recedite wrote: » There is no solution in sight for the people of Mosul unfortunately, they have been well and truly shafted. The choice is between domination by IS nutcases, or domination by a Shia govt. that hates them. And now they are going to be bombed, shelled, and starved for the next couple of months. There are three possible forms of stable govt. in this region; 1. A Sunni fundamentalist religious state such as IS or Saudi Arabia. It can only exist in a Sunni area. 2. A Shia state such as Iran or the current rump version of what was Iraq. It can only exist in a Shia area. 3. A secular state run by an arab nationalist, which keeps the lid on religious tensions within the population. It can encompass mixed areas, including Sunni, Shia, Christian, Yazidi etc. It needs a "strongman" to lead it, maybe a dictator and typically a Baathist with a military background. Saddam Hussein, the Assad family, Nasser of Egypt are all examples. This is best for the people, but is not acceptable to US/Israeli interests, who prefer the arabs to exist in a state of constant chaos.
alastair wrote: » There's a fourth and fifth option too: 4. A non-fundamentalist Sunni dominated state - modelled on the situation in Turkey or (de-facto) Kurdistan. 5. An Islamic, but non-fundamentalist and non-sectarian democratic Iraqi constitution and governance that can bring together two fractious groups - it's not as if there haven't been instances of national reconciliation of opposed groupings elsewhere in the past. You don't always need a strong man for this to work.
KingBrian2 wrote: » A big problem with that the Kurds are sunni and the Wahhabi Sunni don't like them either. Turkey has been backing the extreme sunnis against the Kurds for decades while the Syrian gvt have had an alliance with them. The Turks are not suddenly going to turn their back are the fundamentalists they have been enlisting.
alastair wrote: » There are sod all Wahhabist Sunnis outside the Gulf. If you mean Salafist Sunnis, then they only comprise a tiny minority in Iraq. Turkey has no input into whatever arrangement Iraq might opt for down the line.
Brian? wrote: » That's not really a reply to my post. What should the Iraqi government and its allies do about Mosul?
recedite wrote: » It shouldn't matter whether there is anyone there to report it, or who is doing the bombing. Either a bombing campaign in a residential area is a war crime, or it is not.
Personally I'm inclined to think that if the civilians have been warned that the bombs are coming, and have a relatively safe corridor out, then its as acceptable as any aspect of war. This was actually done in both Aleppo and Mosul. At least as far as was practicable, considering some reports of city defenders killing people who were trying to leave. Compare to say, Hiroshima or Dresden, where non-combatants were given no chance to escape.
Dohnjoe wrote: » That's not how the world nor reality works. If it were the case, then any attack on ISIS would be a "war crime", and they would be unstoppable, simply because they mingled with the civilian populace Mosul has been invaded and held by ISIS. The forces that want to liberate it have no interest in deliberately targeting the inhabitants Aleppo on the other hand represents a deliberate targeting of it's inhabitants by a hostile government force (barrel bombs, gas attacks) The two aren't really comparable
recedite wrote: » Your "Option 4." there is unstable, as shown by the recent coup in Turkey supported by a large section of the army, teachers, universities, police etc.. Many of those people wanted a return to the secular strongman model pioneered by Turkish national hero Ataturk, who was moulded in a similar vein to Nasser, Assad senior, Hussein etc.. Erdogan on the other hand has been moving towards the Sunni fundamentalist state in recent years. Which is not surprising, considering he started off in an Islamist party when he was Mayor of Istanbul, and spent 10 months in prison for inciting religious hatred around that time.
recedite wrote: » "Option 5" - "Islamic non-fundamentalist" is something of an oxymoron. But lets say something along the lines of Malaysia. Its not possible in the Levant region now because of all the strife that has occurred. They would have to go through a transition phase first, being one of the 3 options I mentioned, and that would have to last a couple of decades while the wounds healed.
Elmer Blooker wrote: » It's worth mentioning that there are 1.3 million "inhabitants" living in government controlled Aleppo who do not consider THEIR government to be hostile.
recedite wrote: » What can I say... you have fallen for the US propaganda. Hook, line and sinker. Nearly everything you say is completely wrong.
Either a bombing campaign in a residential area is a war crime, or it is not.
alastair wrote: » The attempted coup in Turkey was an abject failure, with little public support..
alastair wrote: » Nothing contradictory about a non-fundamentalist Islamic constitution or government.
Manic Moran wrote: » For example, a hundred airstrikes on defined targets in a residential area with precision munitions may be legal whereas a single microlight dropping a single phosphorous hand grenade on a defined target in a residential area would certainly be illegal.
recedite wrote: » It was a close run thing for a while.
recedite wrote: » Afterwards, 21,000 teachers sacked... that looks like a serious attempt to manipulate the education system and re-write history so that in future there is less dissent from Erdogan's version of what Turkey is, and should become.
recedite wrote: » IMO there is. But lets agree to differ on that point, and move on to how you would implement such a govt. in Iraq. Would it be a Shia Islamic State or a Sunni Islamic state?
recedite wrote: » How is either one going to avoid a perpetual civil war?
recedite wrote: » Iraq, as a country, can only maintain its previous borders under a united secular arab nationalist regime, such as Saddam Hussein's was.
Manic Moran wrote: » This is not correct. Every incident is taken in situation as it presents itself. There is no flat prohibition on a bombing campaign in a residential area, but there are prohibitions on the nature of the strikes. For example, a hundred airstrikes on defined targets in a residential area with precision munitions may be legal whereas a single microlight dropping a single phosphorous hand grenade on a defined target in a residential area would certainly be illegal.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Hilary said shes will support a no fly zone over Syria when she spoke last night. So War is highly likely with the Russians if she fails to negotiate with them and agree.
alastair wrote: » Neither. Simply an Islamic state. You frame the constitution around common principles of the Koran, and ensure any sectarian distinctions are kept outside the remit of governance.
recedite wrote: » Well, I said there is no solution under the current conditions. If they want to get there, then in the somewhat unhelpful words of the guy giving directions "I wouldn't start from here". So, what they "should" do now is expel the Iranian backed Shia militias from the country, and also the Americans, and then resign. And then some strongman must appear like a Messiah and unite both Sunnis and Shia under a secular regime against IS. Alternatively, redraw the borders completely. The Baghdad Shia regime could amalgamate closer with Iran, and then let Turkey annex the Sunni parts of former Syria and Iraq (currently under IS rule) which the Turks are itching to do anyway.
KingBrian2 wrote: » I believe the residents of Syria and Iraq currently under ISIS rule would want a say on that rather than foreign overseers.
recedite wrote: » If I was living there, I know I'd choose the single hand grenade. But in your version of what is legal and what is not, its the people doing the bombing who decide what is legal and what is not
Personally I have no time for .... the good guys use precision munitions and carry out surgical strikes while the bad guys use crude "bunker busters" No one ever asks who or what is in these "bunkers" in Aleppo.
Elmer Blooker wrote: » Personally I have no time for .... the good guys use precision munitions and carry out surgical strikes while the bad guys use crude "bunker busters" No one ever asks who or what is in these "bunkers" in Aleppo. * I'm aware you made no mention of surgical strikes.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Wow.. Syria has been under a one-party autocracy for decades. That means the people have zero say in who governs them. When they protest - they are imprisoned, tortured and killed Likewise, people in towns and cities occupied by ISIS don't have any say. The Iraqi forces liberating their own city aren't foreign overseers either.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Yes they have one party state as we all know their are elections held and they get to decide who is chosen.
alastair wrote: » If there was ever a moment for a face palm. Syria isn't a single party dictatorship any more. It's now a notional multi-party dictatorship. Since the Assad's took over the place via a coup, there's been the systemic discrimination of one community in the country; the Sunni majority, enforced through mass killings if they got too uppity. Nobody gets to pick who governs them, because the government is a family business and it's not in the democracy game.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Assad came to power with the support of the military which has the backing of the population in order to pursue an independent policy of Arab Nationalism and emulate the Nasserites of Egypt. They were part of a single state until that union broke apart and Syria went its own way. President Hafez and his son Assad were much liked by the population of the country otherwise he would not enjoy the popularity he now holds. An Arab country that feels comfortable to have a member of the minority community as its leader very rare in the Islamic world.
alastair wrote: » Lots of untested assumptions there. It was a coup that brought the Assad's to power, and not mandated by any popular franchise. Likewise, there's little to support the notion that Assad is popular with the electorate now - expressing discontent is not too clever an idea under his regime.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Syria has had many coups during its history. The tenure of the Assad's has actually brought improved relations with neighboring states and unlike almost every other Arab state they still support the Palestinian cause in more than just gesture politics. In the era before the Assad's the country was actually far more divided internally than it is today. The majority of Syrians back Assad and his gvt regardless of their religion.
