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

[Lough Neagh]

US just announced that they, Britain and France are now at war in Syria. We are waiting for the Russian response.

[Farnhamia]

US just announced that they, Britain and France are now at war in Syria. We are waiting for the Russian response.

Not true. They are making strikes against Syria as punishment for the use of chemical weapons. No declarations of war have been issued.

[MERIZoC]

US just announced that they, Britain and France are now at war in Syria. We are waiting for the Russian response.

Not true. They are making strikes against Syria as punishment for the use of chemical weapons. No declarations of war have been issued.

The US has not declared war since WW2. It's a meaningless term.

[Albrenia]

Not true. They are making strikes against Syria as punishment for the use of chemical weapons. No declarations of war have been issued.

The US has not declared war since WW2. It's a meaningless term.

Paperwork is a bitch I guess.

[Lough Neagh]

US just announced that they, Britain and France are now at war in Syria. We are waiting for the Russian response.

Not true. They are making strikes against Syria as punishment for the use of chemical weapons. No declarations of war have been issued.

Wars don't usually start with formal declarations. You just send in the troops.

[Salus Maior]

US just announced that they, Britain and France are now at war in Syria. We are waiting for the Russian response.

Oh good. Gotta keep military employment open for our children 10 years from now.

[Lough Neagh]

In past years Russia could be trusted to be just jib jabbing but this Putin has shown a record of backing his words with force: Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea, Syria....

[Lough Neagh]

We have an unconfirmed report that Russia has sunk a US Navy destroyer. Again this is unconfirmed.

If it is confirmed then we will know that Russia's Putin is continuing his pattern of backing his threats with action.

[Farnhamia]

We have an unconfirmed report that Russia has sunk a US Navy destroyer. Again this is unconfirmed.

If it is confirmed then we will know that Russia's Putin is continuing his pattern of backing his threats with action.

Source?

[Thermodolia]

We have an unconfirmed report that Russia has sunk a US Navy destroyer. Again this is unconfirmed.

If it is confirmed then we will know that Russia's Putin is continuing his pattern of backing his threats with action.

Ya that’s false. Trust me. My phone would be blowing up.

[Shofercia]

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.

Pretty sure the links demonstrate that Libya was turned from a country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa, into a hell hole, and considering that Islamists were most certainly involved... As far as your second claim, erm, so why didn't that happen in Iraq? You had a legitimate, democratically-elected government, in Iraq, and then ISIS showed up and took over huge parts of Iraq from said democratically-elected government. The solution to war, rape, and slavery, the one that acts works, tends not to involve the US bombing random countries that pose no real threat to the US.

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.

Oh, the UN issued a strongly worded letter to rapists and murderers. Oh no. The KLA must be so scared of a strongly worded letter. I'm sure that they quaked in their boots, as they sold Serb organs. And in what World was the US not directly responsible? When the Serbs tried to fight, the US bombed Belgrade, their capital, primarily a civilian cities - leaving the Serbs with two "Humanitarian" choices - have their capital city destroyed or have their population in Kosovo - ethnically cleansed. All in the name of "Human Rights". Why don't you ask the Kosovo Serbs what they feel about the US "Humanitarian Intervention" in Kosovo.

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.

Multiple pollsters claimed that Clinton would win. It's interesting how all of these claims come right after Assad scores, or just as he's about to score a victory against the insurgents that the US is totally not supporting.

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 do have a problem with imposing a no fly zone, as that was what led to the bombing of Libya, and turning the country with the highest HDI in Africa, into a shithole country. Interestingly enough, some of the very same Liberals who cheered for the bombing campaign, suddenly got butthurt at Trump's name calling. Apparently for that lot, it's better to turn a country into a shithole, than to actually call it a shithole.

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?

You support bombing Syria, and then talk about minimizing civilian casualties. Do you really fail to grasp the disconnect?

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.

So it's cool to wipe out countries, as long as their population is less than 300,000? Originally you attempted to argue from a percentile basis. Since I tore that argument to shreds, you're now trying to argue from an absolute basis.

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?

So if X orders the paramilitary to burn someone, and then condemn the burning, is that cool? Is that acceptable? Street brawls happen. And yet, I haven't seen people being burned alive as a result of street brawls, in massive numbers. It's rather hilarious how my entire point is that Human Rights are simply being used as a PR stunt, by everyone, and here you are, doing just that. "It was only 300,000 Serbs, look at all of those Syrians, they're in the millions!"

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



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.

The direct UN quote was: “worst humanitarian crisis in the world”

It's a lot more than just 5,000 civilian casualties, as another source that I cited showed that more than 50,000 children die from starvation in Yemen every year. More than 50,000 children.

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.

Over what time period? Two hundred thousand people dying over 400 years, that's just Moscow's traffic in the 1990s. What's the population? What's the time period? Where did those numbers originate?

And how many actually had a major impact on Israel?

They matter in discussions of legality and politics.

So none. Gotcha.

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.

I've addressed the Human Rights abuses in Syria by proposing to end the war and divide Syria along the Euphrates, giving a substantial amount of land to the Kurds. You're the one who demands we minimize civilian casualties by dropping more bombs. Also, to have the UN call your country's actions the "worst humanitarian crisis in the World" - that takes some Belgian Congo style sadism.

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.

Hey, I'm all for letting the people in Syria vote for their leadership. I'm all for Referendums. Can we hold one in Ukraine too?

[Mujahidah]

Russia is going to back down and be less assertive for a while. Ideally, the US, having proved its point, doesn't go much further. I'd prefer to avoid a formal regime change war.

[Shofercia]

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.

Condemnation's ok. Sanctions - depends on the situation. Bombing humans to promote Human Rights? That's my issue.

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.

An unwilling population... riiight. Is that why Chechens are returning to Chechnya, because they're unwilling to be ruled by Kadyrov's group?

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.

Actually - you're wrong. My main issue with the Baltics is that their Governments are not adhering to the Minority Rights parts of Human Rights treaties that they signed. Not sure what Putin's issue is, but I doubt that the Baltics would benefit if Zyuganov or even Medvedev came to power. Central Asia, with the exception of Turkmenistan, is very pro-Russian, and the latter's neutral. It'll be interesting to see if Turkmenistan will sacrifice neutrality to be a part of the new silk road, or enter an era of isolation, but that's for them to decide. And now we move to Ukraine. Russia can simply forbid any transfer of funds from Russia to Ukraine, cut off all raw materials to Ukraine, and cut off all trade with Ukraine, and watch what that'll do to Ukraine's economy.

What most fail to realize, is that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe. (I don't consider Kosovo a country.) It is the only post Soviet country that failed to upgrade most of its infrastructure from the Soviet Days. It's in a demographic tail spin. When Crimeans were offered to be a part of Russia, they jumped at the opportunity. There are two ways to solve the Ukraine Crisis: through blood, or through Referendums. I'm a fan of the latter.

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.

List of countries by GDP PPP per capita, World Bank Data:

Russia: $23,163
Belarus: $18,060
Ukraine: $8,272
Moldova: $5,334

Moldova and Ukraine followed the path of Liberalization, how'd that work out? After the fall of the USSR, Ukraine was slightly better off than Belarus; they were equal, but Ukraine had the coastline.

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.

In some region, like the Caucasus, spheres of influence are needed. A war between Armenia and Azerbaijan led to the Invasion of Russia through Dagestan.

Thank you!

Of course!

I like how intense this discussion is, and yet neither one of us is actually insulting each other. That's very unique on NSG

I'm glad that you're keeping an open mind, and if I said something that seems personal and was bad - that's my mistake.

[Soviet-mongol]

Condemnation's ok. Sanctions - depends on the situation. Bombing humans to promote Human Rights? That's my issue.

The only who will be bombed are Assads force, or to be precise his Chemical facilities so that he will not use them again.

[Shofercia]

Why not flee the country?

Because nobody wants to shelter professional troublemakers.

Or sign Colin Kaepernick

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

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

Assad is a cigarette? Did he smoke the FSA? Too soon?

Because nobody wants to shelter professional troublemakers.

"Professional troublemakers"

Were you dropped on the head as a child?

Dude, chill. If we all started talking like that in this thread, the mods would close it, and then we'd have nowhere to discuss actual Middle Eastern issues.

Yeah, after killing, raping, and enslaving millions of people. But that's worth it, cause dictatorships are bad mmkay?

And Afghanistan is lost. The Taliban's on the verge of overrunning the government.

Hell, even U.S veterans I've spoken to say that it's a lost cause.

Well, just keep US military presence in the area until you can make an actual stable government.

Because the US Debt is already quite high.

Just couldn't think of any other words to describe him

Really? No other word came to mind?

Maybe he thought that Assad's smoking hot, I mean that stache...

Damascus is being bombed

Probably in the name of Human Rights, because that worked so well in Belgrade

We have an unconfirmed report that Russia has sunk a US Navy destroyer. Again this is unconfirmed.

If it is confirmed then we will know that Russia's Putin is continuing his pattern of backing his threats with action.

Is that report next to the US declaring war on Syria?

Russia is going to back down and be less assertive for a while. Ideally, the US, having proved its point, doesn't go much further. I'd prefer to avoid a formal regime change war.

Or sell the S-400s to Iran, since Israel was involved.

[Mujahidah]

Russia is going to back down and be less assertive for a while. Ideally, the US, having proved its point, doesn't go much further. I'd prefer to avoid a formal regime change war.

Or sell the S-400s to Iran, since Israel was involved.

It still makes them look weak. The issued an ultimatum. The US crossed it. I am 99.9% confident they will not retaliate in anything resembling kind.

[Shofercia]

Or sell the S-400s to Iran, since Israel was involved.

It still makes them look weak. The issued an ultimatum. The US crossed it. I am 99.9% confident they will not retaliate in anything resembling kind.

What was the ultimatum?

[Mujahidah]

It still makes them look weak. The issued an ultimatum. The US crossed it. I am 99.9% confident they will not retaliate in anything resembling kind.

What was the ultimatum?

This, if I'm recalling the events of that long few days ago correctly.

[Ikania]

Maybe it sounds cold-hearted, but this was the correct course of action. Bashar Al-Assad should have never been given the free reign to commit the atrocities he has, with Russian backing. He didn't learn his lesson last time. The West should use the full arsenal of tools at its disposal to end his war crimes. Everything comes at a cost. That is the nature of war. When you're tied down in the slog, you might as well do terrible things on the side of the righteous.

[Shofercia]

What was the ultimatum?

This, if I'm recalling the events of that long few days ago correctly.

As the U.S. continues threatening military action against Damascus, Syria's key ally, Russia, voiced concerns that the standoff might spill over into a wider Russian-American war. “We cannot exclude any possibilities, unfortunately,” Vasily Nebenzya, Russian ambassador to the U.N., said when asked about the odds of a war between the U.S. and Russia, state news agency Itar-Tass reported. The Kremlin stressed that the safety of its personnel in Syria was paramount, though Nebenzya issued no specific threat of retaliation, urging instead that “the immediate priority is to evade the risk of war.”

Speaking to Russian state-news channel Rossiya-24, the diplomat said that keeping communication channels might be the way to avoid a greater altercation. "We are relying on the levelheadedness not only of American politicians but of the American military, who understand perfectly the danger of a clash between two superpowers. This danger exists—that much is obvious. I hope, and I would like to believe, that we are farther rather than closer [to war], but we do not know this.”

...Part of the uncertainty around Russia’s response stems from the lack of clarity around what its military could actually do to deflect an attack on the Syrian military. Alexander Zasypkin, Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon, said last week that “if there is a strike by the Americans, then...the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired,” according to Reuters.

Only two bases in Syria boast Russia’s most cutting-edge anti-air-defense system, the S-400; the Syrian military uses more dated models. Both bases are run by the Russian rather than Syrian military forces, the latter of which are more likely to be targeted by another U.S. strike. As Trump’s threats on Twitter seem to suggest, the U.S. military would likely once again use cruise missiles. The Russian military has not clarified if it chose not to utilize the system or if the S-400 simply could not lock onto the U.S. cruise missiles in real time.

It doesn't seem like there's a threat coming from Russia officially. The Ambassador to Lebanon is merely stating his viewpoint of the situation. One of the responses could be a Russian missile barrage of FSA military bases.

[The East Marches II]

Or sell the S-400s to Iran, since Israel was involved.

When they fuck it up again, they can always accuse Russia of being in league with the Jews.

[Thermodolia]

Or sell the S-400s to Iran, since Israel was involved.

Because Putin wants to fuck up Russian-Israeli relations.

[Eol Sha]

The only faction in the Syrian Civil War that I support is the US/NATO/Israel option and even then I don't support the US' stated goals nor its needlessly provocative actions.

[Mujahidah]

The only faction in the Syrian Civil War that I support is the US/NATO/Israel option and even then I don't support the US' stated goals nor its needlessly provocative actions.

I'd check that if Israel were not included.

[Soviet-mongol]

So apparently US launched air strikes on Syria and Russia is to scared to retaliate. It seems Russia is the new France.