Civil War in Syria, what do you think?

[Allrule]

Twitter exploding with news of defections

[West Vandengaarde]

"You're right, it isn't, and Mr. Assad should have thought about that before launching the brutal crackdowns on protesters last year. There was no violence until the government began it. Link to an overview in the NY Times."
Well, technically he didn't launch the crackdowns- the military did. In addition, the protests weren't as peaceful as the media likes to portray them.

"And you'll forgive me if I find your having had a conversation with one Syrian less convincing than reporting by people actually on the scene."
On the scene of where?
As I said, the majority of Syrians don't care or are unaligned. As many support the government as support the rebels. Syria is a secular state so it naturally has the support of most Christians and Alawites, possibly many Shia as well, though I haven't a clue how many Shiites there are.
If you honestly believe the rebellion is a majority movement, you must be deluded. Many areas aren't secured by troops because rebels aren't there...why don't the masses of rebel-supporters rise up? Oh yes, because all the rebels who exist are fighting. Most Syrians simply want an end to conflict, and a return to stability. As long as the rebellion is there there won't be stability.

We don't need another Sharia Jihad state in the Middle East.

[West Vandengaarde]

I don't know who you're talking about, but I originally supported the protesters (blindly, really).
I think you're just being biased to be honest. I simply looked into the real situation rather than using news reports. I looked at old and new interviews with Assad, talked to Syrians (someone who I know from there who now lives in the U.S. says he supports NEITHER side).
I also looked at EVERY news report, looked at every source I could find, and I've come to the conclusion that more trust should be placed in the government. Let them hold new elections. THAT should be where pressure comes in, not at toppling the stability there...the country is too divided, with too many minorities, to play a game of civil war in Syria. You will have massacres, maybe even genocide, of Alawites. Not just in Syria, by the way; in Lebanon the Sunnis are up in arms against Alawites periodically.
New elections are the key. Let Assad leave once elections are over. He has stated that he would concede defeat if he lost an election; let's see if that works. If it doesn't, other options are available. Aggression as a first strategy isn't proper in any way.

Assad is the person stopping them from having new elections. What do you think the protestors want?

No, he really isn't. Elections do run on schedules you know. And in addition, if he held elections right now the opposition would call it a farce and not participate, as they did with parliamentary elections earlier in the year.
2014 is the next presidential election. They can live with it for now.

[West Vandengaarde]

Twitter exploding with news of defections

There are always defections, every day. But most of them do not defect to join the rebels. They defect to leave and hide somewhere, most likely out of fear of retribution after the end of the civil war.

[Gig em Aggies]

Just let I happen, no need for NATO to get involved because it could make the war bigger. The united states should NOT get involved because do we really need one more reason for the middle east to hate use? The only countries I think have any right to involve themselves is Turkey, Israil, Lebanon, and Iraq

why iraq????? or even Lebanon????????

[West Vandengaarde]

Just let I happen, no need for NATO to get involved because it could make the war bigger. The united states should NOT get involved because do we really need one more reason for the middle east to hate use? The only countries I think have any right to involve themselves is Turkey, Israil, Lebanon, and Iraq

why iraq????? or even Lebanon????????

They are neighbors of Syria with reason to fear the conflict spilling into their own borders, mainly due to the fact that they contain Sunni majorities who have a hatred of minority religions.
If this conflict spills into Lebanon there will once again be conflict between Christians and Muslims and it will not be good for anyone.

[Gig em Aggies]

Assad is the person stopping them from having new elections. What do you think the protestors want?

No, he really isn't. Elections do run on schedules you know. And in addition, if he held elections right now the opposition would call it a farce and not participate, as they did with parliamentary elections earlier in the year.
2014 is the next presidential election. They can live with it for now.

no he really is the problem you cant have a stabile and "fair" government if the person oppresing you for your entire life is still in power.

[West Vandengaarde]

No, he really isn't. Elections do run on schedules you know. And in addition, if he held elections right now the opposition would call it a farce and not participate, as they did with parliamentary elections earlier in the year.
2014 is the next presidential election. They can live with it for now.

no he really is the problem you cant have a stabile and "fair" government if the person oppresing you for your entire life is still in power.

He wasn't oppressing anyone really, and stability is possible in any situation so long as violence isn't widespread. You have your terms mixed up.
In addition, free elections without a Ba'ath monopoly on political parties were legalized by government-held referendum I think in December. He wouldn't stay in power past 2014 if the people didn't want him to. That's the beauty of democracy.
I see no reason to topple a country which has stated its intention to be freer if left alone. Let it have its chance and if there are discrepancies, if there's controversy, if widespread fraud is seen, then pressure starts again. Let's not continue the killing, the discrimination, or the massacres.

[Threlizdun]

No, he really isn't. Elections do run on schedules you know. And in addition, if he held elections right now the opposition would call it a farce and not participate, as they did with parliamentary elections earlier in the year.
2014 is the next presidential election. They can live with it for now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Or if the Democracy Index indicated anything, the elections would mean absolutely nothing because political freedom does not exist in any form in Syria.

[West Vandengaarde]

No, he really isn't. Elections do run on schedules you know. And in addition, if he held elections right now the opposition would call it a farce and not participate, as they did with parliamentary elections earlier in the year.
2014 is the next presidential election. They can live with it for now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Or if the Democracy Index indicated anything, the elections would mean absolutely nothing because political freedom does not exist in any form in Syria.

They didn't the last time it was checked...reforms were just passed in December. Reforms which enable more democracy.

[Allrule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Or if the Democracy Index indicated anything, the elections would mean absolutely nothing because political freedom does not exist in any form in Syria.

They didn't the last time it was checked...reforms were just passed in December. Reforms which enable more democracy.

I love how naive you are to believe those "reforms" were anything other than lame attempts to appease the rebels.

[West Vandengaarde]

They didn't the last time it was checked...reforms were just passed in December. Reforms which enable more democracy.

I love how naive you are to believe those "reforms" were anything other than lame attempts to appease the rebels.

I love how naive you are to believe the rebels have good intentions and are always right.
Why not give the government a chance...? I don't want more murder, more suicide bombings, more jihad, more massacres...just let them have one chance for elections, see how that goes, and if it fails build up pressure. We don't need more sectarianism in the middle east.

[Solanum-Blaatone]

Leaving everything alone sounds good.
We messed up Iraq and Afghanistan by sticking our noses in, and I wear a t-shirt like this: http://getfuzzyarchive.blogspot.com/200 ... chive.html

[Solanum-Blaatone]

My uncle got partly detained in Syria for being a Jew. If there's any country I hold a grudge against, it's this one

[West Vandengaarde]

My uncle got partly detained in Syria for being a Jew. If there's any country I hold a grudge against, it's this one

I really doubt that happened.

[Allrule]

Yo Assad, just let 'em come within like 200 meters or so of your hideyhole, and then do this:

[West Vandengaarde]

Yo Assad, just let 'em come within like 200 meters or so of your hideyhole, and then do this:

Wishing death upon someone...
stay classy...

[Farnhamia]

My uncle got partly detained in Syria for being a Jew. If there's any country I hold a grudge against, it's this one

I really doubt that happened.

But we're supposed to believe your stories of how you tracked down every single source of information about the situation. Riiiight.

[West Vandengaarde]

I really doubt that happened.

But we're supposed to believe your stories of how you tracked down every single source of information about the situation. Riiiight.

I find that easier to belief and less relevant to my overall argument than what he said.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

The rest of the world ought to keep a very close eye on it. Why would the Americans bother fermenting a revolution like that? Has someone been listening to the government line again? If the Americans wanted Syria, they could quite easily just take it, no questions asked, if they're the all-powerful, unquestionable international boogeyman some folks seem to think they are.

As far as who ought to be supported, I'd choose the rebels. Assad has massacred his own people and crushed them under his thumb long enough. Before someone goes claiming all the supposed atrocities committed by the rebels and committed by Assad, I would like to point out, either way, there is only one side at the moment capable of artillery bombardment and their aim has been the Syrian equivalent of the local subdivision.

As far as intervention, this ought to be much more limited than Libya. For one thing, from a tactical perspective, an sort of military intervention will be much more difficult here than in Libya. Supplying the rebels, especially with items like food, fuel, and medical supplies, things the government has gone out of their way to deny them, I most certainly have no problem with. The only real case for even a limited military strike is the one emerging now. Assad is deploying his chemical weapons. I would like to think no one has any delusions about where either side would aim those WMDs. Let the Americans send in their vaunted stealth bombers to take them out. If Assad is the good guy his propaganda department claims he is, he wouldn't use them anyway.

You're kidding, right?
The government has the right to use whatever is available to fight off a rebellion, especially one where the rebels are discriminatory and terroristic in their methods.
Why are they worth supporting just because they're rebels, just because they don't have artillery? You're arguing something which has no reasoning behind it.
You are supporting murder, you are supporting discrimination, and that is wrong.

1776 much?

[West Vandengaarde]

You're kidding, right?
The government has the right to use whatever is available to fight off a rebellion, especially one where the rebels are discriminatory and terroristic in their methods.
Why are they worth supporting just because they're rebels, just because they don't have artillery? You're arguing something which has no reasoning behind it.
You are supporting murder, you are supporting discrimination, and that is wrong.

1776 much?

Had I been alive back then I wouldn't have supported the American revolution, which was started by piracy-supporting merchants to lower taxes on the aristocracy in the colonies.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The rest of the world ought to keep a very close eye on it. Why would the Americans bother fermenting a revolution like that? Has someone been listening to the government line again? If the Americans wanted Syria, they could quite easily just take it, no questions asked, if they're the all-powerful, unquestionable international boogeyman some folks seem to think they are.

As far as who ought to be supported, I'd choose the rebels. Assad has massacred his own people and crushed them under his thumb long enough. Before someone goes claiming all the supposed atrocities committed by the rebels and committed by Assad, I would like to point out, either way, there is only one side at the moment capable of artillery bombardment and their aim has been the Syrian equivalent of the local subdivision.

As far as intervention, this ought to be much more limited than Libya. For one thing, from a tactical perspective, an sort of military intervention will be much more difficult here than in Libya. Supplying the rebels, especially with items like food, fuel, and medical supplies, things the government has gone out of their way to deny them, I most certainly have no problem with. The only real case for even a limited military strike is the one emerging now. Assad is deploying his chemical weapons. I would like to think no one has any delusions about where either side would aim those WMDs. Let the Americans send in their vaunted stealth bombers to take them out. If Assad is the good guy his propaganda department claims he is, he wouldn't use them anyway.

You're kidding, right?
The government has the right to use whatever is available to fight off a rebellion, especially one where the rebels are discriminatory and terroristic in their methods.
Why are they worth supporting just because they're rebels, just because they don't have artillery? You're arguing something which has no reasoning behind it.
You are supporting murder, you are supporting discrimination, and that is wrong.

Dropping 155s and cluster bombs on your own cities doesn't exactly scream 'precision counter-terrorism' to me, either.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

1776 much?

Had I been alive back then I wouldn't have supported the American revolution, which was started by piracy-supporting merchants to lower taxes on the aristocracy in the colonies.

It was perfectly fair. The colonies were being taxed (ludicrously highly), and were not allowed to be represented in parliamentary discussions.
So they were having their money stolen for tax purposes, which wasn't even being spent in the same hemisphere, without any input themselves on where it was going. They had every right to revolt.

>coming from a Brit who misses the old Empire

[The Republic of Lanos]

Maybe this is the final death throes of the Syrian dictatorship...

[West Vandengaarde]

Had I been alive back then I wouldn't have supported the American revolution, which was started by piracy-supporting merchants to lower taxes on the aristocracy in the colonies.

It was perfectly fair. The colonies were being taxed (ludicrously highly), and were not allowed to be represented in parliamentary discussions.
So they were having their money stolen for tax purposes, which wasn't even being spent in the same hemisphere, without any input themselves on where it was going. They had every right to revolt.

>coming from a Brit who misses the old Empire

What?
The taxes levied upon the lower classes were chosen by the colonial administrations, which were elected. The taxes for war were small taxes for the lower classes. The big money was paid by the merchants, many of whom were smuggling illegal goods.

You're kidding, right?
The government has the right to use whatever is available to fight off a rebellion, especially one where the rebels are discriminatory and terroristic in their methods.
Why are they worth supporting just because they're rebels, just because they don't have artillery? You're arguing something which has no reasoning behind it.
You are supporting murder, you are supporting discrimination, and that is wrong.

Dropping 155s and cluster bombs on your own cities doesn't exactly scream 'precision counter-terrorism' to me, either.

When did they do either of those things?