America's Responsibility In Syria?

[Simon_Jester]

Both.

The problem is that by now, there are no credible "good guy" factions in position to actually wind up running the country, if there ever were, by Western definitions of the good guys. There's no one to put in charge who you would find satisfactory, and propping up a puppet ruler who would be acceptable is only going to last as long as the developed world spends huge sums forcing the situation to be quasi-stable.

[cosmicalstorm]

Come to think about it, I'd be quite content with any end to the Syrian conflict that did not involve several notable acts of genocide.
I'm also kind of peeked by the amount of coverage this is getting in western media. Surely there have been similar atrocities in Africa on a much larger scale in the past couple of decades? Why the difference in interest?

[cadbrowser]

You know comicalstorm, I've often wondered about the same thing. I remember reading about the genocide that happened in Rwanda (this was after I saw the movie regarding this event). It was really interesting to note the amount of denial from the international crowd, much like what happened during WWII with the Nazis.

I almost wonder if the same mentality exists like what happened with the Vietnam War and the Iraqi War. The first being how horribly the veterans were treated (by the public) and how different it was with the later. Like night and day. Seems to me that since WWII was a horrible tragedy and then the Rwanda thing happened; and now it seems years later someone wanted the international community to KNOW these horrific acts are happening as well in Syria (maybe not on the same scale; but still...).

It is like some people took a long look at these things and decided that the world should get confirmation and knowledge. What I'm having an issue with is Russia's constant denial of Assad's army wrongdoing and crying of "but what about the Rebels...they're terrorist!". Don't get me wrong, if the Rebels are equally as guilty of crimes against humanity like Assad's forces; then yes, they need to be brought to justice as well.

Unfortunately, I don't think the "winners" of a war are generally subject to being charged like the "losers" are. Can anyone point me to some reference material to clarify if my position is incorrect?

[houser2112]

Why the difference in interest?

My best guess is "oil".

[cadbrowser]

Why the difference in interest?

My best guess is "oil".

I can't argue with that.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I'm confused then. How is what you just typed lead into the part I objected to? To go from me asking about a US backed establishment of an Israeli No Fly Zone in Syria to ask if they'd invade a country just for laughs is quite a dishonest stretch on your part. Israel "invades" other countries all the fucking time...I've already mentioned that. So I am really not understanding where the hell you are coming from.

Yeah, they do bomb other people. They have always done it for reasons of their own, though, and don't give a shit about their alleged ally, the US (I say alleged, because the US is Israel's bitch plain and simple). If you wanna take my metaphor and turn in into WW3, I don't care. I'm not trying to score points over this.

I hadn't entertained the possibility of non-compliance of Israel not wanting to do this. And really that wasn't the focus of my inquiry. I was assuming for the hypothetical proposed that we asked and they had said yes.

So essentially, you are asking whether Israel or Syria has greater air power. It's Israel, we are moving on.

Aren't you nitpicking a bit here? I didn't suggest it. I asked if it was possible; IOW, I already implied that I didn't know and I was seeking knowledge. I fail to understand why you are associating these things in this context. My question regarding the superiority of the Israeli army over the rest of the Middle East with the Nukes was in direct dispute of what Simon_Jester, LaCroix, and you objected to as far as them having the means to pull off said No Fly Zone in the first place. Sea Skimmer, I thought, did a nice job of demonstrating that Israel indeed had a superior military for that area. My understanding is quite frankly (from what Sea Skimmer wrote) that Israel wouldn't NEED to use the threat of Nukes; that they were quite capable in and of themselves.

My point was that, whether they had enough conventional power or not, the Israelis wouldn't actually use the threat of nuclear warfare against a non-nuclear power. You might say that North Korea threatens around with nukes all the time, but they a) do it against America, b) are utterly if predictably insane.

Hey look, I frankly hold nothing against you. So just read this post and tell me whether we agree or disagree here.

[cadbrowser]

If you wanna take my metaphor and turn in into WW3, I don't care. I'm not trying to score points over this.

How did I do this again? What on earth are you going on about with this whole scoring points tripe? You still haven't answered my question either.

So essentially, you are asking whether Israel or Syria has greater air power. It's Israel, we are moving on.

No sir, I asked no such question. My question was pretty specific regarding Israel.

My point was that, whether they had enough conventional power or not, the Israelis wouldn't actually use the threat of nuclear warfare against a non-nuclear power.

See, right there; I never claimed they would, so I'm not quite sure why you thought the need to even make this a point.

Hey look, I frankly hold nothing against you. So just read this post and tell me whether we agree or disagree here.

Oh, well thank you very much! My involvement in this board is not predicated on whether or not anyone holds anything against me, I could care less. As long as I am not pissing off mods or the head hauncho by not following the rules, then what you or anyone holds against me is irrelevant.

You called me a "fucking prick and dishonest fucktard"; when I asked you to explain; you didn't. You keep harping about the Israeli/US diplomatic relationship as an opinion piece that really has no bearing on my OP. You have at least twice misrepresented my position and you are bringing up irrelevant points that make no sense in light of this discussion. If I am wrong, please show me; I have NO issues with being wrong and i will be the first to admit it.

There are a few things I agree with that you have said (ignoring their relevance to the topic at hand).

[Dr. Trainwreck]

How did I do this again? What on earth are you going on about with this whole scoring points tripe? You still haven't answered my question either.

God, I said that 'for laughs' was a metaphor. You're either dense or seriously into selective quoting.

No sir, I asked no such question. My question was pretty specific regarding Israel.

You asked whether Israel could feasibly enforce a no-fly zone. This kinda relies on them having air superiority over Syria, which in fact they do have.

See, right there; I never claimed they would, so I'm not quite sure why you thought the need to even make this a point.

You brought up nuclear power in the first place, and I replied that it doesn't figure into the matter at all. Do you realize that, by this point, I only need to recount our argument to reply to you?

<various phrases>

Whatever.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The UN is asking for $5bn in order to fund the aid operation for the millions of Syrian refugees crossing the border into places like Jordan, it'll be interesting to see how much the US is willing to contribute.

[cadbrowser]

God, I said that 'for laughs' was a metaphor. You're either dense or seriously into selective quoting.

By that same token then I can easily re-state that Israel ALREADY invades other countries just 'for laughs'! So your point is moot and does nothing to contribute to this thread. And you're the one calling me dense?

You asked whether Israel could feasibly enforce a no-fly zone. This kinda relies on them having air superiority over Syria, which in fact they do have.

That is a remarkably different stance than your first post with all that anti-Zionist whining bullshit. Which I'm not saying I completely disagree with you on those grounds; I just fail to see how what you said is relevant to the post.

You brought up nuclear power in the first place, and I replied that it doesn't figure into the matter at all. Do you realize that, by this point, I only need to recount our argument to reply to you?

Jesus Christ, I brought up nuclear power as a significant source of military superiority over other Middle Eastern states! Not in the context (as you are trying to dishonestly force here) of whether it would be used to establish and/or maintain a No Fly Zone over Syria. So again, pointing out that it wouldn't be used to establish a No Fly Zone is moot and contributes nothing to this thread.

I understand that Nuclear Power isn't necessarily indicative of military superiority per se; Sea Skimmer pointed that out and I agree and understand. His information, as I have already said before, demonstrated their military superiority by history and precedence.

How come you don't get that?

Whatever.

Nice evasion asshole. Explain why you called me a fucking prick and dishonest fucktard or else apologize and figure out a way to contribute to this thread or kindly fuck off.

The UN is asking for $5bn in order to fund the aid operation for the millions of Syrian refugees crossing the border into places like Jordan, it'll be interesting to see how much the US is willing to contribute.

I read about that earlier this morning. I wouldn't be surprised if the US fronts a major portion of the bill. As an aside, I am also wondering how much Russia and/or China will contribute

[Dr. Trainwreck]

You know, caddy, fuck it. We are just going in circles and repeating ourselves here.

[cadbrowser]

You know, caddy, fuck it. We are just going in circles and repeating ourselves here.

That's nice, you make no contributions, misrepresent my stance, degrade me, ignore my points, and then just throw your hands up and say "fuck it"?

We wouldn't be going in circles if you would either concede or demonstrate in context where I'm in error.

I thought this type of behavior was frowned upon.

[Irbis]

What if the US allowed Israel to conduct the no-fly zone? Allowed or "contracted" them to take out chemical plants, storage, and launch facilities?

Guess what - they already did. There has been more than a dozen 'unexplained' explosions in Syria this year alone, strangely always happening when someone tried to take certain munitions out of storage. Have one example.

Now Syria has parity and superiority in numbers, and most of these forces can, and will, be redirected against Israel at whim. That is not including eventual allied states and independently founded groups also doing their part (if Israel were the one to beat up, a lot of groups will join in happily). This will end bloody, very bloody.

What. As SS already said, Israel has so large advantage over everyone else they can take on the whole of Middle East, Persia, and Arabian Peninsula combined, and this at the same time, and win. Syria might have had similar numbers, before the uprising started, but now that army had been so wholesale gutted by fighting it can't even offer resistance to Israeli strikes at known in advance targets, as above!

1) Syria has plenty of jets and tanks, but jets and tanks are of limited use in suppressing a massive popular rebellion. They are very useful in stopping an Israeli invasion, though. Syria's great weakness, like a lot of dictatorships, is a lack of politically reliable enforcers to keep the populace under control. There aren't enough goons on the goon squad willing to break the heads of civilian rebels, which is a whole different problem than finding enough artillerymen and pilots to stop a foreign invasion.

Except for the pesky fact a lot of Syrian heavy gear and ammunition had been already expended fighting said rebels and what remains would be swept aside by tiny fraction of Israel's standing army. They don't even need to mobilize. Plus, goons often hate Assad more than they do Israel.

3) You will note that during the Six Days' War, Israel launched a surprise attack against an enemy that was tactically unprepared for combat, and came up with a number of useful gimmicks (like increased water rations for desert fighting). None of this necessarily reflects permanent military superiority.

You know what reflects permanent military superiority? The fact that Syrian T-55 are 50 year old tanks while Israeli Merkava IV is one of the most advanced MBTs in the world. Same with air forces, IAI can throw dozens of world's top fighter planes on the force where pilots could be sons of their equipment age-wise. It's literally South vs North Korea. They don't need gimmicks anymore, there is no country in the world today capable of successfully invading Israel.

The only way Israel can lose is by running out of ammo faster than Syria runs out of vehicles.

[cadbrowser]

What if the US allowed Israel to conduct the no-fly zone? Allowed or "contracted" them to take out chemical plants, storage, and launch facilities?

Guess what - they already did. There has been more than a dozen 'unexplained' explosions in Syria this year alone, strangely always happening when someone tried to take certain munitions out of storage. Have one example.

Wow, no shit huh? That is insane. I was beginning to wonder if that was already happening. Or the fact that Israel does take out targets it deems a threat to their sovereignty may be directed by US intelligence (I know...I know...) since the only thing the international community will do is "condemn" said actions. I mean, how many bowls of cornflakes did we piss in by invading the US? What did anyone do, yeah...that's right...nothing.

Thank you Irbis for finding that.

[cadbrowser]

Ghetto Edit...

Should be: ...did we piss in by invading Iraq?

[Irbis]

Or the fact that Israel does take out targets it deems a threat to their sovereignty may be directed by US intelligence (I know...I know...) since the only thing the international community will do is "condemn" said actions.

Why US intelligence? Mossad would also be very interested in preventing Hezbollach arms transfers or ensuring no one uses WMDs right next to Israeli border.

You're talking about people that eat the heart of their enemies, kidnap Christian bishops trying to negotiate the release of captives, and institute Sharia. Putting the current rebels in a position of power would do nothing to decrease 'barbarism'.

Screw the rebels.

Hello, Einsten, you know why rebels in Syria started to radicalise? All thanks to your friendly neighbourhood Saudi Arabia and other "allied" radical theocracies that started to pump colossal amounts of money into radical Islamic groups there. Liberal opposition, dominating at first, had been suffering manpower drain because it has far smaller resources than Wahhabis to play with to simply keep the people fed - because West instead of finding and propping up sane, pro-democratic opposition group fiddles its thumbs. Compare it to Libya - conflict started at about the same time, but despite Saudi money Islamists never had the chance to take over because conditions never grown too desperate and opposition actually won.

So, yeah, fuck you and your superiority attitude when looking at problem that is damn West's fault from the beginning

Yes, you'd tie down other nation's forces for a generation. Good luck getting countries to volunteer for that!

Gee, did occupation of Germany or Japan take whole generation?

My suggestion would be to not do anything at all. Offer the turks as much help as possible with refugees, make a deal with Assad to allow refugees to cross the border without much harassment by pro-Assad forces, then let Assad deal with the rebels as he sees fit.

Yeah, good ol' Rwandan Genocide school. Too bad we're talking half the population there.

Then the main problem is Turkey, which will not be thrilled about having to house/feed/integrate that many dirty foreigners, but if the USA promises them billions of aid and a chance to repair the USA/Turkey relations - maybe some trade or military concessions as well - they will most certainly jump at the chance.

You know that 40% population of Jordan are now refugees, and that when we doesn't count the offspring of '48 ones? To put things in perspective what it means to society, can Germany, country far richer than Jordan, accept 35 million refugees now? Yes/no?

And that is today, before even considering giving Assad free hand in whatever solution programs he might want to undertake if he wins.

Less idealistic and unrealistic goals might be a good start. "We will topple their dictator and then we will have a flourishing democracy in a country that has a history of tribalism over 2000 years old that was only broken by some of the most brutal empires in history before" is a childish way of thinking, but that didn't prevent the USA from squandering its resources and blood in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tribalism?

Yes, let's ignore the fact that less than 500 years ago, Damascus was for 8 centuries centre of learning, art, architecture and trade that could have rivalled any city in Rome of Caesars or Byzantium. They are all dirty ragheads, right?

I'd be happy with a dictator who:
- allows women more freedom than in Saudi Arabia
- doesn't care much for radical Islamic law or Jihad ideas
- allows for western education of his youth
- guarantees stability in the region and real economic growth for his people

You know who is perfect fit for the above? Erich Honecker. Oh, wait, I guess he doesn't count, despite ruling over country that in all of it's history was democratic only in brief period of Weimar Republic. Before and after that, it's brutal empires all the way down.

Also, as far as I am aware, women in DDR actually had more rights than those in the BRD, especially not being tied by backwards religious modesty/body control laws. To them, reunification was actually making situation worse. Oops.

Too bad that of the dictators who fit the bill one has been forced out (Mubarak), the other was hanged by the USA/its allies and the third is currently fighting an insurgency in Syria.

Yeah, too bad these untermenshen in Egypt, Tunis and Libya got a chance to try democracy in practice instead of quietly sitting under the dictator, like in all proper western allied theocracies, or fighting brutal war, like in Syria. Who would want that?

I wonder if it's too late to call Putin to send tanks back.

I don't think that shift is that pronounced or matters that much, seeing how you can't really seperate the country from Assad seeing how long his family has been in power.

40 years. That's less than DDR existed, or less than German Empire under Hohenzollerns did. I wonder how we could untangle them?

The same will happen if Assad starts losing and he actually is in a position to cause much more trouble that way.

What trouble? As much as Saddam, Mubarak or Khaddafi did?

I really doubt the situations are the same since we do not have the same divide between christians and moslems here.

If anything, it's even worse than Yugoslavia. It's not just Christian vs Muslims, it's Alawites, Kurds, Druzes and Sunni divisions too.

Or killing Assad might result in a fractioning of his party and result in even more chaos and fighting.

It didn't worked for Saddam or Khaddafi, good enough to try.

[Thanas]

Yes, you'd tie down other nation's forces for a generation. Good luck getting countries to volunteer for that!

Gee, did occupation of Germany or Japan take whole generation?

1. Yes? Germany was officially occupied until the 2+4 treaties, almost 50 years.
2. If you want to get nitpicky and say that after 1953+ this was just to keep the soviet horde out, then that does not support your point either, as Germany had a previously established democracy (and an even longer constitutional monarch) and it still took 7+years of occupation to get anything remotely resembling a state going.

Yeah, good ol' Rwandan Genocide school. Too bad we're talking half the population there.

Strawman 1 - genocide is not on the table here.

You know that 40% population of Jordan are now refugees, and that when we doesn't count the offspring of '48 ones? To put things in perspective what it means to society, can Germany, country far richer than Jordan, accept 35 million refugees now? Yes/no?

And that is today, before even considering giving Assad free hand in whatever solution programs he might want to undertake if he wins.

Jordan seems to be stable - not ideal but stable. So Turkey handling refugees should be doable for them.

Tribalism?

Yes, let's ignore the fact that less than 500 years ago, Damascus was for 8 centuries centre of learning, art, architecture and trade that could have rivalled any city in Rome of Caesars or Byzantium. They are all dirty ragheads, right?

a) no, it could not
b) strawman 2
c) No history of democracy there, which is the main point. One cannot establish democracy by force.

You know who is perfect fit for the above? Erich Honecker. Oh, wait, I guess he doesn't count, despite ruling over country that in all of it's history was democratic only in brief period of Weimar Republic. Before and after that, it's brutal empires all the way down.

a) no, it is not
b) Honecker would actually be a decent choice here [better than assad for sure]. You again misunderstand "Scumbag but probably best one can get aside from a religious ayatollah" from "ZOMG BEST RULER EVER".

Also, as far as I am aware, women in DDR actually had more rights than those in the BRD, especially not being tied by backwards religious modesty/body control laws. To them, reunification was actually making situation worse. Oops.

Your naivety is refreshing, but still stupid. A state which takes away children from their mothers for purely political reasons and which forces people into abortions/giving up said children is not in any way a better situation.
However, better argue some relevancy now.

Yeah, too bad these untermenshen in Egypt, Tunis and Libya got a chance to try democracy in practice instead of quietly sitting under the dictator, like in all proper western allied theocracies, or fighting brutal war, like in Syria. Who would want that?

You mean, like the "democracy" in Libya which hasn't shown a noticeable improvement in Human Rights and which was recently lambasted by Amnesty International for torturing on the same scale as the old regime? As for Egypt and Tunisia, that is still too early to call, especially as the situation in Egypt has not stabilized yet.

I wonder if it's too late to call Putin to send tanks back.

Why would he want to get Poland under his rule again?

40 years. That's less than DDR existed, or less than German Empire under Hohenzollerns did. I wonder how we could untangle them?

Different circumstances, and note that it took a world war to get the Hohenzollern dynasty out (only to have it replaced by an idealistic democracy which, less than two decades later, elected the worst dictator in the history of mankind). Not that good of a track record.

What trouble? As much as Saddam, Mubarak or Khaddafi did?

If he does as much as Saddam then there will be a lot more bloodshed. Mubarak was told to step aside and he did, Khaddafi fought a bloody battle to the end. Mubarak solution is not going to work here unless Russia works out a deal, Khaddafi would be the best worst case, Saddam the absolute worst case.

If anything, it's even worse than Yugoslavia. It's not just Christian vs Muslims, it's Alawites, Kurds, Druzes and Sunni divisions too.

The war is not religiously motivated (yet).

It didn't worked for Saddam or Khaddafi, good enough to try.

If your best case scenario is hoping for a Khaddafi-style resolution, then you really are not presenting a good alternative here.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I'm with Thanas here. I don't think there's anything we CAN do that won't just end up making a bad situation worse, and I would hope that the U.S. has learned its lesson about dicking around in the Middle East after twelve years of humiliation and failure.

[cadbrowser]

Why US intelligence? Mossad would also be very interested in preventing Hezbollach arms transfers or ensuring no one uses WMDs right next to Israeli border.

Wouldn't have to be US intelligence. Just an idea that it may be based on the OP. But, I see your point. Was just under the impression that the US could assist with intelligence to aid Israel to take down targets that serve both parties' interest is all.

I'm with Thanas here. I don't think there's anything we CAN do that won't just end up making a bad situation worse, and I would hope that the U.S. has learned its lesson about dicking around in the Middle East after twelve years of humiliation and failure.

Are you referring to Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm not sure I follow with your contention that there was humiliation and failure. Please be so kind and elaborate.

I don't think that Thanas is saying that there isn't anything we can do. I think he is saying that we have to improve and change what our intentions are to do something effectively. Given the problems there are no matter what anyone does, there has to be a lesser of many evils that would be better than sitting back and doing nothing at all.

[cadbrowser]

Then again, would the lesser evil be to pull back and actually do nothing at all?

[Thanas]

Then again, would the lesser evil be to pull back and actually do nothing at all?

That is the question. To me, the answer would be yes, considering:
a) The US populace is unwilling to go to war again
b) The US army is probably not that huge of a fan regarding occupations of ME countries right now, considering they are also still engaged in Afghanistan
c) We do not know who to support or the consequences of foreign support (suppose Russia and China are just flooding the Syrians with additional weaponry as well, hooray, nothing gained except given everybody even more means to blow themselves up)
d) nobody in the west is able to occupy Syria without US support
e) Nobody in the west seems to be willing to committ to such an occupation anyway
f) a proxy war by Israel is not a solution

In a perfect world, we would have the resources and the political will to occupy Syria and transform society through a process that would last many decades. But we do not. So any such program would be half-assed anyway under the current circumstances and I don't think that is the way to do it. Either do it right or don't do it at all.

[cadbrowser]

Thanas, I don't think there is any point you've made that I could logically argue against. Given the current circumstances and what has been done in the past, to me it looks like this will inevitably carry on with several larger nations picking and choosing sides to support (possibly with military aid) and it will continue to escalate in more deaths.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I'm with Thanas here. I don't think there's anything we CAN do that won't just end up making a bad situation worse, and I would hope that the U.S. has learned its lesson about dicking around in the Middle East after twelve years of humiliation and failure.

Are you referring to Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm not sure I follow with your contention that there was humiliation and failure. Please be so kind and elaborate.

I don't think that Thanas is saying that there isn't anything we can do. I think he is saying that we have to improve and change what our intentions are to do something effectively. Given the problems there are no matter what anyone does, there has to be a lesser of many evils that would be better than sitting back and doing nothing at all.

I am indeed referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, where over a decade of occupation by (mostly) U.S. forces has left the Taliban still in control of large portions of one country, with a weak, corrupt government "controlling" the cites, and left a weak, corrupt government and various religious sects fighting over the ruins of the other. When it was assumed that both would blossom into enlightened, pro-western democracies. And now, the rest of the world points and laughs, and holds up our 21st century adventures in the middle east as examples of how NOT to do nation building. Hence, humiliation and failure.

In Syria, its not that the U.S. isn't capable of doing anything, there are all kinds of things we COULD do, but they all lead to bad ends. As has been said, who do we support, the brutal dictator, or the radical Islamists? What we CAN'T do, is make peace in Syria, only the Syrians can do that.

[cadbrowser]

I'll admit PhilosopherOfSorts, that I was quite taken back by your stance on the failure and humiliation in the after math of both the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars(?). I thought there was some progress. After spending some time researching to see where you were coming from I find that you are correct. It is hard for me to believe the level of failure.