The war on ISIS.
- Thread starter mister dog
- 3,128 comments
- 136,897 views
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
Except that Gaddafi never had friendly relations with the US, prompting both the US and Britain to abandon their military bases in Libya immediately after gaining power. Additionally, he nationalized Libya's newly established oil industry. By all accounts, West/Libya relations were better before Gaddafi.
Assad also wasn't brought into power by the US, although lines can be drawn back to the late 40's and early 50's where the US attempted to extend their sphere of influence to the region. In the end, the Soviet Union were the ones Assad and his regime turned to.
I of course won't deny Saddam Hussein's connection to the west up until the late 80's (I can't remember exactly when relations plummeted).
While I certainly can't and won't absolve the US and UK of their doings regarding the Middle East, I find that people tend to not extend that same level of responsibility to the various Middle Eastern countries, as if they had no independent thought or decision making skills of their own. It has become popular sport to blame the US for every single problem, often ignoring other factors or players (especially England and their part in history), and constructing wild conspiracy theories with little to no proof, just to fit their agenda. It's true that the big players in the world can and does use smaller nations as proxies or for their ressources, but let's not forget that those proxies are made up of people who are also capable of independent thought.
- - - On topic - - -
As I see it, the west had only two choices regarding Syria. We've tried intervention through supporting rebels, and it never ends well. We've tried intervening ourselves, but we fail to plan for what happens after the fighting is over. You can't take a country run by a totalitarian and turn it 100% democratic overnight, as the many reforms that need take place require the absence of the absurd levels of bureaucracy that are inherit to democracy. They also require a population that is litterate and who has access to knowledge beyond what is given to them. I don't know the education level of Syria, but I will assume (with some degree of hesitation) that it isn't near the level of western nations.
Ideally, the UN should've gone in with peace keeping forces at the very start of the conflict, removing Assad from power, and working towards establishing a new government. A combined UN peace keeping operation was, I think, the least likely to cause the population to fight back, as opposed to a full on NATO invasion. Having Russia take part was and is crucial, as it should work to ensure that the end result won't be under the direct influence of either the US, or Russia.
Given that this didn't happen, the other option was to sit back and not intervene at all. We shouldn't have supported rebel groups with arms and equipment, as we can't control what they do with them. They're not under the same scrutiny that our armies are, and, as we've come to see since, they occasionally switch sides, resulting in western supplies ending up in the hands of ISIS.
The introduction of ISIS into the theatre of operation obviously required a direct NATO and Russian intervention. Frankly, I have no idea how to effectively deal with that, as telling the various rebel groups apart from civilians, Assad forces and ISIS supporters, must be near impossible.
Last edited:
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
@Dotini
Restarting normal diplomatic relations is not equivalent to being on friendly terms. Additionally, your logic, if I understand it correctly, doesn't make sense. Neither the US, nor anyone else, instigated a coup against Gaddafi in the 40 or so years where relations ranged from bad to abysmal, and at a time where they had far more incentive to do so, yet you're saying that they suddenly felt the inclination to do so in 2011, after a brief period of stable, more civilized relations.
Restarting normal diplomatic relations is not equivalent to being on friendly terms. Additionally, your logic, if I understand it correctly, doesn't make sense. Neither the US, nor anyone else, instigated a coup against Gaddafi in the 40 or so years where relations ranged from bad to abysmal, and at a time where they had far more incentive to do so, yet you're saying that they suddenly felt the inclination to do so in 2011, after a brief period of stable, more civilized relations.
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
The Russian Defence Ministry says the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province was an airstrike by Syrian airforce on a rebels' ammunition warehouse where chemicals turned out to be stored. You guys think whatever you want to think, but it doesn't sound unbelievable to me. The SAR government gave up all chemical weapons it had on its controlled territories in 2014. The chemicals from the rebel-controlled areas were NOT taken away. No one even suggested an idea to take the chemical weapons from the moderate™ non-islamist™ pro-democracy™ rebels.
Anyway, even if this is true, there's still indirect fault of the Syrian Air Force for underestimating the target and exposing the civilians to risk.
Dear @Dennisch , if the world leaders were easliy making such hot-headed decisions as you suggest, the world would be a nuclear wasteland already.
Anyway, even if this is true, there's still indirect fault of the Syrian Air Force for underestimating the target and exposing the civilians to risk.
Dear @Dennisch , if the world leaders were easliy making such hot-headed decisions as you suggest, the world would be a nuclear wasteland already.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,696
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Do you know what happens when you explore chemical weapons?
Hint: It's not ' distribution over a wide area's.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
So how were the chemicals still active after proximity to such a large fissile explosion? It just doesn't work like that. I've yet to see a single expert, independent or otherwise, agree that the Syrians found a way to blow up an ammunition dump but keep the chemical components active... outside Syrian and Russian independents, natch.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Under a deal negotiated with Obama, Assad and the Russians, Syria was supposed to have turned over all it's proper chemicals weapons, and supposedly did so. If they have manufactured and used new chemical weapons, then this would indeed be a grave breach, and must be investigated.
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
It's not a nuclear warhead to need a special detonator for proper activation. The substance is always poisonous as long as it's present. And if it was stored among explosives, it could be spread by the blast wave (if we're talking about sarin, it's a volatile liquid and it is enough to inhale about 10 milligrams for an average human to die).
So, there wasn't an investigation yet but the US and Trump in particular already "know" who is to blame.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I think Trump is feigning his umbrage in order to (successfully) accrue good guy points with elements of the MSM and base supporters. They are lapping it up. Assad is a superior whipping boy, too good not to take cynical advantage of.
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
What's the reason for Assad to apply chemical weapons?
To gas the civilians just for fun?
To gas the civilians just for fun?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Therein lies the crux of the matter. What possible motivation would there be for Assad to order a small scale attack when conventional weapons would have been just as effective and far less controversial? Answering that question would be quite revealing.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Do you think "being a civilian" is a distinction Assad would make? He will go after the friends, relatives and acquaintances of anyone remotely suspected of being a rebel or a rebel sympathiser. History is full of dictators who took the flimsiest excuse to persecute anyone who they thought represented an opponent. The North Koreans lock up entire extended families because one person spoke out of turn. Why is it so difficult to believe that Assad doesn't do something similar.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The question wasn't, "why did Assad kill civilians?", it was, "Why kill them with chemical weapons?". What possible motivation would he have for stirring up fear and anxiety in the international community and possibly provoking an unpredictable reaction from an unpredictable new American President, when he could have simply used conventional weapons and got far less blowback?
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Feasible. Except the Syrian regime's ability to perform air strikes has been somewhat limited to helicopters dropping barrels...
- 31,693
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
I wonder if Trump can actually spur the UN do actually do something this time, instead of just wagging the finger, and crying like a bunch of softies.
We've already seen that Russia isn't in any position to take on the USA in a proxy war, and if the Donald can build a UN coalition, the only sensible thing Russia can do is say: Sorry Bashar, you're on your own now.
If of course it was Bashar who dropped the chemicals. But hey, who needs proof for that anyway?
We've already seen that Russia isn't in any position to take on the USA in a proxy war, and if the Donald can build a UN coalition, the only sensible thing Russia can do is say: Sorry Bashar, you're on your own now.
If of course it was Bashar who dropped the chemicals. But hey, who needs proof for that anyway?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
They are surprisingly accurate when they target chemical stockpiles that they had no prior knowledge of, though.
How else do you explain it? A targeted airstrike that hit the stockpile without destroying its contents? A rebel false flag operation to garner international sympathy? An accident at an industrial chemical factory?
- 29,345
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
What are the chances of blowing up an enemy weapons store containing high quantities of prepared sarin (as opposed to merely the chemicals required to make sarin) by accident? If the Russian narrative is true, then it is either an incredibly unlikely accident or it was a targeted strike.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Now I'm no expert on Sarin (I prefer more conventional approaches) but a quick scan of the Wikipedia page makes a few things clear:
- High quality Sarin has a shelf life of around 5 years (the conflict started in 2011)
- Low quality Sarin has a shelf life of a few weeks at most (so considerable stock piling would have needed to take place with rapid production)
- The component chemicals are often seperate in munitions to prolong their shelf life and aid use
So given points one and 2, it's quite unlikely these chemicals were stored in that volume and/or quality to begin with.
And point 3 suggests that whilst the chemical components can be mixed at point of use, it's a bit more complicated that them being co-located in the same facility.
So, I still don't think the Russian version of events can be completely disproved, but even a simple fact-check raises significant doubts without looking at any further data like aircraft movements and blast effects.
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Yes. Killing your electorate is bad for your presidental ratings, you know.
So much that he issued amnesty to rebels who give up their arms?
"Every person I don't like is Kim Jong Un." Well.
How about not limiting to stereotypes like "if Kim Jong Un / Stalin / Hitler did X, why Assad can't"? That doesn't make any sense.
Just think. Russia, Turkey and Iran arranged ceasefire in Syria between their controlled forces. The conversation between Assad and the somewhat moderate forces barely began. The US say they will no longer target Assad. Everything goes well. And then - BOOM! - he launches a chemical strike and screws everything up. Condemnation from the world, the rebels of various level of moderateness get more support form the West, the US get angry and threaten with strikes on SAA. Who do you think benefits from this? Hint: it's not Bashar.
No, you're seriously underestimating them.
Just because the US and Russian leaders aren't complete psychos. (Well, not so sure about Trump, he is yet to prove it. Or not.)
AFAIK, the RF Defence Ministry had warned (after the last incident with accidental US airstrike on the SAA forces) that they will shoot down ANY aviation attacking the Syrian Arab Army. The policy was like "If you don't see where you bomb, we don't see whose plane we're shooting at". However, I think it is more like self-defence measure - there may be Russian servicemen among the Syrian soldiers - advisors, commanding officers, recon teams, etc.
Well, let's hope there will be a neutral investigation (and the rebels let the investigators on their territory) that will find whoever is to blame. I'd like to live a little more.
P.S. Some info came up that Erdogan said "autopsy of the victims' bodies prove that Assad was behind the chemical attack". Interesting to know, how? The sarin molecules had Assad's phone number on them?..
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
It makes no sense to me why Assad would use chemical weapons. But when he crossed the 'red line' Obama laid out, Trump did tweet and warn Obama against attacking Syria.
It is being reported here in the US, that we know for a fact it was Syrian aircraft that carried out the airstrike.
It is being reported here in the US, that we know for a fact it was Syrian aircraft that carried out the airstrike.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
"We will fight ISIS together with Russia", he said, now this.
Reports say ISIS has started offensive in the area where the struck air base is located. Well done, Donald.
Reports say ISIS has started offensive in the area where the struck air base is located. Well done, Donald.
