Russian boots on the ground in Syria. Another Afghanistan?

coolemon

Lockstep wrote: »

US support for Riyadh is disgusting but out of interest, if there was a pro-democracy insurgency in Saudi Arabia, do you genuinely think the US would be bombing them?

Of course they would bomb them. You naively seem to think the West support and promote democracy around the world. History paints a completely different picture, and the plate of origin on Saudi regime weapons does too.

Shurimgreat

coolemon wrote: »

Of course they would bomb them. You naively seem to think the West support and promote democracy around the world. History paints a completely different picture, and the plate of origin on Saudi regime weapons does too.

So let me guess, leave Asssd in power as the best possible option.

This is the kind of false dichotomy Assad was hoping to create from day one...its either them or me. Not much of a choice particularly when he's in the habit of dropping barrel bombs on communities who reject him. A great humanitarian indeed.

There is or was a third way up until recently that involved keeping the institutions, territory and army of syria largely intact and able to fight off opposition from the likes of isis. It would have meant assad standing down of course and everyone rallying behind a new government.

But Assad has decided that if he goes down he will bring Syria with him, and in this he has been successful.

Shurimgreat

coolemon wrote: »

Of course they would bomb them. You naively seem to think the West support and promote democracy around the world. History paints a completely different picture, and the plate of origin on Saudi regime weapons does too.

For every undemocratic state the west allegedly supports its also supports ten more who are democratic.

coolemon

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not much of a choice particularly when he's in the habit of dropping barrel bombs on communities who reject him..

:eek: Barrel Bombs. The shock horror effect only works with idiots im afraid. A bomb is a bomb, as assad put it. I can think of a million worse weapons than a barrel bomb.

80% of the population are in government controlled areas. Of course Assad is the best and most stable option. Unless you want to wreak havoc and displace them too with western backed head hackers.

coolemon

Shurimgreat wrote: »

For every undemocratic state the west allegedly supports its also supports ten more who are democratic.

You think the mass shipments of weapons and hardware to the Saudi regime is just an "allegation"?

Shurimgreat

coolemon wrote: »

:eek: Barrel Bombs. The shock horror effect only works with idiots im afraid. A bomb is a bomb, as assad put it. I can think of a million worse weapons than a barrel bomb.

80% of the population are in government controlled areas. Of course Assad is the best and most stable option. Unless you want to wreak havoc and displace them too with western backed head hackers.

Did you read and more to the point understand my point about the false dichotomy created by Assad? Every last one of the dead in syria in this conflict owes their death to him.

Does your 80% population figure include the 4 million refugees?

Can you not see the foolishness of anyone siding with a guy who has single handedly dragged his country from being prosperous into a wasteland all because he didn't understand the meaning of transitioning to democracy.

Assad is by far the worst option. Take away Russian support and he's just another warlord albeit probably the most violent.

I don't think you get the point either that he doesn't really care about fighting isis or saving his own people. He just cares about his own survival.

The whole war is of his making.

StringerBell

The whole war is not just of Assads making, there is also an environmental factor tbf.

Shurimgreat

StringerBell wrote: »

The whole war is not just of Assads making, there is also an environmental factor tbf.

Not sure what you mean. However he was used by groups like isis and anf as a recruitment tool. "Come to Syria and fight the brutal secular dictator" was how it was presented. These groups thrive in the vacuam left behind by retreating Assad forces. Had he just organised an orderly transition and multi party elections much of this could have been avoided. Its a complete mess now, even his supporters have to admit that.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Clearly you have missed the fact that roughly 2% of russian airstrikes have targeted isis. But hey don't let a small matter like the truth get in the way. Some of the distortions of the truth and facts are simply laughable around here.

The west launches over a thousand strikes against isis, saves kobane, the kurds and the yasidis and send isis into retreat. Russia on the otherhand launch 6 or 7 strikes on isis and yet the narrative is the russians are defeating isis single handedly!

Saved who? after they allowed ISIS to exist, even caused their existence, maybe you would want to ask off any Yasidis who didnt make it or are still in ISIS captivity before speaking on their behalf, you know, when the west stood by.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So let me guess, leave Asssd in power as the best possible option.

This is the kind of false dichotomy Assad was hoping to create from day one...its either them or me. Not much of a choice particularly when he's in the habit of dropping barrel bombs on communities who reject him. A great humanitarian indeed.

There is or was a third way up until recently that involved keeping the institutions, territory and army of syria largely intact and able to fight off opposition from the likes of isis. It would have meant assad standing down of course and everyone rallying behind a new government.

But Assad has decided that if he goes down he will bring Syria with him, and in this he has been successful.

First off, do you think Assad is doing anything differently than would be done by any other country or govt now or in history for the most part?
Even Ireland this happened, the Govt were brutal in their treatment of opposition, they sought and had British support.

It is very unlikely Syria would have remained intact, and history shows that never really happens, all you have to do is look at Iraq

Shurimgreat wrote: »

For every undemocratic state the west allegedly supports its also supports ten more who are democratic.

So you think thats justifiable and acceptable? how brutal is the one state, start naming them rather than just making a statement, how many countries does the support of Saudi require to even out, more than ten Id say. Its hypocritical to support one and claim you are on the side of right and democracy.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Did you read and more to the point understand my point about the false dichotomy created by Assad? Every last one of the dead in syria in this conflict owes their death to him.

Does your 80% population figure include the 4 million refugees?

Can you not see the foolishness of anyone siding with a guy who has single handedly dragged his country from being prosperous into a wasteland all because he didn't understand the meaning of transitioning to democracy.

Assad is by far the worst option. Take away Russian support and he's just another warlord albeit probably the most violent.

I don't think you get the point either that he doesn't really care about fighting isis or saving his own people. He just cares about his own survival.

The whole war is of his making.

Assad is defending Syria really and in the same way any Western nation would, he didnt drag his (your word) country into this. Its smacks of being very undemocratic to insist so called democracy works everywhere and force it on countries, Im certain its contrary to the UN charter, self determination and sovereign states. There are far worse undemocratic states the west supports so why not start with them, Saudi being one of the best (or worst) examples.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not sure what you mean. However he was used by groups like isis and anf as a recruitment tool. "Come to Syria and fight the brutal secular dictator" was how it was presented. These groups thrive in the vacuam left behind by retreating Assad forces. Had he just organised an orderly transition and multi party elections much of this could have been avoided. Its a complete mess now, even his supporters have to admit that.

First he was the cause of their formation, now he's been used by them? These groups didnt come into being in the vacuum of retreating Assad forces, they moved from Iraq where they formed in the presence of the weakness and corruption of that country after the departure of US forces in the main, they formed and moved into new territories in that same vacuum, ISIS spread from and across Iraq.
Why should one or any country organise elections at the behest of others, where was this legitimised in the UN? For the sake of peace and stability some countries need a strong leader, rather than partisan behaviour that doesnt suit the different character and culture of the people that live in different places in the world.

NATO was instrumental in the break up of the remnants of regions that are sperate now from Serbia, what is known that they essentially had brought weapons and training for organisations within that country at the time who were known as terrorists, in that case the KLA, contrary to an UN instructions, this seems to be par for undermining countries, and used as an excuse to force an external decision on them,

As for the poster who said Russia is acting like the US did in the cold war, I dont think so, Russia have essentially been invited in, Id say Assad has wanted them in long before now, in the case of the US they have a widely known history of undermining legitimately elected Govts, at the least, South America; Chile, Central America;Guatemala, Middle east, Iran, Asia; Vietnam, not to mention supporting numerous corrupt and undemocratic nations, which is wholly worse than what Russia is doing given the double standards of it all.

alcaline

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Please elaborate on how thinking Syrian people should be allowed a free democratic say in their nations future is a double standard?

For your post to hold a gram of weight, you will have to provide proof that I desire anywhere to conversley not have democratic self-determination.
Quote the post displaying this.

No need for quotes, the tone of your posts will suffice.
Saudi Arabia is about to crucify and behead a young man for attending a anti government protest, I think it was last year Qatar came down hard on pro democracy protesters, Saudi Arabia might have lent a hand.
I have seen the ex NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen on TV condemning Russia's actions in Syria, he and the western governments must take the western citizens as complete gullible fools for anyone to buy the line of **** he spouts.
Russia are the bad boys for having the nerve to show NATO up as full of wind and piss when tackling ISIS, meanwhile Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the good guys, tell that to the people in Yemen that are bombing.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are evil sons of bitches, but they are our son of bitches, that the position the west has taken.

donaghs

Lockstep wrote: »

US support for Riyadh is disgusting but out of interest, if there was a pro-democracy insurgency in Saudi Arabia, do you genuinely think the US would be bombing them?

The West has a lot to answer for but this does not excuse Russia's actions.

The military collaboration of "the west" and the Saudis in the 60s/70s wars in Yemen and Oman, and criticism of the current Houthi rebellion shows they're always on message with the Saudis anyway.

Assad is bombing to save his rule in Syria, and civilians die. But what about Saudi indiscriminate bombing right now in a neighbouring country?

And the current lack of interest from governments over the sentencing to death by crucifixion and beheading of a man who's alleged to have attended a civil rights march in Saudi when he was 17 shows, and all similar atrocities there, shows their feeling about reform in Saudi.

The UK and the U.S I think prefer be status quo and would prefer not see any "instability" in Saudi Arabia.

Going back to Syria, and the differences between the two countries, I'm sure all the tourists who used to visit Palmyra could see a difference between what is was - and Saudi Arabia where Wahhibism has destroyed all traces of its Pagan, Jewish and Christain heritage. ISIL of course have now done the same in Palmyra.
Or the Armenians who used to annually commemorate the place of death in 1915 for so many of the genocide victims, at the Armenian memorial church in Der Zohr. This too has been destroyed by ISIL, and of course the only tourists are foreign jihadists.

alcaline

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Clearly you have missed the fact that roughly 2% of russian airstrikes have targeted isis.

If this is true it make the west look even more incompetent, the FSB intelligence on the ground must be streets ahead of the CIA, the Russians knew exactly who and where to bomb to cripple ISIS. Unless of course the west was not really attacking ISIS but turning a blind eye to them, so the choice is western incompetence or collaboration.

Shurimgreat

cerastes wrote: »

Saved who? after they allowed ISIS to exist, even caused their existence, maybe you would want to ask off any Yasidis who didnt make it or are still in ISIS captivity before speaking on their behalf, you know, when the west stood by.

ISIS was an offshoot of AQ. It was pretty much unheard of until the Syrian conflict when its ranks were filled with tens of thousands of Syrians and foreigners. I think we can agree on that. Without the Syrian conflict, ISIS would today be a ragtag outfit on the margins of western Iraq. With the Syrian conflict, they've turned into a massive player in the region.

How many Yazidis did the Russians save? Did the Russians want to get involved when Kobane was overrun or mt sindar? I think we all know the answer to that one.

First off, do you think Assad is doing anything differently than would be done by any other country or govt now or in history for the most part?
Even Ireland this happened, the Govt were brutal in their treatment of opposition, they sought and had British support.

Assad is not a democratically elected leader. He does not nor never has represented the majority of people in Syria. In rigged election after rigged election he won. Guess who the other candidate was? There was none because he didn't allow any to run. By any stretch he is not legitimate and certainly your pleading on his behalf doesn't change that.

It is very unlikely Syria would have remained intact, and history shows that never really happens, all you have to do is look at Iraq

Syria had an army of 400,000, well trained, experienced, well equipped. Iraq has an army of about 50,000, poorly trained, inexperienced and not very good. Assad has been the biggest obstacle to reclaiming much of Syria. He's been a complete disaster. You know I'd almost have no problem with a strongman provided he was any good and was able to bring the people along with them. But generally when you barrel bomb your way around the country, you are going to turn everyone against you which is what happened.

Assad is defending Syria really and in the same way any Western nation would, he didnt drag his (your word) country into this. Its smacks of being very undemocratic to insist so called democracy works everywhere and force it on countries, Im certain its contrary to the UN charter, self determination and sovereign states. There are far worse undemocratic states the west supports so why not start with them, Saudi being one of the best (or worst) examples.

He's running a terrible war campaign. He needed to be bailed out by Russia and Iran despite starting off with an army of 400,000 men. He's been grossly incompetent in fighting the war and in turn caused the rise of AQ and ISIS in his country. Its like inviting a criminal into your home and then telling everyone you are fighting the criminal and trying to get praise for it. He has no legitimacy save the legitimacy gained via the use of barrel bombs. Even if he stood down now, there's a chance the war against AQ and ISIS could be won. But not while this hopeless idiot is in charge.

First he was the cause of their formation, now he's been used by them? These groups didnt come into being in the vacuum of retreating Assad forces, they moved from Iraq where they formed in the presence of the weakness and corruption of that country after the departure of US forces in the main, they formed and moved into new territories in that same vacuum, ISIS spread from and across Iraq.
Why should one or any country organise elections at the behest of others, where was this legitimised in the UN? For the sake of peace and stability some countries need a strong leader, rather than partisan behaviour that doesnt suit the different character and culture of the people that live in different places in the world.

NATO was instrumental in the break up of the remnants of regions that are sperate now from Serbia, what is known that they essentially had brought weapons and training for organisations within that country at the time who were known as terrorists, in that case the KLA, contrary to an UN instructions, this seems to be par for undermining countries, and used as an excuse to force an external decision on them,

As for the poster who said Russia is acting like the US did in the cold war, I dont think so, Russia have essentially been invited in, Id say Assad has wanted them in long before now, in the case of the US they have a widely known history of undermining legitimately elected Govts, at the least, South America; Chile, Central America;Guatemala, Middle east, Iran, Asia; Vietnam, not to mention supporting numerous corrupt and undemocratic nations, which is wholly worse than what Russia is doing given the double standards of it all.

He has invited them in to prolong a war indefinitely that looked like it might be coming to an end. That's not something to be proud of. The quicker Assad goes the better for all concerned. The longer he stays the worse for all concerned, including us in Europe.

The outcome of the Syrian war has been fairly predictable so far. It was always going to end up like this when it first kicked off if Assad decided to stay. If he still decides the stay the outcome is just as clear and even more grim.

He cannot win by the way, much as you would love him to. He's facing roughly 150,000 - 200,000 armed opponents, and there isn't a hope he can defeat all of them, not even with a few thousand Iranian ground troops. He might be able to hold out, but he cannot win.

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

If this is true it make the west look even more incompetent, the FSB intelligence on the ground must be streets ahead of the CIA, the Russians knew exactly who and where to bomb to cripple ISIS. Unless of course the west was not really attacking ISIS but turning a blind eye to them, so the choice is western incompetence or collaboration.

So the Russians alone have crippled ISIS? Can you back that up with proof? Even a couple of links would do.

Shurimgreat

donaghs wrote: »

The military collaboration of "the west" and the Saudis in the 60s/70s wars in Yemen and Oman, and criticism of the current Houthi rebellion shows they're always on message with the Saudis anyway.

Assad is bombing to save his rule in Syria, and civilians die. But what about Saudi indiscriminate bombing right now in a neighbouring country?

And the current lack of interest from governments over the sentencing to death by crucifixion and beheading of a man who's alleged to have attended a civil rights march in Saudi when he was 17 shows, and all similar atrocities there, shows their feeling about reform in Saudi.

The UK and the U.S I think prefer be status quo and would prefer not see any "instability" in Saudi Arabia.

Going back to Syria, and the differences between the two countries, I'm sure all the tourists who used to visit Palmyra could see a difference between what is was - and Saudi Arabia where Wahhibism has destroyed all traces of its Pagan, Jewish and Christain heritage. ISIL of course have now done the same in Palmyra.
Or the Armenians who used to annually commemorate the place of death in 1915 for so many of the genocide victims, at the Armenian memorial church in Der Zohr. This too has been destroyed by ISIL, and of course the only tourists are foreign jihadists.

There was a political transition in Yemen from the previous dictator to a new government. The Houtis attacked the transitional government. They were supported in this by the previous dictator and his allies.

Saudi Arabia intervened to help the transitional government and try to preserve some kind of political progress from the old dictatorship to at least the chance of a democracy going forward.

The Iranians are stirring sh*t in Yemen by the way, and the Saudis are rightly nervous of this. They want a friendly government on their southern border.

alcaline

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So the Russians alone have crippled ISIS? Can you back that up with proof? Even a couple of links would do.

All the proof you need is the complete lack of reports about ISIS on all the main stream western news websites, Before Russia started bombing here was not a day without a story about how evil ISIS are, but not a peep now. That can't be seen to give Russia any credit for doing what the west was unwilling or unable to do.
My opinion is the west was turning a blind eye to ISIS hoping they took over Syria and then the west would mount a serious campaign to wipe out ISIS and install its own puppet in charge in Damascus , Now the Russians have thrown a spanner in the works by attacking ISIS and the west look like fools.

donaghs

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The choices are:
Assad's dictatorship.
IS dictatorship.
Democratic Syria.

Dictator's tend not to do well in free votes, I don't understand where the perception that people would chose tyranny if given the choice?

I mean, its not like ol' Bashar was into polling the public, was he?

But how exactly do you reach "democratic Syria"?
Let "the rebels" take over, and a democratic paradise ensues? Who knows, but an educated guess would suggest otherwise.
The Libyan example is a good precedent.

Also, as every mature democracy knows, majority rule is not always a good thing, unless there are real guarantees and protections of minorities. Otherwise it can lead to a tyranny of the majority - like we see in Iraq now.

The Egyptian election also showed many secularists there that they'd prefer a non-democratic alternative if democracy meant a new theocracy. And similar to Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates have always been bidding their time to take over in Syria, as shown by the 1982 uprising/jihad.

alcaline

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Saudi Arabia intervened to help the transitional government and try to preserve some kind of political progress from the old dictatorship to at least the chance of a democracy going forward.

Your a funny guy, Saudi Arabia as a protector of democracy.

Shurimgreat

alcaline wrote: »

All the proof you need is the complete lack of reports about ISIS on all the main stream western news websites, Before Russia started bombing here was not a day without a story about how evil ISIS are, but not a peep now. That can't be seen to give Russia any credit for doing what the west was unwilling or unable to do.
My opinion is the west was turning a blind eye to ISIS hoping they took over Syria and then the west would mount a serious campaign to wipe out ISIS and install its own puppet in charge in Damascus , Now the Russians have thrown a spanner in the works by attacking ISIS and the west look like fools.

Not a peep? I guess you haven't bothered to look.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/russian-airstrikes-help-isis-gain-ground-in-Aleppo

Nope Isis are as bad as ever. They were on the back foot from US bombing around Kobane, but the Russian bombing of their enemies around Aleppo has greatly helped them.

If the Americans, although making good progress, cannot finish the job on Isis what hope Assad or the Russians? None.

The map of Russian airstrikes has been shown repeatedly on this thread by the way. Maybe you should take a look at it again before saying the Russians are dealing with Isis.

Shurimgreat

donaghs wrote: »

But how exactly do you reach "democratic Syria"?
Let "the rebels" take over, and a democratic paradise ensues? Who knows, but an educated guess would suggest otherwise.
The Libyan example is a good precedent.

Also, as every mature democracy knows, majority rule is not always a good thing, unless there are real guarantees and protections of minorities. Otherwise it can lead to a tyranny of the majority - like we see in Iraq now.

The Egyptian election also showed many secularists there that they'd prefer a non-democratic alternative if democracy meant a new theocracy. And similar to Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates have always been bidding their time to take over in Syria, as shown by the 1982 uprising/jihad.

Look, its quite simple. The longer Assad stays in power the more difficult everything becomes. The more recruits ISIS and AQ gain for example.
Can you not see this or are you just blind to really simple concepts like this? Can you not see how Assad continues to divide everyone and live off this division, supported by admirers and supporters in the west.

The funny thing is when you call someone out for being a supporter of Assad they deny it almost immediately. Supporting Assad and supporting Assad staying in power is on balance the same thing. One way or another you support Assad.

Shurimgreat

This article really underlines the problems the Russians are causing and how they are strengthening not weakening ISIS.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/russian-airstrikes-help-isis-gain-ground-in-aleppo

More significantly, the attacks in western Aleppo have targeted the few rebel groups that have proved capable of fighting Isis. “From a morale point of view the Russian bombing of the areas controlled by the Free Syrian Army and the Islamist factions means that Russia is not seeking to fight Daesh but to strengthen the Assad regime,” said one well-connected activist in Aleppo.

Many of the rebel groups in the area banded together in a major battle in early 2014 that managed to oust Isis from most of the province of Aleppo as well as the bordering province of Idlib, with the opposition losing more than 1,500 men in the fight. Three months ago, Isis struck back, launching a drive towards the town of Azaz in the west, part of a crucial supply line for the rebels near the Turkish border, but met stiff resistance from the rebels.

On Friday, taking advantage of the Russian bombing of western Aleppo that has forced the rebels to reinforce their defensive lines there, Isis pivoted towards the south and within hours had taken control of a series of towns and villages to the north of the city of Aleppo, the closest it has come since it was defeated by the opposition.

IrishTrajan

coolemon wrote: »

Of course they would bomb them. You naively seem to think the West support and promote democracy around the world. History paints a completely different picture, and the plate of origin on Saudi regime weapons does too.

Then why did the US support the ousting of Mubarak in the name of democracy?

IrishTrajan

coolemon wrote: »

:eek: Barrel Bombs. The shock horror effect only works with idiots im afraid. A bomb is a bomb, as assad put it. I can think of a million worse weapons than a barrel bomb.

A guided missile has an inherently lower risk of collateral damage. A barrel bomb is an indiscriminate weapon. The fact you're quoting the guy who uses them in defence of his use of them is deliciously ridiculous.

IrishTrajan

alcaline wrote: »

If this is true it make the west look even more incompetent, the FSB intelligence on the ground must be streets ahead of the CIA, the Russians knew exactly who and where to bomb to cripple ISIS. Unless of course the west was not really attacking ISIS but turning a blind eye to them, so the choice is western incompetence or collaboration.

Russia is hitting targets that had too high a risk of collateral damage for the U.S. to hit. Let's not get carried away with thinking Russia is better than the West.

IrishTrajan

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Look, its quite simple. The longer Assad stays in power the more difficult everything becomes. The more recruits ISIS and AQ gain for example.
Can you not see this or are you just blind to really simple concepts like this? Can you not see how Assad continues to divide everyone and live off this division, supported by admirers and supporters in the west.

The funny thing is when you call someone out for being a supporter of Assad they deny it almost immediately. Supporting Assad and supporting Assad staying in power is on balance the same thing. One way or another you support Assad.

Assad's being kept in power is something regional powers want, at least in a transitional role (to give them enough time to find an acceptable replacement). It's all good and well saying the Islamists aren't going to come to the table if he's in power, but the Russians, Iranians and Loyalists are also not going to come to the table if going to the table requires his removal before talks even take place.

I personally think many European powers lost the chance to win Syria over. Assad has known to have a fondness for Western culture. Had we presented him with support against the Islamists when Iran and Russia were unsure of committing themselves, it's quite likely we could've pulled him closer towards a democratic process (he had initially liberalized the country in his early reign, to be reversed when protesters threatened the regime's existence).

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

As has been repeatedly stated: because avoiding ISIS means they'll keep attacking less extreme groups, weakening opposition to Assad and allowing Assad to portray himself as the only alternative.

That doesn't make any sense so they have avoided ISIS yet they have attacked them numerous times?

If what you say is true, why is Russia blathering on about ISIS and yet not focussing on them?

What is this? Russia isn't blathering on about ISIS. The US and other countries have said that they weren't targeting ISIS at all. Russia have responded with proof that they have and are targeting ISIS.

However, like everyone else, NATO prefers airstrikes as they pose a much smaller risk: NATO conducted Operation Allied Force in Kosovo without a single casualty. Unlike Russia, NATO states are liberal democracies and as such, body bags carry huge political risks. How many combat troops is Russia deploying?

NATO aren't deploying troops because Obama doesn't want the US involved in another war in the Middle East. It's nothing to do with saving lives. The Western media didn't really care about the thousands of Afhan and Iraqi civilians butchered by Bush and Blair in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't care a damn about civilians. The US was a liberal democracy in 1945 too, they didn't care about civilians lives then and they don't care about civilian lives now.

If you think any nation will deploy ground troops into a conflict like Syria without huge potential gains for themselves, you've a warped or very idealistic view of international relations.

You mean like Iraq? You're only illustrating your lack of knowledge further. Let's not forget you had the bright idea of putting Al-Nusra into power.

Hey, at least NATO are actually focussing on ISIS. Unlike Russia which is just posturing and backing a classical despot against opposition forces. They're acting a lot like the US in the Cold War.

Opposition forces? That must be a new word for Islamic Extremists. Russia is as bad as the US but this "The US are better than Russia because they're attacking ISIS" line is nothing but pure bluster.

The fact remains that the US have no plan to bring peace to Syria, not that Russia will either. Russia isn't doing anything better or worse than the US is doing. If the US are so concerned about murderous despots and freeing mankind then why are they sitting on their hands over Saudi Arabia?

Keplar240B

Reminds me of the civil war in Tajikistan. 1992-1997

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistani_Civil_War

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

ISIS was an offshoot of AQ. It was pretty much unheard of until the Syrian conflict when its ranks were filled with tens of thousands of Syrians and foreigners. I think we can agree on that. Without the Syrian conflict, ISIS would today be a ragtag outfit on the margins of western Iraq. With the Syrian conflict, they've turned into a massive player in the region.

So ISIS ranks are filled with tens of thousands of Syrians, source? ie proof? my understanding was not that, but that radicalised elements drawn from around the world were the predominant numbers of their ranks

How many Yazidis did the Russians save? Did the Russians want to get involved when Kobane was overrun or mt sindar? I think we all know the answer to that one.

The Russians weren't on the scene as they are now, the west was better placed and should have done something, but decided to sit it out on the sidelines

Assad is not a democratically elected leader. He does not nor never has represented the majority of people in Syria. In rigged election after rigged election he won. Guess who the other candidate was? There was none because he didn't allow any to run. By any stretch he is not legitimate and certainly your pleading on his behalf doesn't change that.

Neither is the house of Saud? nor many others, democracy and the UN charter seem to take a backseat when its convenient, at what point has the west stepped into every internal conflict to remove evil despots?

Syria had an army of 400,000, well trained, experienced, well equipped. Iraq has an army of about 50,000, poorly trained, inexperienced and not very good. Assad has been the biggest obstacle to reclaiming much of Syria. He's been a complete disaster. You know I'd almost have no problem with a strongman provided he was any good and was able to bring the people along with them. But generally when you barrel bomb your way around the country, you are going to turn everyone against you which is what happened.

A barrel bomb is simply a dumb bomb, its no more nasty or unpleasant than any other unguided weapon, what were being dropped by regional airforces when they were having a crack at dropping bombs regardless of civilian casualties?

He's running a terrible war campaign. He needed to be bailed out by Russia and Iran despite starting off with an army of 400,000 men. He's been grossly incompetent in fighting the war and in turn caused the rise of AQ and ISIS in his country. Its like inviting a criminal into your home and then telling everyone you are fighting the criminal and trying to get praise for it. He has no legitimacy save the legitimacy gained via the use of barrel bombs. Even if he stood down now, there's a chance the war against AQ and ISIS could be won. But not while this hopeless idiot is in charge.

This is the history of alliances, allies support each other?

Hang on, he invited them in? they came on the scene after Syria was weakened, they saw an opportunity to create a caliphate in areas that were not under strong control and did, Assad didnt invite them in anymore than the current govt of Iraq has,

He has invited them in to prolong a war indefinitely that looked like it might be coming to an end. That's not something to be proud of. The quicker Assad goes the better for all concerned. The longer he stays the worse for all concerned, including us in Europe.

That conflict has been prolonged because the west has supported it, becuase its suits the wests agenda to remove Assad, Assad seemed to pose no threat to the west when they were nominated for the big three evils of the world, axis hit list. its no concern to anyone else that Syria gets destroyed in the meantime, although there should be lots of infrastructure to rebuild whenever this ends

The outcome of the Syrian war has been fairly predictable so far. It was always going to end up like this when it first kicked off if Assad decided to stay. If he still decides the stay the outcome is just as clear and even more grim.

He cannot win by the way, much as you would love him to. He's facing roughly 150,000 - 200,000 armed opponents, and there isn't a hope he can defeat all of them, not even with a few thousand Iranian ground troops. He might be able to hold out, but he cannot win.

I never said how much I want Assad to be in power, you're reading your own rhetoric into my posts, As it stood, Assad was a better option than anything out there, at least then a peaceful, stable and safe transition may have been possible, but without a bloody war formented there was no opportunity to oust someone and call it democracy in action as that would point to the hypocrisy of it, so Syria was to be destroyed for this to occur, but now the Russians have stepped in to support an existing and old Ally, this was no surprise really and it seems to have caught NATO unawares.

Its possible there should have been back channel offerings and a peaceful transition, although there is nothing democratic about that, but the west and the Saudis blew any hope of that away by arming any and all opposition and not offering a way out to Assad, so its no surprise he clung to power if all he and his family have to look forward to is a bullet in the back of the neck like Gaddafi. The fact Gulf states are even involved is laughable, hardly democratic, why arent they bombed?

johnnyskeleton

glued wrote: »

You mean like Iraq? You're only illustrating your lack of knowledge further. Let's not forget you had the bright idea of putting Al-Nusra into power.

Mod note:

Ok folks lets calm this thread down. Unless and until this thread is renamed "Now ye're talkin' to Obama/Putin" then we cam safely assume that no poster here is responsible for either State's foreign policy.

So criticising such policies is fine, but this roundabout of which side is better reminds me of Jeremy from Peep Show's analysis of politics being like football - you pick a side and cheer for them no matter what they do and everything the other side does is rubbish.

So more personal sniping will result in sanctions.

Shurimgreat

@cerestes For the last time NATO are not involved in Syria. This is fairly typical of your usual misrepresentations of the situation.

In case you've missed it the coalition force against ISIS has widespread international support including from Australia, uae, jordan, qatar and saudi arabia.

And as I said earlier and posted an article, Russian bombing of non isis forces is only strengthening them. That's not an opinion, its a fact. Hopefully you are able to distinguish fact from opinion.

cerastes

Shurimgreat wrote: »

@cerestes For the last time NATO are not involved in Syria. This is fairly typical of your usual misrepresentations of the situation.

In case you've missed it the coalition force against ISIS has widespread international support including from Australia, uae, jordan, qatar and saudi arabia.

And as I said earlier and posted an article, Russian bombing of non isis forces is only strengthening them. That's not an opinion, its a fact. Hopefully you are able to distinguish fact from opinion.

Essentially the main players are NATO members and it has support among those, the others you mention are all aligned nations and I wouldnt say you are furthering your position by stating you consider Saudi, Qatar or other gulf states as countries that are representatives of democracies as anyones choice for a coalition of willing supporting states, aside from the fact that both those countries are fairly extreme and supporters and exports of sharia and wahhabism.

If what you say in your last paragraph is an undeniable fact, you will be able to provide proof, otherwise it seems its an opinion you have.
It seems to me that Russian bombing of non ISIS and ISIS forces is better for Assad and Syria and everyone.
Most people wont have any influence over a democratic government and it will now take years and years, much longer than it would have by diplomatic means to turn Syria around, that said, I dont believe democracy is a silver bullet that will solve all ills and there will be no improvement in Syrian peoples lives by its introduction, huge steps have been taken backwards due to this war.

BoJack Horseman

cerastes wrote: »

Essentially the main players are NATO members

Essentially some of these main actors are EU members.
Doesn't mean the EU is at war.
Best to stick with fact....

If what you say in your last paragraph is an undeniable fact, you will be able to provide proof,

Tal Qrah, Tal Sousin and Kfar Qares are the villages taken by IS last Friday, as well as a former military academy it seems.
How long they will hold them though is another matter as fighting is ongoing.
Al Jazeera give much detail on it here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/isil-advances-aleppo-russia-airstrikes-151010012828079.html
you will be relieved go see that both Russia & the US are blamed for this.

otherwise its an opinion you have......
It seems to me.....

Opinions eh!

that Russian bombing of non ISIS and ISIS forces is better for...... Syria

Any day now, the Syrian people will return home to the loving embrace of their benevolent, forgiving ruler!

Lockstep

donaghs wrote: »

The military collaboration of "the west" and the Saudis in the 60s/70s wars in Yemen and Oman, and criticism of the current Houthi rebellion shows they're always on message with the Saudis anyway.

Assad is bombing to save his rule in Syria, and civilians die. But what about Saudi indiscriminate bombing right now in a neighbouring country?

And the current lack of interest from governments over the sentencing to death by crucifixion and beheading of a man who's alleged to have attended a civil rights march in Saudi when he was 17 shows, and all similar atrocities there, shows their feeling about reform in Saudi.

The UK and the U.S I think prefer be status quo and would prefer not see any "instability" in Saudi Arabia.

You're ignoring the key difference: the uprising in Yemen was against a transitional government, not a dictator (their dictator had already been ousted during the Arab Spring). It was a coup d'etat, not a pro-democracy movement.
The Saudis are deeply oppressive autocrats but they weren't entirely in the wrong here. It's one thing for the US to remain in alliance with them or provide logistical support. It's entirely another for them to undertake active military intervention on their behalf.

donaghs wrote: »

Going back to Syria, and the differences between the two countries, I'm sure all the tourists who used to visit Palmyra could see a difference between what is was - and Saudi Arabia where Wahhibism has destroyed all traces of its Pagan, Jewish and Christain heritage. ISIL of course have now done the same in Palmyra.
Or the Armenians who used to annually commemorate the place of death in 1915 for so many of the genocide victims, at the Armenian memorial church in Der Zohr. This too has been destroyed by ISIL, and of course the only tourists are foreign jihadists.

False dichotomy: the choice in Syria isn't between ISIS and Assad. It's much, much more complicated than that.

Lockstep

coolemon wrote: »

Of course they would bomb them. You naively seem to think the West support and promote democracy around the world. History paints a completely different picture, and the plate of origin on Saudi regime weapons does too.

And your source for this is...what?
The US is a democracy with a free press. While the government is dictated by realpolitik, it's also influenced by public opinion. While it will covertly support dictatorships, it's very rare for the US to openly act against democracy movements in a country.
Case in point: Bangladesh. While Nixon was an ally of Pakistan's president Yahya Khan, US public opinion meant he was unable to openly support him against India.

Can you give three examples where the US openly bombed pro-democracy movements that were operating against dictatorships?

Lockstep

cerastes wrote: »

If Russia is prolonging a civil war, what has the US and its allies done, forment civil war and then stood by on the sidelines apparently dithering, but really its like an invasion-lite, let both sides bleed each other white, then roll in later and deal with a faction here or there who has been allowed (not bombed into oblivion) local control for the right to do whatever they please.

Assad has consistently ruled out any transitional government or power-sharing system. His forces are the most brutal in the entire conflict (killing far more civilians than ISIS). Should the West have stood by and watched his troops massacre civilians? To a large extent, they did too little, but if aiding rebellion against a dictator is "prolonging" a civil war, I stand by that. RUssia could have used it's influence to mitigate the conflict. They did not do so and are now stoking things with active military intervention.

cerastes wrote: »

The end does not justify the means regarding bringing so called democracy, as that means the people of Syria suffer.
If anyone was really interested in ousting Assad, it would be much better for them to go through a formal channel and tell him, he and his nearest cronies arent going to be tolerated, he can be on his way with X worth and live in exile in X country, there will be free and open elections to be organised under international control.

Except that wouldn't happen, given it would require a UN mandated enforcement mission which Russia (And probably China) would veto. Assad has refuses election monitors and has refused a political solution

cerastes wrote: »

If its opposition to a brutal dictatorship, then why was Syria on the hitlist and not Saudi? or is it because they play ball?

Because Syria's civil war is dragging out, causing colossal loss of life and a refugee crisis. If Saudi Arabi was involved in a civil war, do you really think the US would be bombing their opponents or doing much beyond logistical aid?

cerastes wrote: »

IF Russia is acting like the US did during the Cold war can you point to exactly which conflic or conflicts you are referring to?
The US seems to be progressively acting worse and worse to other nations, and seems to have veered into a glorification of a ruthless militarised police state.
I dont recal when the US took such little action and so lightly? whereas they actually seemed to be involved in many conflicts during the cold war.

Sure: the Vietnam War and Korean War spring to mind where the US undertook bombing raids in support of authoritarian states. Then again, at least the US was not bombing pro-democracy groups like Russia is.

Lockstep

Dammit Glued, you quoted my entire post but left out one section: where I asked for proof that the vast majority of Syrian rebels were "Islamist extremists". Please provide evidence for this.

glued wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense so they have avoided ISIS yet they have attacked them numerous times?

Nowhere did I say Assad's forces had attacked ISIS numerous times. Where on earth did you pull this from? I clearly argued the opposite.

glued wrote: »

What is this? Russia isn't blathering on about ISIS. The US and other countries have said that they weren't targeting ISIS at all. Russia have responded with proof that they have and are targeting ISIS.

Yes they are, as shown in my previous post, Russia claim their priority is defeating ISIS Also evident here
In practice, they are overwhelmingly focussing on non-ISIS groups, as evidenced in the Economist chart.
Noone is disputing that Russia have hit ISIS. What is clear is that despite their anti-ISIS rhetoric, they're focussing on non-ISIS rebels. Presumbly, their attacks on ISIS are a fig-leaf so people like you can still claim it's an anti ISIS operation.

glued wrote: »

NATO aren't deploying troops because Obama doesn't want the US involved in another war in the Middle East. It's nothing to do with saving lives. The Western media didn't really care about the thousands of Afhan and Iraqi civilians butchered by Bush and Blair in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't care a damn about civilians. The US was a liberal democracy in 1945 too, they didn't care about civilians lives then and they don't care about civilian lives now.

I never said it was about civilian deaths: the US is terrified of the Somalia factor(when body bags come back). We're discussing why the US isn't deploying troops. If you're trying to argue I'm claiming it's about avoiding civilian casualties, you've constructed one hell of a strawman.

glued wrote: »

You mean like Iraq? You're only illustrating your lack of knowledge further.

Iraq was clearly in the US' interest. Hence why the US deployed troops there.
Why did the US not deploy any troops in Bosnia, Kosovo or Rwanda? Why did they pull out of Somalia?
Because the US was terrified of losing troops in nation-building.

glued wrote: »

Let's not forget you had the bright idea of putting Al-Nusra into power.

No.
Stop.
Don't tell lies like that.
Please directly link to where I've advocated putting Al-Nusra in power.

glued wrote: »

Opposition forces? That must be a new word for Islamic Extremists. Russia is as bad as the US but this "The US are better than Russia because they're attacking ISIS" line is nothing but pure bluster.

Given you've avoided demonstrating that the majority of anti-Assad forces are "Islamic Extremists", I'm interested in you expanding on this.
The US has been bombing ISIS for over a year. Russia has mainly been bombing non-ISIS rebels. It's hardly bluster now, is it?

glued wrote: »

The fact remains that the US have no plan to bring peace to Syria, not that Russia will either. Russia isn't doing anything better or worse than the US is doing. If the US are so concerned about murderous despots and freeing mankind then why are they sitting on their hands over Saudi Arabia?

You've an interesting mindset here: claiming any criticism of Russia is based on Russophobia and yet trying to downplay your clear Russian sympathies by false equivalence between Russia and the US.

The reason the US is not doing anything in Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia is not engaged in a civil war. If they were, the US would be in a much harsher position, although it's very unlikely they'd conduct any military operations against Saudi rebels.

karma_

Lockstep wrote: »

Can you give three examples where the US openly bombed pro-democracy movements that were operating against dictatorships?

Openly bombed? Why such a narrow agenda? The US have supported many dictatorships and toppled multiple democratically elected governments and attempted many other such acts. Examples include-

Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Congo, 1960
South Vietnam, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Chile, 1973

alcaline

The US policy has been a disaster from the start in the region since 911 and now looks like the US is giving up on Syria and doubling down on Afghanistan, going to keep the troops there for the foreseeable future instead of the promised withdrawl. Reports also state the Iraqi government are getting close to the Russians and want them to take over bombing ISIS in Iraq.
The Russians have got the wind at their back now and the US looks to be in disarray.

glued

Lockstep wrote: »

Dammit Glued, you quoted my entire post but left out one section: where I asked for proof that the vast majority of Syrian rebels were "Islamist extremists". Please provide evidence for this.

I'm sorry but if you do not know that the majority of the Syrian Rebels are Islamsic Extremists then I'm not sure what the point is in debating this any further. Al-Nusra, Army of Conquest and Levant Front are all known Islamic Extremists. The Free Syrian Army are a bit of a myth. It's essentially a blanket term for many smaller rebel groups and a lot of people such as Robert Fisk state that they don't actually exist. The Sham legion group come under the Army of Conquests umbrella and any notion that they're moderate is a fallacy. Many groups are claiming to be moderate in order to secure American weapons only to then defect to Islamic Extremists or have given their arms to the likes of Al-Nusra in order to secure safe passage through a conflict zone. If you do your research you will see that most, material, Rebel groups in Syria are extremists. Some Syrian rebel fighters may be moderates fighting for extremists groups as it is the only way to secure weapons is through groups that already have a supply line of weapons. Unless of course you play the 'moderate' card to the CIA.

Nowhere did I say Assad's forces had attacked ISIS numerous times. Where on earth did you pull this from? I clearly argued the opposite.

We were talking about Russia not Assad.

Yes they are, as shown in my previous post, Russia claim their priority is defeating ISIS Also evident here
In practice, they are overwhelmingly focussing on non-ISIS groups, as evidenced in the Economist chart

Like I said Russia are responding to noise from NATO. I never argued Russia weren't focusing on the rebels and you know this. I'm not sure why you're trying to stress a point that both of us already know.

Noone is disputing that Russia have hit ISIS. What is clear is that despite their anti-ISIS rhetoric, they're focussing on non-ISIS rebels. Presumbly, their attacks on ISIS are a fig-leaf so people like you can still claim it's an anti ISIS operation.

I'm not claiming it is an anti-ISIS operation. I never have claimed that. It's strawman argument/ I have stated numerous times that Russia's goal is to assist Assad. I said it makes no sense for Russia to attack ISIS when the Rebels are far more of an immediate threat to Assad than ISIS are. Russia have only attacked ISIS where they're in close proximity to Assad. Yet again you're skewing my argument based on lies. Russia are fighting ISIS but only where it is in their interest to do so.

I never said it was about civilian deaths: the US is terrified of the Somalia factor(when body bags come back). We're discussing why the US isn't deploying troops. If you're trying to argue I'm claiming it's about avoiding civilian casualties, you've constructed one hell of a strawman.

You're post wasn't clear. If you had of said the Somalia factor then I would of understood exactly what you meant, instead you just referred to body bags which could be interpreted to be about Civilian deaths.

Iraq was clearly in the US' interest. Hence why the US deployed troops there.
Why did the US not deploy any troops in Bosnia, Kosovo or Rwanda? Why did they pull out of Somalia?
Because the US was terrified of losing troops in nation-building.

How exactly was Iraq in the US's interest? I'd really like to here this? They have destroyed Iraq far worse than Saddam Hussein could ever dream of. Iraq was a good idea like Vietnam was a good idea. Iraq has been a massive failure and the US had no good reason to invade Iraq. Where were these Weapons of Mass Destruction and how exactly did they free the Iraqi people? Not only that but they disbanded the Iraqi Army and left Iraq in utter chaos. How exactly was that in anyone's interest? The only interest America had was another regime change, which was an utter failure.

No.
Stop.
Don't tell lies like that.
Please directly link to where I've advocated putting Al-Nusra in power.

Ok, that is indeed a misrepresentation reading back on your post so that's my bad.

Given you've avoided demonstrating that the majority of anti-Assad forces are "Islamic Extremists", I'm interested in you expanding on this.
The US has been bombing ISIS for over a year. Russia has mainly been bombing non-ISIS rebels. It's hardly bluster now, is it?

I've addressed the first point here above and the second point you make is nothing but being a strawman. You're missing the point completely here.

You've an interesting mindset here: claiming any criticism of Russia is based on Russophobia and yet trying to downplay your clear Russian sympathies by false equivalence between Russia and the US.

I have no sympathy for Russia. I just don't like to see people skewing facts in order to further their argument. Russia is as bad as anybody and I've stated this numerous times. I have absolutely no sympathy for Russia or Putin.

The reason the US is not doing anything in Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia is not engaged in a civil war. If they were, the US would be in a much harsher position, although it's very unlikely they'd conduct any military operations against Saudi rebels.

Do you genuinely believe that the US would support any uprising against the Saudi regime? I'd really like to know the answer to this question and also do you believe that the US only interferes in countries where there is a civil war taking place? Because if you don't then I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but if you do then you need to take a look at history and stop being so naive.

smurgen

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq interesting article.it shows a official document from the US Dod which talks about supporting rebels and the possibility of these rebels declaring an Islamic state.

Lockstep

karma_ wrote: »

Openly bombed? Why such a narrow agenda? The US have supported many dictatorships and toppled multiple democratically elected governments and attempted many other such acts. Examples include-

Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Congo, 1960
South Vietnam, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Chile, 1973

As there's a fairly large difference between clandestine support for dictators or revolutionary groups (which happened in all the cases you mentioned) and openly bombing pro-democracy movements. The reason being that the US is a liberal democracy and its government is constrained in what it can do.
As mentioned above, Pakistan in 1971 was a great example. Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan to the hilt but due to US public opinion, were unable to openly support him against Bangladeshi rebels.

Lockstep

glued wrote: »

I'm sorry but if you do not know that the majority of the Syrian Rebels are Islamsic Extremists then I'm not sure what the point is in debating this any further. Al-Nusra, Army of Conquest and Levant Front are all known Islamic Extremists. The Free Syrian Army are a bit of a myth. It's essentially a blanket term for many smaller rebel groups and a lot of people such as Robert Fisk state that they don't actually exist. The Sham legion group come under the Army of Conquests umbrella and any notion that they're moderate is a fallacy. Many groups are claiming to be moderate in order to secure American weapons only to then defect to Islamic Extremists or have given their arms to the likes of Al-Nusra in order to secure safe passage through a conflict zone. If you do your research you will see that most, material, Rebel groups in Syria are extremists. Some Syrian rebel fighters may be moderates fighting for extremists groups as it is the only way to secure weapons is through groups that already have a supply line of weapons. Unless of course you play the 'moderate' card to the CIA.

I asked for proof, not a monologue. Don't tell me to "do [my] research". The onus is on you to back up your claims. Not for me to substantiate your opinions for you.

glued wrote: »

We were talking about Russia not Assad.

Yup, and nowhere did I say Russia had attacked ISIS "numerous" times. I was arguing the opposite.

glued wrote: »

Like I said Russia are responding to noise from NATO. I never argued Russia weren't focusing on the rebels and you know this. I'm not sure why you're trying to stress a point that both of us already know.

You claimed Russia wasn't blathering on about ISIS. I proved the opposite. There's a large difference between Russia's stated goals of hitting ISIS and its actions of focussing on everyone else.
Hell, its bombing the FSA despite claiming it doesn't even consider the FSA terrorists

glued wrote: »

I'm not claiming it is an anti-ISIS operation. I never have claimed that. It's strawman argument/ I have stated numerous times that Russia's goal is to assist Assad. I said it makes no sense for Russia to attack ISIS when the Rebels are far more of an immediate threat to Assad than ISIS are. Russia have only attacked ISIS where they're in close proximity to Assad. Yet again you're skewing my argument based on lies. Russia are fighting ISIS but only where it is in their interest to do so.

No, Russia is making a big deal about their attacks on ISIS when in reality they're largely avoiding them. It's a fig leaf for their air campaign.
At any rate, as has been shown numerous times in this thread, Assad avoids targetting ISIS as they're a handy bogeyman for him. Russia is presumably doing the same.

glued wrote: »

You're post wasn't clear. If you had of said the Somalia factor then I would of understood exactly what you meant, instead you just referred to body bags which could be interpreted to be about Civilian deaths.

If we're discussing military exercises, body-bags refers to dead soldiers coming home in body bags, not dead civilians on the ground. I assumed you knew this colloquial reference.

glued wrote: »

How exactly was Iraq in the US's interest? I'd really like to here this? They have destroyed Iraq far worse than Saddam Hussein could ever dream of. Iraq was a good idea like Vietnam was a good idea. Iraq has been a massive failure and the US had no good reason to invade Iraq. Where were these Weapons of Mass Destruction and how exactly did they free the Iraqi people? Not only that but they disbanded the Iraqi Army and left Iraq in utter chaos. How exactly was that in anyone's interest? The only interest America had was another regime change, which was an utter failure.

Oh, I'm not supporting the US' invasion of Iraq. It was a flagrant violation of international law (overwhelmingly based on lies in the US legal justification and on terrible legal reasoning by the UK)
However, it was in the Bush administration's interests to invade Iraq in a vain attempt to institute a US ally in the region, particularly one as oil-rich as Iraq. This was heavily influenced by the Neo-Cons who dominated the Bush administration, particularly those influenced by the Project for a New American Century. Of course, they completely failed, not helped by how terribly they instituted the new government.

glued wrote: »

I've addressed the first point here above and the second point you make is nothing but being a strawman. You're missing the point completely here.

No you haven't. I've asked for proof that the vast majority of rebels are Islamic extremists. You haven't provided this.
You claimed it's "pure bluster" to highlight that the US is attacking ISIS whereas Russia is hitting pretty much everyone else. This is indisputable and clashes with Moscow's claims to be hitting ISIS when they're doing little against them.

glued wrote: »

I have no sympathy for Russia. I just don't like to see people skewing facts in order to further their argument. Russia is as bad as anybody and I've stated this numerous times. I have absolutely no sympathy for Russia or Putin.

Strange as you've repeatedly criticised NATO and condemned any criticism of Russia as Russophobia. NATO do a lot of bad things but they're in the right for once on Syria. It's bad when the US supports oppressive dictatorships and even worse when they actively intervene to protect them. Russia is no different.

glued wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe that the US would support any uprising against the Saudi regime? I'd really like to know the answer to this question and also do you believe that the US only interferes in countries where there is a civil war taking place? Because if you don't then I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but if you do then you need to take a look at history and stop being so naive.

I never said the US would support rebellions against Riyadh. I said the US would be unlikely to militarily intervene to protect the Saudis from a pro-democracy movement.

glued

Lockstep I'm not going to keep getting into long winded debates with you. It's obvious that we both have a massive difference of opinion on Syria but I have to ask you who are these moderate rebels?

I know there was some groups initially but these were small groups supported by the US and they have been extinct for some time now as they were not given proper support by the US and many have either defected to Islamic Extremist groups or gave them weapons in order to secure safe passage through conflict zones.

Who are these moderate groups? I just want names.

Elmer Blooker

I did a search this thread (which started on Sept 10th) for the word "moderate"
33 results found: "moderate" was mentioned ONCE before Russian intervention and 32 times after! I think that tells us something glued.

Shurimgreat

Once more, some people, perhaps deliberately, demonstrate merely a superficial understanding of the conflict and the various players.

As for moderates, the FSA are the moderates. See here.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565158-kurds-fsa-advance-on-isis-stronghold

They are and no-one can dispute this committed to a free, democratic Syria. They have a presence all over Syria, sometimes a strong presence, other places not so strong. They have a presence in the fight along side the Kurds. The Kurds meanwhile have been battling both ISIS and AL Nusra Front. I can't see any of the Islamic groups fighting along side the Kurds probably due to their view of them as being infidels or heretics or something like that. Basically unless you are Sunni Muslim, you are an infidel in that part of Syria.

Elsewhere, the FSA have a strong presence in Aleppo and regularly fight battles against ISIS as well as the government. They have a presence in Rastan which the Russians bombed a few weeks ago, killing a prominent FSA commander. They have a presence in the south of the country too.

They have been pushed out of other areas by ISIS and ANF, largely because ISIS and ANF are better armed and better funded. Other Islamic groups are armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The west meanwhile has not given so much as a peashooter to the original FSA. So its hardly surprising ISIS and ANF became stronger and stronger. Another failure of the west, and also the result of some people lobbing all the opposition in together and saying we shouldn't arm them. We should have armed the FSA so they became the dominant force.

There are moderate forces in Syria and anyone who says there aren't has no clue about the situation and are prone to making statements like "They are all the same" or "They are all Islamic jihadist head choppers", using the same language as that other great democrat Assad. I think we know where their sympathies lie, with Assad, though they will deny it I'm sure.

Elmer Blooker

The FSA don't exist and I doubt if they ever did.
They were nothing more than a front for sending weapons to Syria. If you know your history you will find that there are no "moderates" in any civil war and Syria is no exception.
This is from the International Business Times dated March 10th 2015.

“There is no such thing as the Free Syrian Army,” said Rami Jarrah, a prominent Syrian activist and co-founder of ANA Press, a Syrian news outlet. “People still use the term in Syria to make it seem like the rebels have some sort of structure. But there really isn’t.”

The moderate movement in Syria could be considered officially dead as of last week, when the last U.S.-backed rebel faction, Harakat Hazzm, disbanded, its members joining extremist groups such as the Nusra Front, the al Qaeda offshoot in the country. Some of the men joined a group called the Levant Front, a coalition of rebel militias that also has ties to al Qaeda.

bilston

BBC 5 Live are reporting that an aircraft or drone has been shot down by Turkish forces along its border with Syria.

Worrying...

Edit - Turkey saying it was a drone which is slightly less worrying, but nevertheless it's an unwelcome escalation.

BoJack Horseman

Yeah, seems like a surveillance drone.

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The FSA don't exist and I doubt if they ever did.
They were nothing more than a front for sending weapons to Syria. If you know your history you will find that there are no "moderates" in any civil war and Syria is no exception.
This is from the International Business Times dated March 10th 2015.

So all the opposition are Sunni Muslim head choppers? Because that's pretty much the way you and others are portraying them.

I suppose it suits a certain anti western agenda to portray all the opposition alike, as jihadist nutters.

You also conveniently overlook the fact the opposition are at war with each other. Kurds have fought ANF and ISIS. ANF and ISIS have fought each other. FSA have fought ISIS. Other groups have fought ISIS.

Again your knowledge of the conflict seems to be superficial at best. Generally people who say things like the "opposition are all the same or are all similar or none of them are moderates" don't fully understand the intracies on the ground. They prefer to go for lazy stereotypes such as "there are no moderates or the opposition are all the same".

Far from being "finished" as you say, the FSA are still very much in the fight.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/russian-warplanes-strike-bad-time-free-syrian-army-890372719

But I suppose you don't get attention in the international media unless you cut off a load of people's heads. Maybe that's where they were going wrong!

I see the EU is trying to force Turkey to keep refugees in Turkey now. Another short sighted decision. Holding the carrot of EU membership over their heads. How do they expect the Turks to hold back the refugees?

IrishTrajan

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I see the EU is trying to force Turkey to keep refugees in Turkey now. Another short sighted decision. Holding the carrot of EU membership over their heads. How do they expect the Turks to hold back the refugees?

They'll probably pay huge amounts of cash towards their upkeep, like Britain already does. This war is of Turkey's making, they're going to have to deal with the fall out.