Post To The Left Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Throughout the 90s Syria sponsored a brutal proxy-war in Lebanon tearing that nation apart now what goes around comes around as Syria is the site of another proxy battle being fought my the local regional powers. Iran has ordered its Shiite miltias to help prop up the Assad regime while Assad is pulling in favors and enlisting Hezbollah death squads to help out him. On the otherside Sunni Iraqis thankful for the Syrian support offered in fighting the American occupation force are sending guns and ammunition over the border for the opposition rebels. Meanwhile Iraq itself is benefiting as guns and Jihadists are leaving Iraq to fight the Syrian government. The Americans if they are supporting the revolution are finding themselves with strange bedfellows as Al Queda in Iraq has started to support the uprising. So Lebanon is split between pro and anti Syrian groups (even fighting each other in Lebanon), Turkey is anti-Assad, Iraqi Sunnis support the rebels while the Shiites take their orders from Iran and support the regime and Jordan's Brotherhood is calling for volunteers to fight the Syrian regime During the Lebanese Civil-War the Isrealis supported the Maronites and Phalanges who will they support this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post To The Left Posted February 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Some info: Jihadists are moving from Iraq to Syria, as are weapons being sent to opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, Iraq's deputy interior minister told AFP on Saturday. "The weapons are transported from Baghdad to Nineveh [Province], and the prices of weapons in Mosul [the province's capital] are higher now because they are being sent to the opposition in Syria," Assadi said. He said that the price of a Kalashnikov assault rifle has risen from between $100 and $200 to between $1000 and $1500. http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=363612 And this interesting quote from a Syrian rebel: "I'm just waiting for a gun," Omar says. "We will today accept weapons from [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, should he wake from his coma and offer them to us. When you see children killed, that's what you do.""We are prepared to become human bombs," Jihad says. "You know we did not have this idea of suicide bombing in Syria before." He turns to the captain, "I'm ready. Just tell me what to do." http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2106648,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 good thread. there is certainly a lot riding for many sides concerning assad's future. russia is also a player in this as most of syria's high-tech weapons come from russia. it's not going to be easy for u.s. and israel to pressure russia to give up on syria. cannot forget china and its relation with syria. they have trade agreements worth over $2 billion. china would also not like to see one of iran's important allies in the middle east to be taken over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Throughout the 90s Syria sponsored a brutal proxy-war in Lebanon tearing that nation apart now what goes around comes around as Syria is the site of another proxy battle being fought my the local regional powers.and Phalanges who will they support this time?Utter nonsense. At most, Syria is the Barrie/Kingston of a Lebanese Toronto. IOW, Syria is to Lebanon what Ontario is to Toronto.Syria is a dictatorial regime, like so much of the Islamic world, and ordinary Syrians want better. Sadly, when a mob revolts, the end result may be worse. ---- I happen to think that the Middle Eastern status quo, "stability" and the so-called "peace process" was bad for all. Anything else will likely be better. Let's see. Edited February 14, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post To The Left Posted February 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good article looking which way Israel should go: officials in Tel Aviv kept a low profile in relation to their northern neighbour. In conventional wisdom, they pursued what has been termed as a policy of "better the devil we know" - that supporting the status quo was better than not knowing what came next. Although the Israeli government has been no friend of the Assad administration, policymakers in Tel Aviv maintained a "strategy of silence" towards the Syrian opposition.... Some Israeli officials say the plight of the Assad government would not only threaten to break ties between Iran and Syria, which has been a long-term goal of both Israel and the US, but would also cut Iran’s lifeline to the rest of the Middle East (excluding Iraq). Tehran would lose its channel for providing military, financial and logistical aid to Hamas in Gaza and to Hezbollah in Lebanon, they maintain. "[israel] should look at Syria and see Syria as the Achilles heel of Iran. It is a great opportunity, an enormous opportunity, and this is where the strategy of the Israeli government should be," former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/2012298108853411.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 In conventional wisdom, they pursued what has been termed as a policy of "better the devil we know" - that supporting the status quo was better than not knowing what came next.Key quote.Once upon a time, Mark Steyn claimed that "peace process" or "stability" were key words used by foreign bureaucrats. Well, the Middle East is now "unstable". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Something people are overlooking here. The mention of Al-Queda supporting the rebels. We've seen this before. I knew it would happen again and there it is. Creating the problem to provide the solution. We've seen several examples of Al-queda being armed by the west in counties that went through, and are still going through this Arab Spring. Because arming rebels NEVER backfired before .... right?? Now where did those two tall buildings go?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post To The Left Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Something people are overlooking here. The mention of Al-Queda supporting the rebels. We've seen this before. I knew it would happen again and there it is. Creating the problem to provide the solution. We've seen several examples of Al-queda being armed by the west in counties that went through, and are still going through this Arab Spring. Because arming rebels NEVER backfired before .... right?? Now where did those two tall buildings go?? McCain who has been around forever should know better but he's calling for supporting the rebels. McCain calls for military aid to Syria oppositionCAIRO — Top Republican US Senator John McCain called on Monday for Syria's opposition to be given weapons to help "defend themselves" against President Bashar al-Assad's forces... "We have seen in Libya and we have seen in previous conflicts there are ways to get weapons to people so they can defend themselves." "There are ways to get weapons into Syria. It is time we gave the (opposition) the wherewithal to fight back and stop the slaughter," he said, while underlining that Iran and Russia were supplying military aid to the Syrian regime. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iNKreuaQjvrJWZVaVXEJHneAXPLw?docId=CNG.867e9e040c1d14599a007a13463b11b3.201 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post To The Left Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 McCain had to be around when the funding was to approve Hekmatyar revolution in Afghanistan: But one prominent visiting commander, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, refused to see the US president, despite reportedly receiving a hefty share of the roughly $200m that the CIA funnelled annually to Afghan guerrillas for defeating the invading Red Army.Hekmatyar's war never ended, as today, almost four decades later, he fights the US-led coalition in Afghanistan, probably with some of the same weapons that US tax dollars paid for. To many, he epitomises the short-sighted alliances of the US, siding with unreliable figures who, even during their cooperation, openly expressed their dislike for the US world view. Hekmatyar's never-ending Afghan war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Apparently, a column of tanks has left Damascus and is headed in the direction of Hims. Why are we (by we, I mean the western world, and powerful neighbours Israel, Turkey, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc) allowing this to continue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Apparently, a column of tanks has left Damascus and is headed in the direction of Hims. Why are we (by we, I mean the western world, and powerful neighbours Israel, Turkey, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc) allowing this to continue? Because no matter what we do its still going to be a disaster there and we don't belong in a countrys civil wars Let the U.N and the Arab League take care of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) So we should collectively do nothing then? That said, I'm not sure what you think the UN can do on their own. It is the member countries that carry out the resolutions. Edited February 22, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 So we should collectively do nothing then? That said, I'm not sure what you think the UN can do on their own. It is the member countries that carry out the resolutions. We do nothing. If we did something we'd be on the same side as Al Qaedia sp and we'd chase Assad or kill him and AQ would put someone they support in power and that will eventually come back to bite us in the ass Those people don't want democracy they want their religion to dictate their laws why get involved? It does more harm than good, there will never be peace there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Attitudes are changing in some middle eastern countries. This senseless death can't be allowed to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Apparently, a column of tanks has left Damascus and is headed in the direction of Hims. Why are we (by we, I mean the western world, and powerful neighbours Israel, Turkey, Greece, Saudi Arabia, etc) allowing this to continue? Because we know that we would basically do the same thing. Theres not a government on earth that wouldnt use violence against an uprising that threatened to topple it. This is a civil war, and theres no reason to think either side we might back is better than the other. We have no national interest here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Because we know that we would basically do the same thing. Utterly untrue. A democratic government wouldn't do anything like this, especially not one in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) We have no national interest here. Oh, and that's irrelevant. We have a human interest in this and so many other conflicts. Edited February 23, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Utterly untrue. A democratic government wouldn't do anything like this, especially not one in Canada. If this happened in Canada, U.S, Britain, Sweden it would be seen as a coup detat which it is and they would fire on us if the people didn't stop after warnings LOL they would not give up and resign just like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Utterly untrue. A democratic government wouldn't do anything like this, especially not one in Canada. Thats simply not true. Civil wars can happen anywhere. If a large uprising was trying to take down the government the government would use its security apparatus to defend itself and quell the uprising. Thats just what governments DO... they arent just gonna roll over and allow to be toppled. There would be violence and things would escalate, potentially into a civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh, and that's irrelevant. We have a human interest in this and so many other conflicts. Human interest? oh if you say so but its a civil war, we're not going to involve ourselves in a civil war unless our interests are affected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh, and that's irrelevant. We have a human interest in this and so many other conflicts. Were gonna get into some pretty serious trouble if we start to think our own national interest is irrelevant. What is it that you want to do? Arbitrarily pick one side of an armed conflict and help them win? How do you know which side to pick? Are we just gonna park troops there and stop the two sides from fighting? You wanna roll Canadian tanks into the capitol and kill the sitting government, and go to war with its loyalists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Thats simply not true. Civil wars can happen anywhere. If a large uprising was trying to take down the government the government would use its security apparatus to defend itself and quell the uprising. Thats just what governments DO... they arent just gonna roll over and allow to be toppled. There would be violence and things would escalate, potentially into a civil war. That's really a straw man though. First, a democratic government wouldn't have legitimacy to tackle a large enough uprising. If the will of the people is the against them, then it's highly unlikely that their armed services are going to turn on the populace. It isn't even an analogous situation. Were gonna get into some pretty serious trouble if we start to think our own national interest is irrelevant. What is it that you want to do? Arbitrarily pick one side of an armed conflict and help them win? How do you know which side to pick? Are we just gonna park troops there and stop the two sides from fighting? You wanna roll Canadian tanks into the capitol and kill the sitting government, and go to war with its loyalists? We don't have to pick a side. You kill the people doing the killing....especially the ones using military technology on their populations. I will be very surprised if their isn't some kind of foreign intervention in the next couple weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 That's really a straw man though. First, a democratic government wouldn't have legitimacy to tackle a large enough uprising. If the will of the people is the against them, then it's highly unlikely that their armed services are going to turn on the populace. It isn't even an analogous situation. Sorry but youre just kidding yourself here. This kind of thing happens all the time, all around the world in a wide variety of countries. We don't have to pick a side. You kill the people doing the killing....especially the ones using military technology on their populations. I will be very surprised if their isn't some kind of foreign intervention in the next couple weeks. Bomb both sides? I dunno man, thats just a really bad idea, and its not likely to make the situation much better. And are we going to do this every time theres a violent political dustup around the world? Whos gonna pay for this? Rufus the stunt bum? We cant even afford to fund our own government right now. Looks like we would be pretty damn busy if you were in charge... Greek Civil War, 1946–1949 Paraguayan Civil War, 1947 Palestinian Civil War, 1947–48 Costa Rican Civil War, 1948 La Violencia (Colombia), 1948–1958 Korean War, 1950-1953 between North and South Korea Laotian Secret War 1953-1975 Vietnam War, 1954–1975 Guatemalan Civil War, 1960–1996 Congo Crisis, 1960-1966 Puerto Rican Drug War since 1970 North Yemen Civil War 1962-1970 Dominican Civil War, 1963 Rhodesian Bush War, 1965–1980 Cypriot Civil War, 1967–1974 Nigerian Civil War, 1967–1970 The Troubles (Northern Ireland), 1969–1998, considered ongoing by extremist minority groups Cambodian Civil War 1970-1975 Pakistani Civil War, 1971 Lebanese Civil War, 1975–1990 Mozambican Civil War, 1975–1992 Angolan Civil War, 1975-2002 War in Cambodia, 1978–1993 Nicaraguan Civil War, 1979–1990 Salvadoran Civil War (El Salvador), 1979–1991 Second Sudanese Civil War, 1983-2005 Sri Lankan Civil War, 1983–2009 First Liberian Civil War, 1989-1996 Rwandan Civil War, 1990–1993 Casamance Conflict (Senegal), 1990–2006 Yugoslav Wars, 1991-1995 Georgian Civil War, 1991-1993 Sierra Leone Civil War, 1991–2002 Algerian Civil War, 1991–2002, conflicts persist Civil war in Tajikistan, 1992-1997 Burundi Civil War, 1993–2005 1994 civil war in Yemen, 1994 First Chechen War, 1994-1996 Iraqi Kurdish Civil War, 1994–1997 First Congo War, 1996–1997 Clashes in Cambodia, 1997 Nepalese Civil War, 1996–2006 Rebellion in Albania, 1997 Republic of the Congo Civil War, 1997-1999 Guinea-Bissau Civil War, 1998–1999 Kosovo War, 1998–1999 Second Congo War, 1998-2003 Second Liberian Civil War, 1999-2003 Second Chechen War, 1999-2009 Albanian rebellion in Macedonia, 2001 Ivorian Civil War, 2002-2007, conflicts persist War in Darfur, 2003-2009 2004 Haitian rebellion, 2004 Fourth Chadian Civil War, 2005-2010 Fatah–Hamas conflict (third Palestinian Civil War), 2006–2009, tensions ongoing Libyan civil war, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Youre just not thinking this through. The uprising in Syria has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni-Muslims, and the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims.[38] Bashar al-Assad still receives support from parts of the Syrian population, for example minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and parts of the Sunni upper and middle classes.[39] The Kurdish minority is split, with some supporting the uprising and others remaining neutral. We have no idea what this war is even about, and we know very little about either side. The idea that we are going to show up with guns and fix whatever it is thats driving this (and it will be a pile of different factors) is non-sensical. We dont know who the good guys are, we dont know who the bad guys are, and we dont even know who the majority of people there support. Your plan to bomb both the FSA, and the regular army will not fix anything at all, just cause more death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Your list of civil wars doesn't really help your case. As I said, it's only a matter of time before someone intervenes in this case. Assad has to go, no matter what replaces him. The death is beyond senseless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.