The Syrian Civil War Thread

[conon394]

Arming the rebels.

To what end and on what basis? W/O a UN resolution this would be a private action and so invites Russia and Iran to do the same. A more intense and violent civil seems like the only result. If the US supplies arms to rebels how can we really object to Assad getting Russian arms?

Syria has WMDs. They have admitted to having them. Iraq again is not comparable to Syria.

They do, my point was why are sure the rebels will take better care of them than Assad, or else you are suggesting more than just arming rebels. Iraq is a useful example because for all our effort it is neither stable, it is corrupt and it is turning a blind eye to weapons moving from Iran to Syria. It also is a demonstrable issue the US will face for some time that claims about WMD by us will be viewed with a jaundiced eye because we flat out lied. Even rock solid evidence in Syria will still look suspect right now. And unless you you are calling on the US to swoop in and destroy or capture WMDs I'm not entirely sure how arming rebels makes them more secure.

Seriously conon? Your arguments have gotten so bad you bring up this as a real argument against intervention? The US's adventures in South America (i used that term lightly. The US meddled in South America and Central America.) are not even remotely comparable to the situation of Syria. Are you saying the US would go into Syria, invade, topple the government, and put an anti-communist dictatorship in power?

No what you continuity resist is elaborating a doctrine for this intervention. If is humanitarian than I ask why only Syria - if is just US utility (and vague at that) in the face of no UN sanction or no clear and present risk to the US it sets the stage for other Great powers to do the same - with agendas we might not like much at all and in the future might not be so ascendant that we can check them without a standard practice in International law. I point to central America because there the US did intervene w/o an sanction and I think there are lot of dead people who might just feel our anti-communism was a bit not nice. We intervened in Iran w/o UN sanction and messed with their government as well - you can complain about Hezbollah but I wonder have they really killed more people than the SAVAK. Yes Hezbollah has attacked American but as a tool of Iran it is profoundly bizare to say that w/o noting the US has attacked Iran, Intervened in Lebanon, supports Israel to the hilt etc etc. what do you expect everyone to say oh its American imperialism hey no problem... And let's just be clear we toppled a democratic government and put in place an absolute (corrupt) monarchy with a vile secret police in Iran - a fact all too many Americans seem sort of I dunno not aware of so it not hard to see why the current regime views us as an enemy and act accordingly.

[Sir Pignans]

Hey it Pignans not understanding the differences between a highly centralized military force and a rebel group with some leadership.

Leaders = command structure (if limited) = Command responsibility. Also: It's* If you're going to point out supposed 'flaws' in my argument, as well as bring my name into it, at least do it properly. Also, source for highly centralized? How much operational command to sub-units in Assads army have?

Of some, but not all. FSA isn't excalty a centralized military force and shouldn't be treated as such.

So they're failures get them off all accusations of war crimes? I bet other War crime leaders had wished they had come up with that idea!

You act like its easy to set-up a military force with a chain of command, police, regulations ect. FSA is not a centralized military force.

And yet they can still co-ordinate offensives, and have members in the Supreme military council. Even if one or two Free Syrian Army brigades are committing war crimes (and they would be) considering how hard it is to distinguish between battalions/regiments we can't say which one committed one. So thus we say = The FSA committed war crimes. Because we don't know which brigade committed them.

Okay, so lets say you're right. The Syrian army is a non-centralised force, one brigade commits a war crime, another doesn't, there's no way to distinguish between the two. Do we let that entire brigade off those war crimes? This is what you are suggesting, claiming that:

The man himself is more to blame than the FSA.

That is not acceptable to me. Not by any means of the imagination.

[Vanoi]

To what end and on what basis? W/O a UN resolution this would be a private action and so invites Russia and Iran to do the same. A more intense and violent civil seems like the only result. If the US supplies arms to rebels how can we really object to Assad getting Russian arms?

Just various small arms and some heavy weaponry. No UN resolution needed. We can object all we want, but Russia isn't going to stop selling weapons to Assad. I want the West to arm the rebels so the balance can be tipped and the rebels win the war. The war is already intense and violent and isn't getting any less regardless if the West decided to give them arms or not.

They do, my point was why are sure the rebels will take better care of them than Assad, or else you are suggesting more than just arming rebels. Iraq is a useful example because for all our effort it is neither stable, it is corrupt and it is turning a blind eye to weapons moving from Iran to Syria.

Sure, if you ignore America occupied Iraq which caused much of the violence while Syria wouldn't be occupied ta all.

It also is a demonstrable issue the US will face for some time that claims about WMD by us will be viewed with a jaundiced eye because we flat out lied. Even rock solid evidence in Syria will still look suspect right now. And unless you you are calling on the US to swoop in and destroy or capture WMDs I'm not entirely sure how arming rebels makes them more secure.

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918

US didn't lie, but was still very wrong on the whole Iraq producing them. People can suspect the evidence all they want, Syria has admitted to owning chemical weapons. Also, in accordance with arming the rebels, Western or even Russian forces (cooperating if they wanted) could secure the chemical weapons stockpile. This would be a small-medium size force. Only meant to secure the chemical weapons and nothing else.

No what you continuity resist is elaborating a doctrine for this intervention. If is humanitarian than I ask why only Syria - if is just US utility (and vague at that) in the face of no UN sanction or no clear and present risk to the US it sets the stage for other Great powers to do the same - with agendas we might not like much at all and in the future might not be so ascendant that we can check them without a standard practice in International law.

You just don't understand anything about Syria or other international conflicts in general. Congo is a great example. Congo and Syria are not even remotely the same situations. Yet you think they can be solved the same way. First off, the UN has already intervened in Congo. I told you this twice now. In fact, the UN just sent 100 troops in the start of an intervention brigade.

Second, one can have multiple reasons to invade Syria besides "doctrines" as you described. I have multiple times listed you the reason of invading Syria and why they matter more than the other countries you keep complaining about why we don't intervene in.

Third, you are once again using the "US has to help everyone, or no one argument."

I point to central America because there the US did intervene w/o an sanction and I think there are lot of dead people who might just feel our anti-communism was a bit not nice.

Intervention in South America an Central America ≠ Syrian intervention. This is not hard to understand.

We intervened in Iran w/o UN sanction and messed with their government as well - you can complain about Hezbollah but I wonder have they really killed more people than the SAVAK. Yes Hezbollah has attacked American but as a tool of Iran it is profoundly bizare to say that w/o noting the US has attacked Iran, Intervened in Lebanon, supports Israel to the hilt etc etc.

Lots of **** excuses for why you shouldn't complain about Hezbollah. I do not give one **** about Israel or the US intervening in Lebanon. you are now using the two wrongs make a right fallacy. Just because the US has done wrong, does mean its excused for Hezbollah.

[Vanoi]

Leaders = command structure (if limited) = Command responsibility. Also: It's* If you're going to point out supposed 'flaws' in my argument, as well as bring my name into it, at least do it properly. Also, source for highly centralized? How much operational command to sub-units in Assads army have?

Are you ****ing serious right now? Can you not understand the difference between the professional military of a state and a rebel force with some leadership?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Army

Assad is at the top. Assad won't be guilty for war crimes done by individual soldiers. It will be the war crimes that his general did on his command that get him. it goes up the chain of command. You would know this if you actually read the article. Its why Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was convicted of war crimes done by his soldiers and not Hirohito.

So they're failures get them off all accusations of war crimes? I bet other War crime leaders had wished they had come up with that idea!

Failures? You cannot hold a rebel force and a professional military force in the same light. You also haven't read the article i posted, because you would once again know it goes up the chain of command. Another thing you fail to understand is that the FSA leaders would have to completely ignore and not address the crimes committed in their ranks. Its the reason why U.S Army Captain Ernest Medina was charged with war crimes for the My Lai massacre. He did nothing to stop the soldiers under this command form massacring the villagers. Unfortunately, he was acquitted his the "Medina Standard" still stands.

And yet they can still co-ordinate offensives, and have members in the Supreme military council.

Some offenses close to them. Other offenses or coordinated by non-FSA forces. Just because you can coordinate assaults doe snot mean you are suddenly a professional military force.

Even if one or two Free Syrian Army brigades are committing war crimes (and they would be) considering how hard it is to distinguish between battalions/regiments we can't say which one committed one. So thus we say = The FSA committed war crimes. Because we don't know which brigade committed them.

Uhhh no. You mind finding some legal cases of this standard being applied?

Okay, so lets say you're right. The Syrian army is a non-centralised force, one brigade commits a war crime, another doesn't, there's no way to distinguish between the two. Do we let that entire brigade off those war crimes? This is what you are suggesting, claiming that:
That is not acceptable to me. Not by any means of the imagination.

Have you never heard of investigation? You may think this standard you have thought up is applicable but i see no legal case doing something like this. Charging a whole group for war crimes because they can't figure which two brigades did it?

And how the hell are the brigade indistinguishable Do they just happen to have the same name, same leaders? Did they both just attack the same place at the same time on the same day when they committed whatever war crimes they did?

You think my idea leads the FSA to get off with war crimes when it does not. If a brigade commits a war crime, the soldiers involved and the officers involved will be convicted of war crimes. whenever their leaders are is a different story.

[YukonTrooper]

Syria didn't confirm having chemical weapons. They said they'd only use chemical weapons in case of a foreign invasion, which could have simply been an empty threat. Of course, they very may well have chemical weapons, but neither did Syria confirm having such weapons and neither has there ever been independent confirmation.

[Vanoi]

Syria didn't confirm having chemical weapons. They said they'd only use chemical weapons in case of a foreign invasion, which could have simply been an empty threat.

If they said they would use them, there is no reason to not assume they have them. Besides, Western intelligence and Israeli intelligence knew of years Syria had chemical weapons. Even Russia says Syria has chemical weapons.

[hellheaven1987]

I bet some people just badly want arms to be supplied to FSA so in future FSA can use those arms to block government agency and manipulate laws by threats.

And cannot wait Libya turns into a warlords state we all love about, with every sign suggests the chance increasing daily.

[Morbius Sire]

Syria didn't confirm having chemical weapons. They said they'd only use chemical weapons in case of a foreign invasion, which could have simply been an empty threat. Of course, they very may well have chemical weapons, but neither did Syria confirm having such weapons and neither has there ever been independent confirmation.

They do have Chemical Weapons(CW). Chemical weapons are pretty much the poor man's nuclear weapons, if you will.
I do recall pretty much western and Russian agencies confirming that Syria has CW.

[Condottiere 40K]

What you need to change Western sentiment is widespread atrocities by the Assad regime against the Kurds and the Christians. The Kurds are getting an autonomous region handed to them on a plate, and the Christians are far more afraid of Islamic fundamentalists.

[Sarissofoi]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94D0L420130514

At least 94,000 people have been killed during Syria's two-year conflict, but the death toll is likely to be as high as 120,000, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Tuesday.
The group said that at least 41,000 of those confirmed killed were Alawites, the sect of President Bashar al-Assad.

[Vanoi]

Do the death tolls in Syria include soldiers?

[sumskilz]

At least 94,000 people have been killed during Syria's two-year conflict, but the death toll is likely to be as high as 120,000, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Tuesday.The group said that at least 41,000 of those confirmed killed were Alawites, the sect of President Bashar al-Assad.

This seems to highlight the sectarian aspect of the conflict. If we assume the vast majority of Alawites are pro-Assad, and that at least some non-Alawites stayed loyal to the army, then somewhere between 36% and 43% of the casualties (or more) have been pro-Assad.

[nhinhonhinho]

Still feel strange that NATO did not made a crusade again Syria yet! Are they out of breath in Afgha, Libya and Iraq?

[Elemental]

Still feel strange that NATO did not made a crusade again Syria yet! Are they out of breath in Afgha, Libya and Iraq?

Only because of Russia. Atleast some nation belive in national sovereignty. Still by condemming one side so harsh from very early on while supplying the other with arms, probably made this conflict to what it is today. The rebs probably grew in thr beginning with hopes off a nato bombardment.

[Treize]

The best majority of Syrian soldiers are sunni. Stop the sectarianism nonsense.