Middle East Conflict Megathread (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc)

[Fahran]

Bahais are definitely not protected and are rather persecuted quite thoroughly, unfortunately. Everything else is correct, though.

Bahais are not particularly popular in any country. They contain even less popular ideas than Yezidi or Alawites, for being, you know, only true religion.

They aren't doing terribly in Israel. At least not comparatively.

[Fahran]

Impoverish a country via a war, turn a blind eye to corporations/local militias promoting slavery, hey... is this the nineteenth century or something? At least those Europeans could do something original.

This does not demonstrate your assertion that Libya has become an Islamist hell-hole. War rape, even of men, is a prevalent atrocity under dictatorships and in conflict-torn regions. In any case, the UN should be involved because they authorized the NATO intervention via UN Security Council Resolution #1973. Supporting the legitimate, democratically-elected government and actually keeping the peace would address practically every issue your sources discussed. The solution to war rape and slavery is not authoritarian dictator with a penchant for rape and systematic persecution of political opponents. It's law and order under a legitimate government.

Around 87% of Kosovo's Serb population has been killed or displaced. When's the US being sanctioned for that?

Because the US wasn't directly responsible for it. With regards to the ethnic cleansing campaigns by Albanian nationalists, the American government and UN did condemn it on no uncertain terms. The problem appears to have been, however, that both entities had bigger fish to fry. I definitely have no problem with the UN intervening in Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing. Part of the problem there is that a significant number of people in the Balkans are on board with ethnic cleansing so it's pretty difficult to stop without separating out states by ethnic majority.

Source.

Appear to believe... yeah, with phrases like that, it's no wonder that I think that most of it is bullshit. The DNC appeared to believe that Clinton was the president - how'd that work out?

Not equivalent. Multiple investigations have put the blame on Assad.

Calls for sanctions? You're actually using that as an argument? Calls for sanctions? I'm sure that Israel must feel absolutely terrible about all of those calls for sanctions...

So you'd have no problem approving sanctions against Syria then? Or imposing a no-fly zone? Simple things that have been done to regimes behaving in similar ways.

I'm a realist. I follow the Realist Approach to Foreign Policy. The odds of having the US leaders placed on Human Rights Trials are minuscule. And if that's the case, why should other Great Powers entertain such notions?

Syria isn't a great power. At this point, they're not even a regional power anymore. Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are more on that level. Realistically, would minimizing civilian casualties and the use of unlawful weapons not be prudent?

The rate of displacement of Serbs from Kosovo was 87%. Can Assad beat that? Nope. Where's the sanctions against the US over that?

There were at most 300,000 Serbs in Kosovo. There are 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 Syrians who have been displaced. Again, you're quibbling.

Human Rights are used for PR purposes. When a bunch of Slavs were burned in Odessa, the Western Press, that's usually out for blood in such instances, called for calm, restraint, and proceeded to bury the issue. Those were the pro-Russian Slavs. But when gays were jailed, (not burned, but jailed, which is wrong, but not as wrong as burning someone over free speech,) the very same press was out for blood. Kind of reminds me of Zuckerberg's testimony - when the Republicans named numerous Conservatives who were wrongly banned from Facebook, but he couldn't name a single Liberal. Fair and balanced my ass.

I assume you're referring to the act of mob violence in 2014 that occurred following street brawls between pro-Russian and anti-Russian activists? The one police attempted to halt, saving dozens of people in the process? The one the Ukrainian government condemned?

Source.

Really? https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/22/16 ... casualties

Saudi Arabia’s new blockade of Yemen is threatening to exacerbate what the United Nations has deemed the “worst humanitarian crisis in the world.”

Want to tell that to the UN, about how they cannot be serious? Saudi actions in Yemen are on another level. And if any major power actually gave a shit about Yemen, Saudi Arabia would be the one bombed into smithereens. But no major power gives a fuck about Human Rights, unless it benefits them. That's always been the case.

5,000 civilian casualties is quite a few less than the tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Syria. By no means do I support the Saudi-imposed blockade, however, I would advise you to demonstrate the same sort of indignation towards the Assad regime which has denied international aid to opponents of the regime and their families. As I've stated, I favor human rights extensively and consistently.

Yes, let's talk about scale. Do you know the number of civilians that died from violence on a daily basis under Saddam, and the number that died from violence on a daily basis after he was deposed?

Saddam Hussein may have killed over two hundred thousand people while implementing a vast police-state that relied heavily on the systematic terrorizing of the population. The vast majority of the population supported and still supports his removal from power. Some estimates put the civilian death toll as a result of the Iraq War at one hundred thousand people while the more astounding studies put it at six hundred thousand people. The Iraqi numbers tend to be closer to the one hundred thousand figure, albeit with ten to twenty thousand people added. Also, the police-state has been replaced by a fragile democracy that has some potential for stability in the foreseeable future.

And how many actually had a major impact on Israel?

They matter in discussions of legality and politics.

I have studied the latter. By raw numbers, Assad has a higher body count.

Let's see the data. Because in Yemen, thanks to the actions of Saudi Arabia, one child dies every ten minutes from starvation: https://borgenproject.org/yemen-refugees/

That's over 50,000 kids a year, dying, from starvation. Of course for you that's not scalable, but you won't be able to provide same statistics for Syria.

First, I oppose the imposition of a blockade on Yemen. Second, I have no problem with applying pressure and force to remedy the situation. Third, not all of those deaths are the exclusive result of the Saudi blockade. Yemen was the poorest country in the Middle East prior to the conflict, and the conflict has already done substantial damage to local infrastructure. Even without a blockade, some of these deaths wouldn't be prevented. Fourth, none of this detracts from human rights abuses in Syria. Address them both.

Extending a bloody war and thus promoting more suffering, while whining about Human Rights, is the very definition of Hypocrisy.

Yeah. Murdering civilians isn't just about shortening the war. It's about terrorizing the population so they don't try to resist in the future.

[Fahran]

That's what will happen realistically. You're all about emotion, rather than what can be done on the ground.

It'll happen eventually, perhaps, if Putin and Assad are stupid enough to believe they can use brute force to break through international condemnation. Ideally, they're as much in favor of shortening the war as you are and aren't willing to murder civilians if it means that it'll be drawn out as a consequence.

Keep dreaming. Oh yeah, your source is from 2009. You might want to reread my argument, especially the timeline. If the war ended in 2009, that means that the war was still ongoing for a part of the year, unless it ended on January 1st. Oh yeah, also, the soldiers were withdrawn.

The article was written at a point when the fighting had begun to conclude in certain places. The acts described in the article were not motivated by a desire to conclude the fighting, but rather by a desire to terrorize the population into submission, eradicate the Chechen activists most opposed to Russian occupation, and ensure that Russia could maintain its rule over a mostly unwilling population.

No country is sustaining its sphere of influence by military might alone. That assumption is idiotic on its face.

Russia doesn't possess the economic, political, or long-term cultural capital to maintain Ukraine, the Baltic state, or Central Asia within its sphere of influence by any means other than threats and violence. Younger people in all three areas have been drifting towards either Europe or China in an increasingly interconnected world. The fact that Russia engaged in multiple bouts of ethnic cleansing and resettlement in both its tsarist and soviet iterations doesn't really strengthen its case either. Canada has a more powerful economy by most standards. Don't get me wrong. I love Russian culture, but Putin is an opiate, a desperate attempt to reassert an order that doesn't exist anymore and that cannot judiciously exist in the future.

That everything in Ukraine is for sale, for the right price. That's not Democracy, that's Corporacracy. Ukraine is actually adopting the US Healthcare System. That'd be highly entertaining to watch, if it wasn't so sad.

Most Eastern Bloc countries have had to struggle with corruption in the aftermath of Communism's collapse. Moving towards liberalization and the European model is likely to help rather than hurt efforts to ameliorate corruption.

Yeah, Russia tried to be friendly with the West in the 1990s, and Western Experts proceeded to aid the reelection of Boris "Drunkard" Yeltsin who plunged Russia into the greatest economic pothole since Hitler's Invasion. Russia should be Russia. Those who want to be friends are welcome, and those who don't, aren't.

Russia being Russia is fine, so long as this doesn't automatically translate into Russia attempting to reimpose antiquated spheres of influence and relive the cold war. There's a reason the United States has essentially given up the Monroe Doctrine in its antiquated form.

Thank you!

Of course!

[Durin VII]

1) "Russia doesn't want the United States supporting its enemies in proxy wars" Ofcourse it doesn't, but this is already the case. By retaliating against the US Russia makes a clear statement to not only the US, but to the entire world. If anything, it only plays in Russia's favour on a military level. AMD isn't going to pop up over such attack, nor is a huge escalation.

You appear to have forgotten who the president is. Again, would Russia rather risk a protracted cold war with the United States which it is bound to lose in the long-term or simply get its ally to behave and not commit human rights abuses? It's a simple question.

2) You do know when a war is legal and when it's illegal right?

I do.

1st Gulf war (Nothing to do with any invasion of Saudi-Arabia btw.) was indeed legal as it was a matter of self-defense.

Operation Desert Shield began in Saudi Arabia due to fears that Saddam Hussein would attempt to seize petroleum resources there following his earlier successes in Kuwait. Saddam Hussein targeted both Israel and Saudi Arabia with notoriously inaccurate SCUD missiles, finally prompting coalition forces to begin their liberation of Kuwait.

Iraqi No-Fly Zone was illegal.

The no-fly zone could be interpreted as implicitly legal under UN Security Council Resolution #688 that condemned Iraq's human rights abuses. It's important to observe as well that they occurred in response to the plainly illegal behaviors of the Baathist regime, namely in committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. This could also fall under the UN doctrine that nations have an implicit obligation to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Source.

First Intervention in Somalia was legal as it was UN sanctioned.

Alright.

Bosnian War was illegal, though complicated.

UN Security Council Resolution #816 may be interpreted in such a way that coalition actions in Bosnia were legal. Additionally, the responsibility to protect doctrine implies not only that intervention was an option but that it was an obligation of all UN member-states given the egregious instances of ethnic cleansing that were occurring.

Intervention in Haïti was legal as it was UN approved.

Alright.

Kosovo war was legal as it was UN approved.

Alright.

Operation Infinite Reach is debatable.

Pretty blatant casus belli.

War in Afghanistan was illegal.

Again, pretty blatant casus belli. It was also widely perceived as legal by the international community despite the lack of an explicit green-light from the UN because the UN charter would not have rendered such military action illegal.

2nd Persian Gulf War was illegal.

The 2nd Persian Gulf War was certainly legal under many interpretations of international law. Iraq violated its legal obligations and thus violated the terms of the ceasefire.

Source.

Some you have forgotten:
Tanker War, illegal.
United States invasion of Panama, illegal.

Both of those conflicts began in the eighties. The intervention in Panama was illegal, though I do not feel any especial sympathy for Noriega. The Tanker War would have fallen into a gray area given the Iranian attacks on the American embassy and the threats of violence against American citizens kept as hostages.

American-led intervention in Syria, illegal.

Debatable given the UN Charter and the implications of the responsibility to protect doctrine. Had Russia and China, who both have an avid interest in propping up Assad, not blocked UN efforts to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria, we'd have something akin to the intervention in Libya or Yemen at the moment.

Source.

Yemeni Civil War, legal, though complicated.

Alright.

And then we have the numerous illegal drone strikes ofcourse along with other, various illegal military operations that occured throughout the world.

Drones strikes within areas of active hostility aren't necessarily illegal. I would argue that the vast majority of them have been targeted and within such areas. Their efficacy as weapons may certainly be contested though.

3) Sure mate, keep believing that people are guilty without court ruling or rock solid evidence. You might as well lock yourself up while you're at it.

Do you honestly believe that Assad would go free if he turned himself in for trial at the Hague?

Not saying that they didn't matter, but saying they were 'instrumental' is quite the overestimation.

The Battle of Kobane was one of the most significant early defeats suffered by Daesh in Syria. The YPG/YPJ and Peshmerga were active in practically every major offensive against Daesh. Additionally, the Kurdish-led SDF was the military force that eventually captured Raqqa. I don't think you get any more instrumental than that.

1) And by what means do you believe Russia would 'lose' on the long term?

2) UN Security Council Resolution #688 did not gave permission for that. Even the Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) called the no-fly zones illegal.

As for all the others, i might come back at them in the future. At the moment i don't have the time to go all in-depth.

3) 'Do you honestly believe that Assad would go free if he turned himself in for trial at the Hague?'
I'm fairly sure he wouldn't, just like with many other world leaders, though i don't think he would be found guilty on the chemical weapons attack.

On the other hand though, i wonder. You don't believe Assad because you believe he would be stupid enough to commit such an act, yet you do believe a terrorist organisation (Jaysh al-Islam, they're the ones who called in the chemical attack and laid the blame on Assad) who has been known to have used chemical weapons (on april 7 2016 they shelled a neighbourhood in Aleppo. According to the Kurdish Red Crescent the symptoms were consistent with the use of chlorine gas.) and was/is prepared to use them again (They stated that the weapons used were weapons not authorized for use in these types of confrontations, implying that there were/are confrontations in which they would consider using it (like losing badly and having all of your allies surrendering maybe?)).
Please explain.

4) In Iraq the Kurds barely came outside of their own region and the vast majority of fighting was done by the Iraqi army and the allied militias. In Syria, granted, they did a lot more, but still not enough to be booked as 'instrumental' from my point of view (unless you view the Syrian army, Iraqi army and Iraqi militias as instrumental as well). From my perspective it was a 'team' effort in which many parties did a lot, but none of them really jumped out enough to be called instrumental.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

3 people in the poll support ISIS. WTF!?!?!?

[Aulus Maximus]

3 people in the poll support ISIS. WTF!?!?!?

Not everything here is to be taken serious

[Fahran]

3 people in the poll support ISIS. WTF!?!?!?

Not everything here is to be taken serious

This. I voted for ISIS to ruin the poll, and I'm quite sad that more people haven't.

[Shofercia]

An oppressed population that's on the verge of being wiped out doesn't double every 40 years. Nor do people massively emigrate in droves, unless the area's in deep shit.

Oppressed populations doubling is pretty common, actually. You're a war nerd reader, you know the best way to respond to subjugation is: have a fuckton of babies and make em resent the local lords.
As for emigration in droves, a place doesn't need to be fucked up, just shitty compared to other prospects. Chinese peasants aren't facing existential threat, but they're flocking to cities on the coast, because they don't suck. If you don't become unemployed lumpen they're swell places to be.
Same here. Serbian kosovo stopped being a cool place to be during the war, it's gonna always have the baggage there, and there's no reason for folks wanting future prospects to stay.

You're talking about the general pattern of Urbanization, which happens on a regional scale. Was that the case in Chechnya? Nope.

Russians in 1989: 269,130
Russians in 2002: 40,645

North Ossetia: 189,159 and 164,734 (13%)
Kabardino-Balkaria: 240,750 and 226,620 (6%)
Karachay-Cherkessia: 175,931 and 147,878 (16%)
Dagestan: 165,940 and 120,875 (27%)
Chechnya: 269,130 and 40,645 (85%)

Same region. That would account for economics, urbanization, etc. But hey, Russians are the aggressors here, some random clueless person said so. Now, regarding the War Nerd Birth Rule - why's that also the case in North Ossetia? Russia has been protecting that region, so there's no hostility. Their population is also increasing quite rapidly.

Between 1989 and 2002, the population of Chechens in Ingushetia increased from 19,195 to 95,403. That's right, when Chechnya was independent, the Chechens fled their independent homeland to the most impoverished Russia region at the time in droves. Between 2002 and 2010, the population of Chechens in Ingushetia decreased from 95,403 to 18,765. War ended, reconstruction started, (by the Russians,) and the Chechens went home. Now, how many stories of abuse of the Russians in Chechnya by IIPB, or other Wahhabi Terrorist scum have you heard from the Western Press? Their objective is simple: when Russia does something DC doesn't like - demonize Russia using anecdotal evidence, and ensure that it masquerades as a general trend, and portray anyone stating the facts as a Russian Shill, without realizing how much that huts US Soft Power abroad, and hence the Dollar's Credibility.

That's why I call most of them - morons. Especially CNN. I'm no Trump fan, been rather explicit what that and about what I think of his man-child Twitter rants, (man-child here is used to describe his Twitter rants, not Trump, just want to clear up any modly confusion, since they prefer reading my posts in general rather than moderation,) but he's mostly right about CNN. And if he destroys their credibility, he'd be doing a country a service, whether it was intentional or not.

[Fahran]

1) And by what means do you believe Russia would 'lose' on the long term?

Russia has no realistic way of maintaining its old sphere of influence given modern geopolitics and its rapidly declining economic and political capital. Ukraine, the Baltic states, and other former Soviet satellites will eventually drift closer to Europe since Germany, France, the UK, and the EU more generally possess vastly more political, economic, and cultural capital at the moment and offer something more than the prospect of licking the boots of some strongman perched in Moscow.

At the moment, Russia appears to be heavily reliant on force, such as their invasion of Ukraine, and past traditions of ethnic cleansing, such as the policies that led to such vast Russian influence in places like Lithuania, to project its power beyond its immediate borders. In a couple generations, that'll cease to be an effective strategy for power projection. The alternative, aligning itself with China and international pariahs, might work a little while longer, but that house of cards is already unstable. Syria will inevitably have to deal with another uprising if Assad doesn't address societal inequalities and the demand for increased liberties. Iran has already had multiple flare-ups as a result of its exceedingly theocratic government. North Korea will collapse the minute China isn't there to protect it and coalition boots hit its soil. Eventually, Russia winds up standing by itself.

2) UN Security Council Resolution #688 did not gave permission for that. Even the Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed (Boutros Boutros-Ghali) called the no-fly zones illegal.

It didn't give explicit permission for it, and Boutros-Ghali did call the no-fly zone illegal. However, realistically, there was no other course UN member-states could take to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq without imposing a no-fly zone. By the implications of the resolution, this means that such actions could have been deemed legal. This is why the US, UK, and France enacted it without too many qualms initially.

3) 'Do you honestly believe that Assad would go free if he turned himself in for trial at the Hague?' I'm fairly sure he wouldn't, just like with many other world leaders, though i don't think he would be found guilty on the chemical weapons attack.

Why wouldn't he go free then? Do you believe they'd get him on charges of torture then?

On the other hand though, i wonder. You don't believe Assad because you believe he would be stupid enough to commit such an act,

Stupid? Not at all. The international community allowed him to get away with it multiple times. At this point, he could reasonably bet on getting away with it again and on people like you defending him regardless of how abundant the evidence of his guilt, which you still haven't managed to explain away, was.

yet you do believe a terrorist organisation (Jaysh al-Islam, they're the ones who called in the chemical attack and laid the blame on Assad) who has been known to have used chemical weapons (on april 7 2016 they shelled a neighbourhood in Aleppo.

I believe them and the numerous other groups who are alleging that Assad is guilty, yes. It'd be one thing if it was just the opposition making these claims and if the circumstantial evidence didn't almost always validate them when they made these claims. The problem with that is that these attacks almost always seem to benefit Assad and hurt the rebels. And the international community has arrived at the same consensus.

Source.

As for explanations, there's nothing to explain. As I've stated, some rebel groups probably deployed illegal weapons as well. Assad has done it more regularly and to greater effect. He's also the principal reason that around twenty two percent of the population is displaced.

4) In Iraq the Kurds barely came outside of their own region and the vast majority of fighting was done by the Iraqi army and the allied militias. In Syria, granted, they did a lot more, but still not enough to be booked as 'instrumental' from my point of view (unless you view the Syrian army, Iraqi army and Iraqi militias as instrumental as well). From my perspective it was a 'team' effort in which many parties did a lot, but none of them really jumped out enough to be called instrumental.

According to most of the sources I've read, Raqqa was captured almost exclusively by Kurdish units, without any assistance from Damascus. The campaign as a whole received minimal support from militias loyal to Damascus, though those units sustained no casualties. As far as I've read, though admittedly it's been primarily from Kurdish and Iraqi sources, the SAA was primarily focused on fighting the FSA throughout these campaigns. Given the pivotal role, the SDF played both in handing Daesh its first significant defeat in Syria and in capturing their operational center in Syria, I believe that instrumental is absolutely the correct label.

[The Tomerlands]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

[Fahran]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

I love my Egyptian goddesses.

nods

We did it ironically. Relax. Also, calling people idiots'll get you in trouble, even if they're behaving like idiots. So don't do that. /NotAMod

[Shofercia]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

People sometimes troll-vote on NSG. Not sure that was the case here, but it's plausible. I've yet to see any ISIS support in this thread, so we're making progress.

[New Emeline]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

I love my Egyptian goddesses.

nods

We did it ironically. Relax. Also, calling people idiots'll get you in trouble, even if they're behaving like idiots. So don't do that. /NotAMod

Her Egyptian name is actually Aset, Isis is her Greek name.
This is probably the stupidest pet peeve of mine

[Salus Maior]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

Why wouldn't you vote for the Syrian Government? They're the only ones that can establish any kind of real order at this point, and they're winning.

[The Tomerlands]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

Why wouldn't you vote for the Syrian Government? They're the only ones that can establish any kind of real order at this point, and they're winning.

Because it's still a dictatorship. Plus just because something is winning doesn't mean you should support. And I'm not even sure they are winning.

[Salus Maior]

Why wouldn't you vote for the Syrian Government? They're the only ones that can establish any kind of real order at this point, and they're winning.

Because it's still a dictatorship. Plus just because something is winning doesn't mean you should support. And I'm not even sure they are winning.

So?

And yes, they are winning. The Rebels are only fighting now because they know they'll be killed if they surrender, it's a lost cause.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Blood and urine samples from the area are testing positive for chlorine and nerve agents

[Datlofff]

Because it's still a dictatorship. Plus just because something is winning doesn't mean you should support. And I'm not even sure they are winning.

So?

And yes, they are winning. The Rebels are only fighting now because they know they'll be killed if they surrender, it's a lost cause.

Why not flee the country?

[Salus Maior]

Blood and urine samples from the area are testing positive for chlorine and nerve agents

I think we all know gas was used. The point is who?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Who are these idiots and why are there so dense?

Why wouldn't you vote for the Syrian Government? They're the only ones that can establish any kind of real order at this point, and they're winning.

Because they're dictatorial monsters who use chemical weapons on civilians

[Salus Maior]

So?

And yes, they are winning. The Rebels are only fighting now because they know they'll be killed if they surrender, it's a lost cause.

Why not flee the country?

Because nobody wants to shelter professional troublemakers.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Blood and urine samples from the area are testing positive for chlorine and nerve agents

I think we all know gas was used. The point is who?

Obviously that faggot Assad. He's done it before.

[Datlofff]

Why wouldn't you vote for the Syrian Government? They're the only ones that can establish any kind of real order at this point, and they're winning.

Because they're dictatorial monsters who use chemical weapons on civilians

Id rather a stable dictatorship be the current situation than a massive civil war that allows islamic terrorist states to form and fill the power vacuum.

[Salus Maior]

Why wouldn't you vote for the Syrian Government? They're the only ones that can establish any kind of real order at this point, and they're winning.

Because they're dictatorial monsters who use chemical weapons on civilians

*Allegedly.

And I'm not convinced that Assad did order it.

[Datlofff]

I think we all know gas was used. The point is who?

Obviously that faggot Assad. He's done it before.

Innocent until proven guilty