Syria - what can be done?

Dubh Linn

What can actually be done about this 6 year-long crisis which has killed about 500,000 people?

We've had chemical attacks, airstrikes, bombings, shootings, beheadings, torture, imprisonment, and all the other horrific things we hate to think about.

Behind it all, there are two main players in this needles and horrible suffering:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
ISIS

These parties to the conflict need to be eliminated one way or another.

The US has already made it clear that they will not tolerate chemical attacks or any other massacres in Syria.

But they can launch all the airstrikes and missile strikes they want, it really will stil not get to the bottom of their problem.

Also, most of the terror attack on Europe are organized in Syria.

So, let's do a poll.

Do you support military action in Syria.

Yes or No.

Why/why not.

Vote now.

BattleCorp

Dubh Linn wrote: »

Behind it all, there are two main players in this needles and horrible suffering:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
ISIS

These parties to the conflict need to be eliminated one way or another.

There are more than two main players in this conflict. Do you not think that the US and Russia amongst others have a starring role?

Bashar al-Assad and ISIS have blood on their hands. But the others aren't blameless either.

I bet all those arabs who were in support of the Arab Spring movement didn't bank on paying such a high price for freedom (if it ever comes).

Winterlong

BattleCorp wrote: »

There are more than two main players in this conflict?. Do you not think that the US and Russia amongst others have a starring role?

Exactly. Add Iran and the rebels in to the mix too.

Barry Badrinath

Its way more complex than you make it out to be OP.

To be honest, you dont know much about the Syria conflict and no poll in AH is going to change that. Thats not a dig at you, its just the way it is.

As BattleCorp said, Assad and ISIS are just a part of the make up over there. You have regional players and non state actors at play too which further complicate things.

rwbug

HTS (rebranded Al-Quaeda ) is the largest rebel group Assad is fighting, they are a main player too. Add Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries into the mix as players too.

Barry Badrinath

BattleCorp wrote: »

I bet all those arabs who were in support of the Arab Spring movement didn't bank on paying such a high price for freedom (if it ever comes).

So many lives lost over a street vendor....well Police corruption.

XsApollo

The US wants the end game of Assad out of power, which is fine because he ain't the nicest fella in the world.

But they are going about it the wrong way, arming extremist groups and terrorists and backing them to overthrow him.
What happens when he is overthrown?
Will The country be left to its own devices to sort itself out or what?
You'll have all sort of groups then fighting each other to take over.

Who's to say to say the next
Group that takes power won't be worse?
If there are chemical weapons in Syria if Assad is overthrown , who's hands will they fall into then?
It's a ****ing mess and Europe will suffer because of it.

Barry Badrinath

rwbug wrote: »

HTS (rebranded Al-Quaeda ) is the largest rebel group Assad is fighting, they are a main player too. Add Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries into the mix as players too.

Correct, HTS (which will probably rebrand again soon) hold more strategic ground than ISIS and are more of a threat to Assad than ISIS.

People who focus on ISIS all the time, really know nothing more about Syria.

soups05

this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyoaBa7DaE&ab_channel=AntonOvsov

dinorebel

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Correct, HTS (which will probably rebrand again soon) hold more strategic ground than ISIS and are more of a threat to Assad than ISIS.

People who focus on ISIS all the time, really know nothing more about Syria.

ISIS have a completely different goal than other factions in Syria which is establishing the Caliphate who is in overall charge of Syria is irrelevant to them.

Hooleyo

Turkey has not been mentioned in this thread yet. You would almost think the largest facilitator of ISIS and anti-assad terrorists were some marginal player in all of this.

ISIS is an international coalition of Jihadi's backed, armed and funded by western powers. And when Assad attempts to defend his legitimate and internationally recognised state from what is, essentially, a foreign invasion, both the invaders and assad need to go?

This conflict will be resolved when Assad and his allies eliminate the terrorist foreign threat which has gained rule over a small percentage of the territory and the Syrian people. The legitimate state maintains authority over 80% of the Syrian people. That figure alone indicates who should go, and who should stay. In fact its not even a case of who "should". Will, would be more appropriate. Assad will be staying, and Russia will make sure of that.

Barry Badrinath

dinorebel wrote: »

ISIS have a completely different goal than other factions in Syria which is establishing the Caliphate who is in overall charge of Syria is irrelevant to them.

Im very aware of that. My point is, theres more to the Syrian conflict than ISIS.

tomwaterford

Hooleyo wrote: »

Assad will be staying, and Russia will make sure of that.

Why though

What has Russia to gain from this,

,I'm not so naive to think Putin cares about your average Syrian who's at risk of losing their head?

Hooleyo

tomwaterford wrote: »

Why though

What has Russia to gain from this,

,I'm not so naive to think Putin cares about your average Syrian who's at risk of losing their head?

Russia has everything to gain from it. Even in terms of contracts for the rebuilding of the country it is vital that "their side" wins. Russia has been excluded from contracts for the rebuilding of (Eastern) Libya for example. And not as punishment for their involvement in Syria.

The west has as a long term plan for the destabilisation of Russia and the fragmentation of its territory. We can see the aggressive approach towards Russia with the backing of the coup in Ukraine and the surrounding of it with NATO forces, many of which were former territories and within their historical sphere of influence. A Syrian failed state where Islamic forces, backed by the west, could act as a springboard and would be an immense threat to the stability of the Russian Caucasus's. Indeed many of the Anti-Assad fighters are from the Caucasus's and are homing their skills there.

Geo-politically, Russia having a foothold in Syria through an alliance with Assad is important. Both due to the strategic location of Syria and the (now expanding) naval base in Latakia.

RandomName2

Dubh Linn wrote: »

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
ISIS

These parties to the conflict need to be eliminated one way or another.

Wait, what? But not Al Qaeda (also known as Al Nusra)?

I support Assad as ruler in Syria. He certainly has some support. He is opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Two of the main countries in the region, Iraq and Iran are in favour of him staying in power. He seems to be a brutal dictator, but a better option than ISIS or Syria becoming a puppet state of Turkey.

Some of the Syrian opposition consists of moderates, but their organisations are by this stage subsumed into larger, (and to put it mildly, less moderate) groupings, so there is no way that a moderate opposition government could be the outcome from this conflict.

The best scenario is for the US to apologise to Syria for trying to use it as a geopolitical pawn, and to make sure that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians by the Syrian government (among the rebel areas) or by the Turkish government (among the Kurdish areas) doesn't take place, while helping local forces get rid of ISIS.

Barry Badrinath

RandomName2 wrote: »

(also known as Al Nusra)

Used to be. They rebranded to:

Jabat Fatah al-Sham then merged with other groups to form Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham.

dinorebel

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Im very aware of that. My point is, theres more to the Syrian conflict than ISIS.

I was agreeing with you.

Dohnjoe

RandomName2 wrote: »

The best scenario is for the US to apologise to Syria for trying to use it as a geopolitical pawn, and to make sure that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians by the Syrian government (among the rebel areas) or by the Turkish government (among the Kurdish areas) doesn't take place, while helping local forces get rid of ISIS.

Assad was condemned internationally for his crackdown on nation-wide protests which was the spark for the conflict. This wasn't police batons, this was heavy artillery shelling residential areas in the major cities in Syria.

Don't scapegoat countries which took the responsibility to react and try to build consensus - as well as pouring hundred of millions into supporting refugees

Since then the conflict has morphed into something even worse, with the subsequent influx of jihadists, extremists and regional players - ultimately Assad bears responsibility

Your Face

Why should I do anything?
Where were the Syrians when Connacht lost to Zebre two weeks ago?
Nowhere, not a peep out of them.
Oh but now they have a war on and its suddenly my problem.
So I say we show these Chinese who they're messing with and send them all back to Eastern Europeland.
Bloody Russians coming over here with their kilts and their cockney accents.

Barry Badrinath

dinorebel wrote: »

I was agreeing with you.

Oooops. Yeah I should have added more content, looks like I was slamming your point.

Wasnt my intention and I agree with your post.

ISIS are the Honeybadger of Jihadists :pac:

Elmer Blooker

Not a single post has mentioned the people who actually live in Syria.
Find the time to watch this interview with a Syrian Christian bishop. You aren't going to see anything like this on BBC Newsnight or RTE Primetime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuog5AqE4SU

Harry Palmr

Back President Assad that's what can be done to end the conflict. May have to hold one's nose while doing so.

RandomName2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Assad was condemned internationally for his crackdown on nation-wide protests which was the spark for the conflict. This wasn't police batons, this was heavy artillery shelling residential areas in the major cities in Syria.

For sure.

If they'd managed to topple him within a year or two things would have been different. Even Russia held off getting directly involved for a few years

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Don't scapegoat countries which took the responsibility to react and try to build consensus - as well as pouring hundred of millions into supporting refugees

Not really. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia and the United States have backed opposition groups because Assad isn't under their control. Neither of these countries have put much (if any) money into supporting refugees. The countries supporting refugees are Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey (though Turkey, unlike the other two countries, is an active player in the Syrian civil war).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Since then the conflict has morphed into something even worse, with the subsequent influx of jihadists, extremists and regional players - ultimately Assad bears responsibility

Doesn't really matter whether he does or not, you have to be realistic, and western powers glibly saying that they don't see any future for Syria which will feature Assad is not only unrealistic, is bordering on imperialistic.

KERSPLAT!

I don't believe we need two threads for Syria. Please use this one

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057725610

If that doesn't suit , political discussion is better suited here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1410

Please read their charter before posting.