Aleppo Crisis

[The Combine Force]

Not an argument, back to reddit you go.

Neither is posting a meme titled "rapefugees" with no citations, back to /pol/ you go.

"no citations"
>implying its not obvious as well as true as well as Merkel actually welcoming terrorists


You have to go back.

[Novus America]

It will not solve anything. It would move press attention away from Aleppo to elsewhere but that is not going to solve Syria's ills.

It will likely lead to a collapse of some of the so called "moderate" rebel Factions, if not their entire Front. For them the War will be likely over unless the join ISIS or some local Sunni Power (or Hillary Clinton) decides that it can't take the loss of Aleppo and joins the mayham.

A quick decisive end to the war is simply not going to happen.

If Aleppo falls it could be a major turning point in the War.

lol but like no one is a position to put an end to the war
the alawites have lost a third of their manpower in the war, they're currently wholly reliant on imported fighters from Lebanon and Russia, the former getting less and less keen on the war as time drags and the latter being in a position where it basically can't send that much without drawing too much flak on the diplomatic stage.
The sunni's, they got manpower for days, but therein lies a real irony. syrian sunni's that are actively part of the fighting are such a small fraction compared to the estimated number of military aged males in or from syria. Simply put, barely anyone wants to join that shit, and as the years go by it seems that they want to join that shit even less.
Naw, it's endless turf war from now until who knows when.

From a viewpoint of War Economics and Manpower etc this is all true and I agree with your assassment.

However from a military viewpoint a single decisive Victory - such as a collapse of the Aleppo Front - or series thereof could have a major effect on the course and potentially the outcome of the War. If not for tactical or strategical reasons then for political and psychological reasons.

Driving the Sunni majority further into radicalization and radical groups is going to make things worse, not better.

[Dushan]

Driving the Sunni majority future into radicalization and radical groups is going to make things worse, not better.

This appear to be an unfortunate but inevitible development given the Situation at the Syrian Front around Aleppo which will likely result in a Victory of the Syrian-Iraqi-Iranian-Russian Axis there in the near future.

The implications are worrisome indeed.

[New Werpland]

The sooner the Siege of Aleppo is over - and that means one side, likelist Assad one has won - it the better for most of the Civilian Population.

All this humanitarian whinery and neocon wankery ain't gonna change this.

tl;dr: Total War = Shortest War.

Realizing that Assad has no interest bringing the war to a quick end is not neocon wankery.

When someone breaks ceasefires they themselves agreed to and picks fights with valuable potential allies (the Kurds), they do not have ending the war as their main objective.

Blaming the neocons is fun but it makes no sense here.

[Dushan]

Realizing that Assad has no interest bringing the war to a quick end is not neocon wankery.

When someone breaks ceasefires they themselves agreed to and picks fights with valuable potential allies (the Kurds), they do not have ending the war as their main objective.

Blaming the neocons is fun but it makes no sense here.

Hey thanks for your response!

The Neocon Wankery comment was aimed at some stuff I've got to read in my Morning Newspapers who were all full of blaming the west for failing to intervene, including calls to Obama and Merkel to do something about the terrible situation in Aleppo in total disregard of everything.

That being said I do actually agree with your assassment that Assad has no intention of ending the War too quick without a total Victory, as in fact I do have many reasons believe that he did start it in order to make his opponents inside Syria show their true colors and force them into an open Conflict and War which he knew he would have to face someday anyways. Like his Father in 1982, he knew that he'd would someday be confronted with a Sunni-Islamist Uprising. His reactions during the early phase of the Syrian Civil War (before it became one) show indeed little signs of attempts at resolve but rather him adding more Fuel to the Fire.

The longer the War drags on, the more of Assads opponents flee the Country or get killed etc. its a form of purge. On the other hand the syrian Alavites are now his hostages and are forced to fight alongside him as they would be otherwise likely to face a Rwanda Style Genocide if Assad where to loose.

The west is getting the fallout in form of refugees.

[New Werpland]

Realizing that Assad has no interest bringing the war to a quick end is not neocon wankery.

When someone breaks ceasefires they themselves agreed to and picks fights with valuable potential allies (the Kurds), they do not have ending the war as their main objective.

Blaming the neocons is fun but it makes no sense here.

Hey thanks for your response!

The Neocon Wankery comment was aimed at some stuff I've got to read in my Morning Newspapers who were all full of blaming the west for failing to intervene, including calls to Obama and Merkel to do something about the terrible situation in Aleppo in total disregard of everything.

That being said I do actually agree with your assassment that Assad has no intention of ending the War too quick without a total Victory, as in fact I do have many reasons believe that he did start it in order to make his opponents inside Syria show their true colors and force them into an open Conflict and War which he knew he would have to face someday anyways. Like his Father in 1982, he knew that he'd would someday be confronted with a Sunni-Islamist Uprising. His reactions during the early phase of the Syrian Civil War (before it became one) show indeed little signs of attempts at resolve but rather him adding more Fuel to the Fire.

The longer the War drags on, the more of Assads opponents flee the Country or get killed etc. its a form of purge. On the other hand the syrian Alavites are now his hostages and are forced to fight alongside him as they would be otherwise likely to face a Rwanda Style Genocide if Assad where to loose.

The west is getting the fallout in form of refugees.

Then surely some kind of intervention is necessary unless we want to be swamped with refugees?

[Dushan]

Then surely some kind of intervention is necessary unless we want to be swamped with refugees?

Congratulations you just came to the clintonist conclusion!

This viewpoint also however implicates not only that the best solution would be indeed another Intervention adding to the mess, but perhaps even more it also does says that the West has no other choice or possibility but to take in more refugees.

If an intervention into another Country is discussed as a matter of possibility, but the Option to use protect's and safeguard ones own Country is not only disregarded from the instant, but entirely dismissed from the whole perspective, what tells us that?

edit: typos fixed

[New Werpland]

Then surely some kind of intervention is necessary unless we want to be swamped with refugees?

Congratulations you just came to the clintonist conclusion!

This viewpoint also however implicates not only that the best solution would be indeed another Intervention adding to the mess, but perhaps even more it also does says that the West has no other choice or possibility but to take in more refugees.

If an intervention into another Country is discussed as a matter of possibility, but the Option to use protect's and safeguard ones own Country is not only disregarded from the instant, but entirely dismissed from the whole perspective, what tells us that?

edit: typos fixed

Maybe it tells you that your country is in Europe and not the Arab Peninsula?

[Shofercia]

We'll see what the Syrians do after ISIS has been removed from Syria. If there's as deep hatred of Assad as you allege, he'll be removed too. If that's not the case, he won't be. I'm not going to claim that I know how most Syrians feel about Assad. Oh, and generally speaking "help with the construction" means pay for reconstruction. Of course it won't be free money, it'll be loans. Syria has some resources:

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=sy
http://www.indexmundi.com/minerals/?cou ... production

so those can be used as collateral. We'll see what happens with reconstruction, but I doubt it'll be anywhere near the astronomical sums that were spent on Iraq. And if Iraq failed with that astronomical expenditure, whereas Syria succeeds with much less, well, that'd be pretty embarrassing, wouldn't it?

Again even if ISIS is removed, that will not fix Syria's problems. ISIS is just one symptom, not the disease.

And there are degrees of help. Providing some help is different than footing the whole bill. How much will the whole thing cost? And how much will China be willing to lend? And long term Chinese loans often hurt rather than help as the come with onerous and dangerous strings attached. Being forced to surrender your resources to China is not going to help your ecnomy long term.

Well the amount we spent on Iraq was embarrassing enough. Our State Department cannot handle money to save their life, and the corrupt Iraqi government we stupidly put into power stole it. But this is another problem. How can Assad be trusted to manage an economy when he clearly lacks the ability to do so? I gues you could remove all his powers to handle any money or ecnomic decisions, but again why have him at all?

In the event reconstruction actually does occur, we will have to see whether or not or will be sucessful though. It could easily fail miserably. China does not have a good record on these things anyways. They poured lots of money into Venezuela. Did not turn out so well.

Yes, I know that ISIS is a sympton, but when you're coughing profusely, first you need to deal with the cough, before orally taking the medicine. Otherwise, you're just going to, inadvertently, spit out the medicine. ISIS must be removed before major reconstruction can being. Also, Chinese loans are probably going to be under a very low APR, and China understands that they have to develop a country before extracting payment. We're not talking about all resources being surrendered, just some resources.

Regarding Assad, I'm going to put this very clearly: it's not your choice, it's not my choice, it's not Obama's choice, it's not Putin's choice. It's the choice of the Syrian people. If they genuinely want him gone, as you allege, he will be gone. If they don't, he won't be. So, where has China failed in reconstruction? I'm not talking about loaning money to Venezuela; the country didn't just come through a civil war; I'm talking about China failing in war torn countries, not because Americans upset the oil market, while Russians and Saudis went, "hey, let's all go weeeeeeehaaaawwww!" If OPEC plus Russia plus US get together, the price of oil could easily increase, and help Venezuela's economy, but I doubt that'll happen; that's not China's fault.

[Novus America]

Again even if ISIS is removed, that will not fix Syria's problems. ISIS is just one symptom, not the disease.

And there are degrees of help. Providing some help is different than footing the whole bill. How much will the whole thing cost? And how much will China be willing to lend? And long term Chinese loans often hurt rather than help as the come with onerous and dangerous strings attached. Being forced to surrender your resources to China is not going to help your ecnomy long term.

Well the amount we spent on Iraq was embarrassing enough. Our State Department cannot handle money to save their life, and the corrupt Iraqi government we stupidly put into power stole it. But this is another problem. How can Assad be trusted to manage an economy when he clearly lacks the ability to do so? I gues you could remove all his powers to handle any money or ecnomic decisions, but again why have him at all?

In the event reconstruction actually does occur, we will have to see whether or not or will be sucessful though. It could easily fail miserably. China does not have a good record on these things anyways. They poured lots of money into Venezuela. Did not turn out so well.

Yes, I know that ISIS is a sympton, but when you're coughing profusely, first you need to deal with the cough, before orally taking the medicine. Otherwise, you're just going to, inadvertently, spit out the medicine. ISIS must be removed before major reconstruction can being. Also, Chinese loans are probably going to be under a very low APR, and China understands that they have to develop a country before extracting payment. We're not talking about all resources being surrendered, just some resources.

Regarding Assad, I'm going to put this very clearly: it's not your choice, it's not my choice, it's not Obama's choice, it's not Putin's choice. It's the choice of the Syrian people. If they genuinely want him gone, as you allege, he will be gone. If they don't, he won't be. So, where has China failed in reconstruction? I'm not talking about loaning money to Venezuela; the country didn't just come through a civil war; I'm talking about China failing in war torn countries, not because Americans upset the oil market, while Russians and Saudis went, "hey, let's all go weeeeeeehaaaawwww!" If OPEC plus Russia plus US get together, the price of oil could easily increase, and help Venezuela's economy, but I doubt that'll happen; that's not China's fault.

Well sure ISIS needs to be taken care of. The question is "what then"? Reconstruction without a good government is impossible. The money will just get wasted and lost.

As far as it being the choice of the Syrian people, how can they choose if anybody who chooses somone other than Assad gets killed or tortured? Assad was forced on the Syrian people. The civil war started when they demanded a right to chose and he responded by torturing and shooting whoever dared advocate change. Clearly a lot of people genuinely want him gone. That is why they started rebelling in the first place!

Moreover the US let the Iraqi people choose their own leader. Did not work so well. The Syrian people are not permitted to chose as Assad will not let them. And they might not choose well. So just saying "oh they will choose" means nothing at all. See this is why this is a snake pit. There is no easy way out. Once you get in you are fucked. Now you have decades of shit to deal with. Or you just leave, solving nothing and ISIS or some equilivlebt will come right back. You really think this is going to be quick cheap and easy?! Yeah I know the few bombings have not been that costly, but that is the easy and cheap part.

Now while China has not tried rebuilding a country from war, their loans only benefit China. China is not in the charity bussiness and drives a very hard bargain. And they do not care what happens in Syria as long as they can take its resources. But that means Syria would lose control over at least part of its resources. And again you have yet to show how much China is actually going to spend. You cannot bet everything on a vague Chinese (you cannot trust their government) promises to provide some help.

Venuezla's problems go much deeper than oil prices you know. The recent increase has not helped them one bit. Their oil industry is collapsing from corruption and mismanagement, no other oil producer is doing nearly as badly.

Their production is falling due to them not investing in new wells or maintaining old ones. Political hacks who know nothing about oil or bussiness run their oil industry. But the fact that much of the oil they produce has to be sent for China as debt repayment and thus they cannot make any money off it does not help. But their problems go deeper than just oil.

And oil is sold at the market price. Why the hell should the US engage in price fixing with OPEC?!. Russia does not work with OPEC anyways. Oh and price fixing is illegal in the US BTW. What you propose is illegal. US oil is made produced by private companies who cannot legally work together to drive up prices. Nor should they. OPEC can burn in hell. Fuck them. Oil prices are where they should be.

Again a small increase in oil prices would not solve Venezuela's problems anyways.

[Kubra]

It will not solve anything. It would move press attention away from Aleppo to elsewhere but that is not going to solve Syria's ills.

It will likely lead to a collapse of some of the so called "moderate" rebel Factions, if not their entire Front. For them the War will be likely over unless the join ISIS or some local Sunni Power (or Hillary Clinton) decides that it can't take the loss of Aleppo and joins the mayham.

A quick decisive end to the war is simply not going to happen.

If Aleppo falls it could be a major turning point in the War.

lol but like no one is a position to put an end to the war
the alawites have lost a third of their manpower in the war, they're currently wholly reliant on imported fighters from Lebanon and Russia, the former getting less and less keen on the war as time drags and the latter being in a position where it basically can't send that much without drawing too much flak on the diplomatic stage.
The sunni's, they got manpower for days, but therein lies a real irony. syrian sunni's that are actively part of the fighting are such a small fraction compared to the estimated number of military aged males in or from syria. Simply put, barely anyone wants to join that shit, and as the years go by it seems that they want to join that shit even less.
Naw, it's endless turf war from now until who knows when.

From a viewpoint of War Economics and Manpower etc this is all true and I agree with your assassment.

However from a military viewpoint a single decisive Victory - such as a collapse of the Aleppo Front - or series thereof could have a major effect on the course and potentially the outcome of the War. If not for tactical or strategical reasons then for political and psychological reasons.

Oh yeah, Aleppo falls and the alawites decides to press their advantage with all the soldiers they don't have
like what do you want them to occupy territory with

[Kubra]

I mean, they could barely before, but this doesn't solve every problem. The rest of the minorities are in just as shit of situations, and they all can't simply be given countries.
I suppose if the alawites win they could go back to trying to be more sunni again, maybe put in a sham lower house. Sham lower houses are underrated.

Well yeah, it does not solve all the problems. Which is why I like the King of Jordan type guy. He is a Sunni but minorities do okay, actually some 150,000 Iraqi Christians moved to Jordan. And their king does the sham lower house thing like a boss. Not saying Jordan is some paradise, it is not but it is much better than Syria for sure.

Syria does have sham legislature, just does not do a good job at it.

Yeah Jordan's a stand up place with a competent enough autocrat.
Yeah, if you actually have to ban parties from participating then it's just not a good enough sham lower house. Syria doesn't have a senate or house of lords, does it? Rookie mistake, right there. A legislative assembly can be relatively free if a relatively unfree upper house has the ability to veto or modify its decisions.
I mean, I suppose the syrian constitution and legislative system wasn't really made with this sort of thing in mind, but really now folks should expect this stuff.

[The Combine Force]

Well yeah, it does not solve all the problems. Which is why I like the King of Jordan type guy. He is a Sunni but minorities do okay, actually some 150,000 Iraqi Christians moved to Jordan. And their king does the sham lower house thing like a boss. Not saying Jordan is some paradise, it is not but it is much better than Syria for sure.

Syria does have sham legislature, just does not do a good job at it.

Yeah Jordan's a stand up place with a competent enough autocrat.
Yeah, if you actually have to ban parties from participating then it's just not a good enough sham lower house. Syria doesn't have a senate or house of lords, does it? Rookie mistake, right there. A legislative assembly can be relatively free if a relatively unfree upper house has the ability to veto or modify its decisions.
I mean, I suppose the syrian constitution and legislative system wasn't really made with this sort of thing in mind, but really now folks should expect this stuff.

[Korica]

The Syrian army is making great advances in Aleppo and hopefully soon it and the rest of Syria will be liberated form the western puppets and ISIS and then maybe Syria will be a secular nation once again.

[Kubra]

Yeah Jordan's a stand up place with a competent enough autocrat.
Yeah, if you actually have to ban parties from participating then it's just not a good enough sham lower house. Syria doesn't have a senate or house of lords, does it? Rookie mistake, right there. A legislative assembly can be relatively free if a relatively unfree upper house has the ability to veto or modify its decisions.
I mean, I suppose the syrian constitution and legislative system wasn't really made with this sort of thing in mind, but really now folks should expect this stuff.

laugh all you want, ones in a civil war and ones not

[Alsheb]

Well sure, it was a very different situation. I did not bring it up. And yes it was basically unavoidable. But Buchanan made this worse, not better. But this only says Assad is even worse than Buchanan. At least Buchanan has the "it was going to happen despite my dumbassery" excuse.

I mean, this civil war was sort of inevitable, insofar as it's been a resentful sunni majority ruled by the most hated of hated minorities in the country. There was a few efforts to alleviate that divide, right up to one of the assads (I can't recall which) trying to make the alawites basically sunni, but y'know that obviously wasn't gonna work.
Civil war might not necessarily have been inevitable, but some transfer of power not in favour of the alawites certainly was, and that paranoid lot probably prefer civil war.

You said it yourself. It's the extremist Sunni movements (who make up pretty much all rebel groups) that simply do not want to be ruled by a Alawite. Not exactly a freedom fight now, is it?

[Geilinor]

I mean, this civil war was sort of inevitable, insofar as it's been a resentful sunni majority ruled by the most hated of hated minorities in the country. There was a few efforts to alleviate that divide, right up to one of the assads (I can't recall which) trying to make the alawites basically sunni, but y'know that obviously wasn't gonna work.
Civil war might not necessarily have been inevitable, but some transfer of power not in favour of the alawites certainly was, and that paranoid lot probably prefer civil war.

You said it yourself. It's the extremist Sunni movements (who make up pretty much all rebel groups) that simply do not want to be ruled by a Alawite. Not exactly a freedom fight now, is it?

This could have been prevented but I'm wondering what you expected from a dictatorship ruling over an unwilling majority.

[Alsheb]

You said it yourself. It's the extremist Sunni movements (who make up pretty much all rebel groups) that simply do not want to be ruled by a Alawite. Not exactly a freedom fight now, is it?

This could have been prevented but I'm wondering what you expected from a dictatorship ruling over an unwilling majority.

"Dictatorship". The meaningless buzzword used to describe everyone who doesn't march in line with western interests.

[Alsheb]

Hey thanks for your response!

The Neocon Wankery comment was aimed at some stuff I've got to read in my Morning Newspapers who were all full of blaming the west for failing to intervene, including calls to Obama and Merkel to do something about the terrible situation in Aleppo in total disregard of everything.

That being said I do actually agree with your assassment that Assad has no intention of ending the War too quick without a total Victory, as in fact I do have many reasons believe that he did start it in order to make his opponents inside Syria show their true colors and force them into an open Conflict and War which he knew he would have to face someday anyways. Like his Father in 1982, he knew that he'd would someday be confronted with a Sunni-Islamist Uprising. His reactions during the early phase of the Syrian Civil War (before it became one) show indeed little signs of attempts at resolve but rather him adding more Fuel to the Fire.

The longer the War drags on, the more of Assads opponents flee the Country or get killed etc. its a form of purge. On the other hand the syrian Alavites are now his hostages and are forced to fight alongside him as they would be otherwise likely to face a Rwanda Style Genocide if Assad where to loose.

The west is getting the fallout in form of refugees.

Then surely some kind of intervention is necessary unless we want to be swamped with refugees?

Because intervention totally prevented swarms of refugees coming from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

[Kubra]

I mean, this civil war was sort of inevitable, insofar as it's been a resentful sunni majority ruled by the most hated of hated minorities in the country. There was a few efforts to alleviate that divide, right up to one of the assads (I can't recall which) trying to make the alawites basically sunni, but y'know that obviously wasn't gonna work.
Civil war might not necessarily have been inevitable, but some transfer of power not in favour of the alawites certainly was, and that paranoid lot probably prefer civil war.

You said it yourself. It's the extremist Sunni movements (who make up pretty much all rebel groups) that simply do not want to be ruled by a Alawite. Not exactly a freedom fight now, is it?

sure, but it's not a freedom fight for the other side, either.
It's just, y'know, a terrible little war for all involved, to be followed by a terrible peace.

[Alsheb]

You said it yourself. It's the extremist Sunni movements (who make up pretty much all rebel groups) that simply do not want to be ruled by a Alawite. Not exactly a freedom fight now, is it?

sure, but it's not a freedom fight for the other side, either.
It's just, y'know, a terrible little war for all involved, to be followed by a terrible peace.

I still take a coalition of moderate to progressive forces over a coalition of backwards takfiri terrorists and hired mercenary death squads.

[Geilinor]

This could have been prevented but I'm wondering what you expected from a dictatorship ruling over an unwilling majority.

"Dictatorship". The meaningless buzzword used to describe everyone who doesn't march in line with western interests.

It's not a meaningless buzzword and you call everyone who isn't in line with your views an imperialist.

[Alsheb]

"Dictatorship". The meaningless buzzword used to describe everyone who doesn't march in line with western interests.

It's not a meaningless buzzword and you call everyone who isn't in line with your views an imperialist.

It's quite meaningless since it is applied to literally anyone who doesn't fit in with western policies. Even elected leaders such as Castro and Chávez were called "dictators". It's entirely meaningless.

And no, I don't call everyone I don't agree with imperialists. I call people who engage in imperialism imperialists.

[Kubra]

sure, but it's not a freedom fight for the other side, either.
It's just, y'know, a terrible little war for all involved, to be followed by a terrible peace.

I still take a coalition of moderate to progressive forces over a coalition of backwards takfiri terrorists and hired mercenary death squads.

Meh, progressive is the sort of thing that goes in quotes when it's being pushed by the most hated minority in syria. I don't say most hated as a personal judgement, lord knows the alawites had a hard time under the ottomans and they've got a populace that might like a return of ottoman privileges.
But what I mean by the bit on progressive is that the veneer of secularism is more personal defense than anything else. Going full shia is politically useless for the lot, while at the time the ba'athist parties were getting up there were large movements in places like egypt that they could rely on, ba'athist iraqi's that weren't yet politically sunni. Being with the general socialist lot meant alawites had strong allies they could rely on within the region to help keep them in power. They don't today, of course.
Of course, if winds blew in a way that some other form of politics would have guaranteed better protection, the majority would have probably went with that instead. For the weak, politics is choosing friends, not principles.

[Geilinor]

It's not a meaningless buzzword and you call everyone who isn't in line with your views an imperialist.

It's quite meaningless since it is applied to literally anyone who doesn't fit in with western policies. Even elected leaders such as Castro and Chávez were called "dictators". It's entirely meaningless.

And no, I don't call everyone I don't agree with imperialists. I call people who engage in imperialism imperialists.

Fidel Castro an elected leader? Not to say that the two are exactly comparable, but no more so than Stalin.