the vacuum and provide the weapons that many people have been asking for and hijack the movement because no one wanted to get involved and actually help the democratic movements which leads to a drawn out civil war with 40,000 casualties and the possibility of gas being used as an act of desperation. The alternative being that the SNC could have been armed in the beginning and allowed the protest movement to actually unify and defend themselves without being harassed by Assad constantly. Point to a Syrian group that has legitimacy with the people, broad support from the armed groups, a good chance to win the war, and a Thomas Jefferson waiting in the wings with a secular, republican constitution in hand. Until very, very recently there was no such group, and creating the FSA was the first real hurdle to creating a post-Assad Syria that won't collapse like Lebanon on steroids. History has shown time and time and time again that just giving this or that armed group who seem like good guys weapons is a good recipe for atrocity soup with an extra helping of "blow the gently caress up in your face". Edit: Can't forget the weapons. Zeroisanumber fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Point to a Syrian group that has legitimacy with the people, broad support from the armed groups, a good chance to win the war, and a Thomas Jefferson waiting in the wings with a secular, republican constitution in hand. Until very, very recently there was no such group, and creating the FSA was the first real hurdle to creating a post-Assad Syria that won't collapse like Lebanon on steroids. History has shown time and time and time again that just giving this or that armed group who seem like good guys is a good recipe for atrocity soup with an extra helping of "blow the gently caress up in your face". You are aware that Assad began bombing cities to prevent this type of organizing in the first place right? You're right however that the FSA has been the primary leader of any competent organization that would lead post Assad or even a real force but this is mainly due to them being former military. Like I said the SNC lost their legitimacy in the beginning due to being unable to contribute anything towards the fight. Had the FSA been better armed in the beginning however I would say that you'd probably see better safe zones towards northern Syria where organizations like the SNC could have operated safely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Point to a Syrian group that has legitimacy with the people, broad support from the armed groups, a good chance to win the war, and a Thomas Jefferson waiting in the wings with a secular, republican constitution in hand. Good point. And even if that group existed, by accepting Western aid they'd simply be accused of merely being puppets of the US - just like every other secular faction in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:You are aware that Assad began bombing cities to prevent this type of organizing in the first place right? You're right however that the FSA has been the primary leader of any competent organization that would lead post Assad or even a real force but this is mainly due to them being former military. Like I said the SNC lost their legitimacy in the beginning due to being unable to contribute anything towards the fight. Had the FSA been better armed in the beginning however I would say that you'd probably see better safe zones towards northern Syria where organizations like the SNC could have operated safely. But there was no FSA at the start of the conflict. All there was were armed groups fighting for a dozen different reasons and each with their own idea of what they wanted a post-Assad Syria to be. We can't just give people guns, we have do go about it the way that we did, which was to bring enough of the big armed groups together and get them all on the same page so that you can start to see a skeletal outline of what will one day be a government. If you don't do the hard diplomatic work, if you just dump weapons into the hands of armed groups, you end up with a terrible, bloody mess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:But there was no FSA at the start of the conflict. All there was were armed groups fighting for a dozen different reasons and each with their own idea of what they wanted a post-Assad Syria to be. We can't just give people guns, we have do go about it the way that we did, which was to bring enough of the big armed groups together and get them all on the same page so that you can start to see a skeletal outline of what will one day be a government. If you don't do the hard diplomatic work, if you just dump weapons into the hands of armed groups, you end up with a terrible, bloody mess. Wow, foreign policy is hard and requires more thinking beyond simplistic "good"/"bad" narratives and easy solutions like dumping heavy weapons into a volatile region to magically make things better! Who knew? But seriously, everyone underestimates the amount of time and effort that diplomatic work of that nature requires. You can't just get everyone (good luck determining who "everyone" should be, for starters) around a table and go "alright dudes, we all hate Assad, sweet, we're all agreed, let's go get you some heavy crew served weapons and we'll commence bombing tomorrow." We're talking months and months of work here...and at the end of it, you get a very tenuous, shaky agreement that is likely to fall apart at the slightest stress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:You are aware that Assad began bombing cities to prevent this type of organizing in the first place right? You're right however that the FSA has been the primary leader of any competent organization that would lead post Assad or even a real force but this is mainly due to them being former military. Like I said the SNC lost their legitimacy in the beginning due to being unable to contribute anything towards the fight. Had the FSA been better armed in the beginning however I would say that you'd probably see better safe zones towards northern Syria where organizations like the SNC could have operated safely. The "FSA" is pretty much a catch-all term to describe anyone who is fighting Assad. It literally can be anything from former school teachers who hated living under a dictatorship and have never shot a gun in their life, to battle hardened al quaeda members who have fought US forces in Iraq. Now, does that sound like a group you would be willing to give advanced weapons like Stinger and TOW missiles to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:When in history has the US chosen to arm leftists over theocrats?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The "FSA" is pretty much a catch-all term to describe anyone who is fighting Assad. It literally can be anything from former school teachers who hated living under a dictatorship and have never shot a gun in their life, to battle hardened al quaeda members who have fought US forces in Iraq. Now, does that sound like a group you would be willing to give advanced weapons like Stinger and TOW missiles to? No, you give them to a group like the SNC who are a lot more accountable being mainly foreign and highly educated expatriates who can better allocate resources, without a centralized group like that you end up with the fragmented and unaccountable forces that we have now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:No, you give them to a group like the SNC who are a lot more accountable being mainly foreign and highly educated expatriates who can better allocate resources, without a centralized group like that you end up with the fragmented and unaccountable forces that we have now. The reason why the SNC hasn't already been given weapons to distribute en masse is because local political opposition groups (like the LCCs) and insurgent cadre don't trust them and deride them for being expatriates when it's the locals who have been doing the fighting and denying. Despite all the international diplomacy and talk of a formal command structure, the SNC is still a head without a body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:No, you give them to a group like the SNC who are a lot more accountable being mainly foreign and highly educated expatriates who can better allocate resources, without a centralized group like that you end up with the fragmented and unaccountable forces that we have now. You keep making it sound like there's the SNC is this awesome completely organized and democratic opposition government that has been around since the beginning of the conflict and that they have a monolithic military arm with the FSA that is completely under their control. That's nice sounding and certainly makes the case for foreign intervention, but it's a fantasy. Oh, and by the way the SNC has explicitly refused (numerous times) to provide any arms directly to the FSA. So I guess the U.S. could try and impose its will and force the SNC to accept weapons but somehow I don't think that would go over too well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:The reason why the SNC hasn't already been given weapons to distribute en masse is because local Much of the criticism of the SNC has been their inability to procure anything to help the fight, hence why the locals have little faith in them. I still think had they been properly supported from the beginning a bigger buffer zone in northern Syria could have been created that could have been much more stable compared to what we have now. iyaayas01 posted:Oh, and by the way the SNC has explicitly refused (numerous times) to provide any arms directly to the FSA. So I guess the U.S. could try and impose its will and force the SNC to accept weapons but somehow I don't think that would go over too well. Ahh I was unaware of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:No, you give them to a group like the SNC who are a lot more accountable being mainly foreign and highly educated expatriates who can better allocate resources, without a centralized group like that you end up with the fragmented and unaccountable forces that we have now. Those characteristics come with terrible baggage, exiles are often disconnected from realities in Syria and alienated from the people fighting on the ground. We should keep in mind how scummy the exile groups the U.S. worked with in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be, even if the SNC ever had the ability to exert influence you claim, which I doubt. Squalid fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Ahh I was unaware of this. Hell, initially they were explicitly renouncing all violence and refusing to have anything to do with the FSA/other armed resistance elements. Of course, once cities were being indiscriminately bombed/shelled it's kind of ludicrous to refuse any armed resistance, so they have a relationship with the FSA in that they give them money but they are still adamant that they want nothing to do directly with arms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Hell, initially they were explicitly renouncing all violence and refusing to have anything to do with the FSA/other armed resistance elements. Of course, once cities were being indiscriminately bombed/shelled it's kind of ludicrous to refuse any armed resistance, so they have a relationship with the FSA in that they give them money but they are still adamant that they want nothing to do directly with arms. Hell hasn't the SNC also been broken up and reformed several time already? The problem right now is that the FSA is doing the fighting but without an ideology they're pretty much just loose militias, the only good news is that many are former soldiers and are being lead by generals and will have some alliance. However politically in a post-Assad Syria I can't imagine them being anything more than armed militias. This also leads to the problem where extremists have come in and filled the gaps, potentially making post-assad syria even less friendly towards the west.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:This also leads to the problem where extremists have come in and filled the gaps, potentially making post-assad syria even less friendly towards the west. Being unfriendly to the west isn't the problem that extremists bring that makes them undesirable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
This is from a few weeks ago, but here's a video of an anti-Assad militia destroying Roman-style statues in an Aleppo restaurant. A pro-Assad website says that it was done by Liwa Ettahweed, the main FSA brigade in Aleppo. In the video they call them "idols", which is really bizarre and indicative of severe Salafi-like tendencies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0XoUgAkZ6U Also of interest is the only comment on it is someone quoting the Quranic verse that Muhammad recited as he was destroying the polytheistic idols in Mecca. az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:Hell hasn't the SNC also been broken up and reformed several time already? The problem right now is that the FSA is doing the fighting but without an ideology they're pretty much just loose militias, the only good news is that many are former soldiers and are being lead by generals and will have some alliance. However politically in a post-Assad Syria I can't imagine them being anything more than armed militias. Also, if I remember correctly your plan was to fly an unmanned helicopter towing a pallet of MANPADS through Syrian airspace to "the right guys" (identity TBD). I'm not picking on you, it was a creative idea. My fear is that the guys who are actually working on this may be less informed than you were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Give everybody a gun, let God sort them out. Isn't that the proper American way? Give? I think you mean "Sell", because thats the American way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Lets keep in mind that while the west (I know I know) didn't do anything for the rebels when the asked nicely, some of the more... unnerving people in the gulf were sending truckloads of Salafi Dollars to some really, really unfit people. Extremists are one thing, and they're not all as bad and crazy as they are made out to be, but sending money to a known criminal because he grew a beard and started acting all Salafi-like is a whole different shebang. So yeah, debating stuff like this is all good and well, but don't forget that while the west (again, I know) procrastinates on sending something useful to some of the rebel groups who are clearly much more democratically-minded than others, the really crazy guys are getting so much money it won't be that difficult for them to simply expand operations into the rest of the Levant when the time to do so comes. And yes, western intelligence agencies do know who is trustworthy and who isn't. This isn't a murky quagmire where all the military leaders are unknown, this is a situation where they have been meeting with military leaders from all over Syria for months now. Acting worried is all good and fine, but acting surprised and being so pessimistic when whatever comes out of Syria is Anti-Western and nowhere near as cooperative as Assad was is going to be silly. The trend is clear, the lack of any significant counter to it is as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:15
|
|