|
SedanChair posted:He just wants the conflict to take the quickest route to him not having to hear bad things anymore. Like how Obama "pulled out" of Iraq and Iraq is fixed now. That was the vibe I got too. Loving Africa Chaps posted:Genuinely don't see how this would be different if the rebels won. There seems to be a significant number of them that are all for cleansing the allawite population. Also if the rebels gain the upper hand and al-nusra destroys the shrine of Sayyida Zeinab then the bloodbath extends across the middle east. There's also a significant number who aren't. I think the biggest thing is that if the regime collapses, it throws Syria into limbo. There's a lot of bad options, but I don't think any of them are really capable of creating something awful that can't be overthrown. Roving gangs of insurgents, especially genocidal ones, is an awful thing, but at least it won't be institutionalized and supported by a sovereign nation. I don't have much hope for Syria over the next 5-10 years, but after things start to cool down a little bit and it becomes a little clearer what the future is going to look like, I think there's a decent probability of a government coming together that's better than the regime. On the opposite end, if Assad wins, it goes right back to the "walls have ears" culture that existed before the revolution with a vengeance. Assad will want to maximize his ability to prevent any such attempts in the future while diminishing the ability of Syrians to oppose him. Now that the cherry has really been popped, and the two sides are so polarized that it's very easy to justify atrocities against the enemies, I think he'd step things up to a level of brutality in the midst of stability that might only be matched by North Korea. If he wins, it's pretty much guaranteed that the next 20+ years are going to be a nightmare. They're both pretty ugly options, but at least one is fluid enough that it leaves open some possibilities of progress. Assad maintaining power will never not be the worst case scenario, at least domestically in Syria. Globally, there's probably more potential for things to spread throughout the region should the regime be overthrown than if Assad were to win. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jun 11, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Genuinely don't see how this would be different if the rebels won. There seems to be a significant number of them that are all for cleansing the allawite population. Also if the rebels gain the upper hand and al-nusra destroys the shrine of Sayyida Zeinab then the bloodbath extends across the middle east. It's probably going to be inevitable either way, unfortunately. But an important thing to remember is that Assad, and dictators like him, kept the peace largely by playing sectarian tensions against each other, building resentment and undermining a sense of common purpose that might unify against him. It's not like, if he came back into power, had the necessary bloody purge, and stabilized things again, he would then stop doing all this. Him or his successor or whoever would still end up having a fractured society at the brink of war with itself, and it would just happen again later. An Assad victory even without a mass slaughter doesn't put any bad stuff back in the box, it just holds onto it for later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
I see the situation where the rebels win, as far more chaotic for the population as a whole. I don't see a reliable government coming out of this mess, and a situation where you have hundreds of militas splitting up the country is less preferable to a government that at least can fell international pressure. That said, I don't think the West is going to accept Assad back in power even if the rebels are crushed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
There's no longer any good options in Syria just a variety of bad options, and it's a matter of picking which is the least awful. Do nothing and the conflict will continue, almost certainly dragging Lebanon and Iraq into a sectarian conflict that could last for years, if not decades, and possibly spread even further. But arming the rebels won't bring the conflict to a rapid conclusion, and it's pretty clear there's a significant number of rebels who aren't interested in freedom and democracy, so even if the rebels win it's more likely there will be warlords fighting it out for control of the country rather than a stable government being established. All the time they are fighting it out the sectarian issue won't go away, and will almost certainly get worse, so then the west would have effectively backed ethnic cleansing (which almost certainly would have happened anyway if they didn't back the rebels). A Libya style no-fly-zone would have the same problems as above, and have to get past the UNSC, which seems unlikely. A full scale invasion would end with another Iraq/Afghanistan situation, except the country is already full of foreign Jihadist who I'm sure would love to kill some NATO troops. Any variations on the above scenarios would result in something poo poo happening, and that barely takes into consideration the fact Syria is partly a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia plus friends, so that makes the situation even more complicated. Some people say "why not try for peace?", well the problem with that is Assad thinks he's winning at the moment, groups like Jabhat al-Nusra will never take part in negotiations, and there's so many different factions involved getting some sort of consensus seems impossible. In my mind it's a total non-starter. At this point the situation is pretty much about choosing which nightmare is preferable. I'd love there to be a realistic solution that wasn't horrible, but I can't think of any.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
I have this idea of supplying the rebels with internet-connected weapons that have fingerprint-locks and gun cameras so that if the gun was used for war crimes the gun would be locked and the evidence and the suspect's fingerprint data would be sent to ICC. I'm sending my proposal to Ban Ki-moon right now, this could be the most realistic initiative yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:There's no longer any good options in Syria just a variety of bad options, and it's a matter of picking which is the least awful. Do nothing and the conflict will continue, almost certainly dragging Lebanon and Iraq into a sectarian conflict that could last for years, if not decades, and possibly spread even further. But arming the rebels won't bring the conflict to a rapid conclusion, and it's pretty clear there's a significant number of rebels who aren't interested in freedom and democracy, so even if the rebels win it's more likely there will be warlords fighting it out for control of the country rather than a stable government being established. All the time they are fighting it out the sectarian issue won't go away, and will almost certainly get worse, so then the west would have effectively backed ethnic cleansing (which almost certainly would have happened anyway if they didn't back the rebels). LOL. I think this was my point. The good guys rarely win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
radical meme posted:LOL. I think this was my point. The good guys rarely win. Oh ok, you just meant Syria was hosed. Well, that's a fair opini- quote:gently caress it, let Russia arm Assad and let him retake the country. At least he won't slaughter innocent women and children in the name of God; I do realize that he'll slaughter plenty of innocent people but not in the name of God. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Oh ok, you just meant Syria was hosed. Well, that's a fair opini- Well obviously if you have to slaughter people at least do it secularly. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
I don't think it's an unreasonable opinion to wish for Assad's victory and a return to the previous dictatorship. All Syrians I know hold that opinion. The enemy is not the rebels or Assad, but war itself, and Assad crushing the uprising seems to be the shortest way to end it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
This may well be true, but you need to at least test it. The Russians have did their side of the Geneva bargain, the Syrian Government are committed to going. It's the opposition / SNC who are rejecting it. And the logic may be sound, but imagine if it was the other way around? If Assad was refusing to negotiate because the rebels were winning? I can't imagine anyone would have any sympathy. The whole obvious point of Geneva was to prove Assad wouldn't negotiate and use that as an excuse to supply weapons, but suddenly it seems that the SNC refusing to negotiate is a valid reason to give them weapons. It's the sort of game playing that just proves to te Russians etc the west has no intention of being objective, and so therefore neither should they.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
I think this is why, historically, governments usually end up suing for some sort of negotiated piece in the end, even in the worst of conflicts. It's doubtful that the U.S. and EU will let the rebel movement get taken to the precipice, if that's truly the way the momentum is shifting right now. I wouldn't be surprised if weapons are eventually delivered to force a deeper, more intractable stalemate. As others have mentioned before though, it seems like all sides, including the proxy countries sitting outside the conflict, have no interest in sitting down for negotiations while they still have a taste for bloodshed and destroying their enemies. The sheer scope of the civil war, 100,000+ people dead is absolutely insane. To be a fighter on either side, knowing that tens of thousands of guys before you have been slaughtered one way or the other signals just how bitter this fighting is. Diplomacy is really the only end game, but no catalyst for it seems available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
mediadave posted:This may well be true, but you need to at least test it. The Russians have did their side of the Geneva bargain, the Syrian Government are committed to going. It's the opposition / SNC who are rejecting it. And the logic may be sound, but imagine if it was the other way around? If Assad was refusing to negotiate because the rebels were winning? I can't imagine anyone would have any sympathy. The whole obvious point of Geneva was to prove Assad wouldn't negotiate and use that as an excuse to supply weapons, but suddenly it seems that the SNC refusing to negotiate is a valid reason to give them weapons. It's the sort of game playing that just proves to te Russians etc the west has no intention of being objective, and so therefore neither should they. Which still results in Syria being in a lengthy, bloody, conflict. There's plenty of things people should do, and the right way to do things, but that's not the way things are going in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Supporting Assad over the rebels isn't a horrible indefensible position. That or 70% of Syrians hold a horrible indefensible position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Plafop posted:Supporting Assad over the rebels isn't a horrible indefensible position. That or 70% of Syrians hold a horrible indefensible position. If those numbers are reliable, which I doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
If Assad wins he will brutally crack down on any opposition and it will be very ugly, but at least it's very unlikely that there will be sectarian-based genocide. Assad can't afford that. Syria is a Sunni majority nation. If Islamists win on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Alawite? More like ala-nope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If those numbers are reliable, which I doubt. The foreign fighters and their highly visible atrocities are the best propaganda the regime could wish for to turn public opinion against the rebels. What was added by a few thousand fighters of wildly varying effectiveness is lost many times over in popular support and I expect the fight for Aleppo to turn into a complete rout in less then two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:The foreign fighters and their highly visible atrocities are the best propaganda the regime could wish for to turn public opinion against the rebels. What was added by a few thousand fighters of wildly varying effectiveness is lost many times over in popular support and I expect the fight for Aleppo to turn into a complete rout in less then two weeks. Now I have to ask: Are you a military analyst? If not, maybe you shouldn't lean quite so far out your window just yet. My opinion: Two weeks fighting for taking a major city? Highly unlikely. Personally, I would carefully assume the fighting going on for months. This could easily turn into a Stalingrad for either side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:The foreign fighters and their highly visible atrocities are the best propaganda the regime could wish for to turn public opinion against the rebels. What was added by a few thousand fighters of wildly varying effectiveness is lost many times over in popular support and I expect the fight for Aleppo to turn into a complete rout in less then two weeks. I dunno, the groups around Aleppo are armed with tanks, heavy artillery, and much better stuff than the fighters in Qusayr had, and they've long term control of large areas of the countryside that the Syrian army will have to fight through first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Libluini posted:If those numbers are reliable, which I doubt. I think you only doubt them because they contradict what you want to believe. What better data is there on Syrian public opinion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Plafop posted:Supporting Assad over the rebels isn't a horrible indefensible position. That or 70% of Syrians hold a horrible indefensible position. What is your source for this 70% figure?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Plafop posted:I think you only doubt them because they contradict what you want to believe. What better data is there on Syrian public opinion? There isn't really any credible data, though. All there is is an unsourced claim of a NATO study but no further information, especially on the sample size and methodology. The very idea of accurate polling in a war ravaged country with 10% of population displaced sounds ludicrous to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
fspades posted:If Assad wins he will brutally crack down on any opposition and it will be very ugly, but at least it's very unlikely that there will be sectarian-based genocide. There almost certainly will be some sort of purges. We can debate numbers and targets, but even Assad will have to make some examples to prop up his rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There isn't really any credible data, though. All there is is an unsourced claim of a NATO study but no further information, especially on the sample size and methodology. The very idea of accurate polling in a war ravaged country with 10% of population displaced sounds ludicrous to me. There is a disturbingly high chance the sample size ran along the lines of "my rear end" and the involved methodology was "pulling it out of". Since you beat me to the punch, I can only add you aren't the only one who thinks conducting a poll on which side you prefer in an ongoing loving civil war is pretty drat stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I don't know why NATO would want to give more legitimacy to Assad when every NATO member is opposed to Assad. If your conspiracy theory was true I think they could have done a better job of supporting their own narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Or maybe it's completely wrong and most people support Al Qaeda rebels, I dunno! But that seems less likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Are you trolling or something? We're not saying that it's a NATO conspiracy. We're saying that we'd like more details and information about the study's methodology before we blindly accept that 70% figure, no matter who is reporting it. Not all rebels are 'Al Qaeda', either. They seem to have a lot of popular support in certain areas of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Plafop posted:I don't know why NATO would want to give more legitimacy to Assad when every NATO member is opposed to Assad. If your conspiracy theory was true I think they could have done a better job of supporting their own narrative. I'm not sure if you understood. You threw a figure. What makes you think it's credible? As far as I can tell the only source for the figure that you mentioned is this article: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/ Let's see where it comes from: quote:The data, compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations, showed that a majority of Syrians were alarmed by the Al Qaida takeover of the Sunni revolt and preferred to return to Assad, Middle East Newsline reported.  Uh... I'll let someone else check it. So what else does the article say? quote:“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,” a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.” quote:The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts. quote:The data was relayed to NATO as the Western alliance has been divided over whether to intervene in Syria. Britain and France were said to have been preparing to send weapons to the rebels while the United States was focusing on protecting Syria’s southern neighbor Jordan. Plafop posted:Or maybe it's completely wrong and most people support Al Qaeda rebels, I dunno! But that seems less likely. Less likely? Than what? I don't quite see how you make any conclusions based on nonexisting data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
New Division posted:This hasn't gotten covered in the news much due to other events like the Qusayr battle, but some rebel groups have apparently decided that this would be a good time to try and wipe out the YPG (Kurdish group) Picking a fight with the Kurds sounds like a fantastically dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Are you trolling or something? We're not saying that it's a NATO conspiracy. We're saying that we'd like more details and information about the study's methodology before we blindly accept that 70% figure, no matter who is reporting it. Not all rebels are 'Al Qaeda', either. They seem to have a lot of popular support in certain areas of the country. Even the rebels themselves are against foreign Islamists like Al-Nusra hijacking the revolution, even if at present they depend on the nutjobs. The common attitude among secular/moderate rebels seems to be that of a second war after Assad falls, to drive out the Al-Qaida affiliated elements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Even the rebels themselves are against foreign Islamists like Al-Nusra hijacking the revolution, even if at present they depend on the nutjobs. The common attitude among secular/moderate rebels seems to be that of a second war after Assad falls, to drive out the Al-Qaida affiliated elements. I don't disagree with you that this seems to be the idea, but good lord that's going to be ugly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
I think the only remotely plausible end to this war would be the redrawing of borders along sectarian lines. The borders as they are today were drawn up during the great war with no regard for ethnicity or religious standing. You could have the Alawi borders drawn up, the Kurdistan borders drawn up, the Sunni and Shia borders seperately drawn up... but where would you even start? Who would you negotiate these borders with? How could everyone come to an agreement, especially on natural resources? What about the various holy sites in the region? I don't know. There really isn't a solution in sight to this horrific war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:I think the only remotely plausible end to this war would be the redrawing of borders along sectarian lines. The borders as they are today were drawn up during the great war with no regard for ethnicity or religious standing. I think you run into the same problem as in Northern Ireland, Lebanon, the Balkans and Iraq. It's almost impossible to draw clear lines between the different communities. Massive rural-to-urban immigration means that most major cities are a mix of various denominations and/or ethnicities. If you divided Syria in its current state, the successor states would just end up with the same sectarian problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Yeah, it would be pretty difficult for it to happen and would have to rely extensively on population cleansing but that might not be out of the question at this point due to circumstance. Obviously, the best case scenario is some type of diplomatic solution were Assad steps down in some type of managed way, the war ends and some type of election happens. It is pretty remote at this point. That said the solution that leads to less life lost is the preferable one at this point, but it is still unclear how that happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Not to make light of the 15yr old boy that was killed but he seemed to be pretty bad rear end.quote:He is said to have replied: "Even if Muhammad came down from heaven, I would not give you this coffee on credit."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Apparently that's a really common Syrian saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Syrian covetousness of their coffee is legendary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Syrian covetousness of their coffee is legendary. Have you ever had Arabic/Turkish coffee? poo poo's like jet fuel. When I came home from Egypt, I brought home a bunch of pots and have been to a few Arab stores to collect the good stuff. Even had one of my Lebanese coworkers bring some home for me the last time they went to Beirut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Not to make light of the 15yr old boy that was killed but he seemed to be pretty bad rear end. Can you imagine if God ACTUALLY wanted humans to mete out death sentences based on passing references to someone who talked to him? I understand there's a deep cultural and religious upbringing to extreme religiosity anywhere. But it boggles the mind if you just step back and consider how horrible our existence would be if God was actually so freaking severe. And I concur with this coffee klatch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Just a point about Syria, it's been a administrative unit for centuries, it didn't just pop out of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Modern Syria is an area roughly covering the old Ottoman vilayets of Aleppo and Damascus, plus some of the Arab Levant. Certainly the borders changed and solidified during the time of the French Mandate, but it's a not a case of European powers coming in and just deciding to lump together previously separate ethnic groups into the same arbitrary administrative unit. It's been intermixed groups going all the way back to the Umayyad caliphate. It is very much like the Balkans in that centuries under various empires has led to a lot of pockets of different ethnic groups interspersed all over. There is no easy way to just cut the country up along ethnic lines, at least not without ethnic cleansing purging isolated enclaves like what was seen in Yugoslavia and particularly Bosnia-Herzegovina.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:01
|
|
