Author Topic: Syria  (Read 6034 times)

Syferus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14183
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2018, 11:41:16 PM »
I didn’t realise the Brit bashing here extended to Syria. Ffs, when you’re even thinking about siding with Assad, now probably the most despicable ruling tyrant on Earth, and fûcking Vladimir Putin you might cotton onto the fact you’re onto a loser and your own biases are at play.

The West ain’t angels but there’s a hell of a gap between it and those despot regimes.

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12663
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: Syria
« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2018, 11:50:23 PM »
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain. .... ..
2018- 2 Cupeens won, 2 to go.

Esmarelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #107 on: April 19, 2018, 07:50:56 AM »
Not sure anyone here is taking Fisk's word without question.  I posted a link to the article because it is by a reputable journalist calling into question the line that has been given in the media about gas attacks, and thus deserves attention.  And because he, like the British military people I also linked, cannot be dismissed as a crank, conspiracy theorist or Russian puppet.

Regarding the gas attack, if that's what it was, the U.N. has claimed that both sides in Syria have used chemical weapons.  http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/24/u-n-claims-syrian-regime-and-islamic-state-used-chemical-weapons/. So if there was indeed a gas attack, it is hardly a huge leap to wonder whether the rebels rather than Assad's forces were behind it.

And in any event, to bomb Syria before examining evidence regarding what happened, well, that's back in "but Saddam has WMD, we know this" territory.
A hugely logical post.

I didn’t realise the Brit bashing here extended to Syria. Ffs, when you’re even thinking about siding with Assad, now probably the most despicable ruling tyrant on Earth, and fûcking Vladimir Putin you might cotton onto the fact you’re onto a loser and your own biases are at play.

The West ain’t angels but there’s a hell of a gap between it and those despot regimes.
A close second ;D

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19920
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #108 on: April 19, 2018, 08:12:53 AM »
One aspect of the Syrian war that doesn't get enough attention is  climate change. Syria is in large part desert apart from the strip around the coast inland as far as Damascus.  Syria doesnt have a lot of water. In the east there is the Euphrates river but Turkey has built dams upstream.

The population grew a lot post WW2.  The education system is poor so young men don't have many skills. And kids need to be fed. So a lot of marginal land was brought into use in order to keep pace with population growth .  Between 1988 and 2014 the population increased by 70%.
It is not that different to Connacht in the  early 1840s in fact.

The Euphrates isn't what it used to be and climate change introduced desertification which banjaxed a lot of marginal land. Subsistence farmers started to move to the cities- Aleppo and Damascus-especially poor areas such as Ghouta - and people felt they had nothing to lose and started agitating for change.

The bIg question is how many people Syria can support.
It is very easy to increase a population but very hard to decrease it back to a stable level when food production goes into crisis.
In Ireland in the 1840s the Brits chose a Famine . The cultural repercussions are still visible. Famine and war are Traumas.  After the Famine the age of marriage rose drastically and sexual relations between men and women were policed by the wider society. Any activity that might threaten the food supply was shunned. 

Syria is next door to Israel so there is no  way it'll be allowed to run a couple of decades of political experimention to come up with something that might work. Egypt also borders Israel and the model there is brutal repression and stagnation

Ireland was treated similarly in the 19th century because of its strategic location between England and the US. There was no way the Fenians were going to get control.

The brutality of the war is trauma. Syria is working its way to a new equilibrium. It was just as bad in Connacht or West Cork in the 1840s. It doesn't really matter whether people die by hunger or by being bombed.
There is no groovy way to do it.
Jaysus would you shtop

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19920
    • View Profile
Re: Syria
« Reply #109 on: April 20, 2018, 07:26:16 AM »
Regime change in Syria–good for Israel; good for the U.S.

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
—————————————————————————–

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries.

What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria.

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.


Jaysus would you shtop