The Syrian Civil War Thread - part 2

[Thorn777]

So why is Turkey not on board ? Kind of odd.

They got the Russian bear breathing down their necks right behind them, who they normally have good relations with. Also this whole endevour already is hugely unpopular with the Turkish people despite all the propganda, specially among the Turkish Alevites and Kurds, who's population also live in close proximity to the Syrian border and can see with their own eyes what filth Errorgan supports.

[Aanker]

Turkey is one of the strongest opponents of Assad and has repeatedly voiced their support for action. I don't know what you are on about, to be frank. They, as most other sensible nations, want to stop Assad's rampant use of chemical weapons.

[Thorn777]

No sherlock. But going to war is another type of escalation, while again the whole endevour already being hugely unpopular in Turkey. And again, openly attacking Syria by convential means, means declaring war on Russian gadgets in Syrian possession. And also Russia drew "a red line" long ago on Syria, but the whole "rebels" proxywar scenario still left room to circumvent a scenario Russia wants as little as anyone else, with Turkey right on the Russian doorstep. USA can yap all it wants between its oceans and state of the arts bells and whistles, but Turkey is in the mids, also in the mids of its own millions strong Alevite and Kurdish populations.

Also, for goods sake drop your shameless bias on the chemical weapon use. But I know you like your mainline and hyper-capitalist biasses despite better knowledge as long as it suits your compulsive views.

[white-wolf]

Flash news: Old Syrian defence minister Ali Habib escaped to Turkey, according to reuters Kemal Lebvani from SNC informed so.

[Tureuki]

P.ssies showing themselves one by one after the news of possible military intervention

[Vanoi]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-wins-bac...044930185.html

Syria's biggest ally Russia says that if the chemical attacks are proven to be done by Assad, that they would more than willingly turn their backs on Assad and support action (no military intervention unless UN Security council gives the go) against him.

I find it odd Russia is saying this. It sounds as if they are unsure themselves on whenever Assad used chemical weapons or not. I mean they said at the beginning of this that Assad in no way used chemical weapons and and that the accusations against Assad are utter non-sense. They sounded so certain before.

However if Russia does keep its word and accepts US evidence for the attack, then a UN Security Council Resolution seems possible.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Russians may be counting on the Chinese for any diplomatic blocking.

[Durnaug]

There is more tangible evidence that the rebels are behind the latest attack and previous ones. Far more credible than our politicians and intelligence agencies saying "you will just have to take our word for it".

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witness...audis-supplied...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/357587

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/2...ia-propaganda-...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...w-hes-fighting...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/point-b...s-case-for-war...

[MasterOfNone]

My views on this, and many other wars in regard to the US and its involvement, are much summed up in this rather superb article I came across recently...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57563

[Thorn777]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-wins-bac...044930185.html

Syria's biggest ally Russia says that if the chemical attacks are proven to be done by Assad, that they would more than willingly turn their backs on Assad and support action (no military intervention unless UN Security council gives the go) against him.

I find it odd Russia is saying this. It sounds as if they are unsure themselves on whenever Assad used chemical weapons or not. I mean they said at the beginning of this that Assad in no way used chemical weapons and and that the accusations against Assad are utter non-sense. They sounded so certain before.

However if Russia does keep its word and accepts US evidence for the attack, then a UN Security Council Resolution seems possible.

I think its more that Putin knows there wont be conclusive evidence, and with this move places him in a better position while when even the US sais its conclusive evidence, Russia can still say its not, while now also being in the "humanitarian" camp.

[Wholly_Rufus]

Live Updates!

[Azog 150]

My question is why did the West start mouthing off about military intervention before they had established a proper dialogue with the other UNSC members? I know Russia has supported Assad and China has taken a neutral stance, but both these nations also have to uphold an international image and I'd imagine they would welcome the opportunity to appear to take a leading role in helping solve the crisis. As they are the main reason why the West has been unable to gain UN backing for actions against Assad, you would think they would be the first people the West would go to- but rather then establish a dialogue with them we point the finger.

[Sphere]

My question is why did the West start mouthing off about military intervention before they had established a proper dialogue with the other UNSC members? I know Russia has supported Assad and China has taken a neutral stance, but both these nations also have to uphold an international image and I'd imagine they would welcome the opportunity to appear to take a leading role in helping solve the crisis. As they are the main reason why the West has been unable to gain UN backing for actions against Assad, you would think they would be the first people the West would go to- but rather then establish a dialogue with them we point the finger.

In the past two years US/Britain/France have put forward three fairly tame resolutions on Syria and Russia has vetoed all three. The diplomatic well has been thoroughly poisoned.

I think Russian diplomats can clearly see that if they want a say in the current international response, they will have to come to the mountain because the mountain isn't coming to them.

[Aanker]

WARNING: reading the quoted segments below may or may not incur serious damage as a result of extremist-radical political opinions. Beware.

No sherlock.

Really.

But going to war is another type of escalation, while again the whole endevour already being hugely unpopular in Turkey.

Unfortunately, the elected officials of Turkey will be making these decisions. Part of the premise of a representational democracy is that the people entrusts a certain level of responsibility to a select number of officials, who will act in the interests of their country based on their knowledge and intuition. This is why the opinions of politicians may sometimes diverge from those of the average citizen; the politicians have one perspective (often a wider, more informed perspective - maybe supported by secret intelligence) whereas the people is often acting more based on emotion and first impressions. In hindsight, the people may or may not agree with the decisions taken, in which case the politicians may or may not be reelected.Turkey is not a direct democracy, like Switzerland.

And again, openly attacking Syria by convential means, means declaring war on Russian gadgets in Syrian possession. And also Russia drew "a red line" long ago on Syria, but the whole "rebels" proxywar scenario still left room to circumvent a scenario Russia wants as little as anyone else, with Turkey right on the Russian doorstep. USA can yap all it wants between its oceans and state of the arts bells and whistles, but Turkey is in the mids, also in the mids of its own millions strong Alevite and Kurdish populations.

Turkey would see more benefits in the form of regional influence if the rebels win, than they would take flak from Russia by supporting the rebels. What could Russia actually do against Turkey? Bleed on them? NATO would stand on the side of Turkey in the event of a Russian attack, and that scenario - to begin with - is so unrealistic that it is not even worth discussing.I dare say that, almost to the same degree as Iran, Turkey is a regional player. Moreso than Russia, in fact.

Also, for goods sake drop your shameless bias on the chemical weapon use.

There you have it folks, Thorn777 has called someone biased.There is a reason why you spend most of your time on my ignore list.

But I know you like your mainline and hyper-capitalist biasses despite better knowledge as long as it suits your compulsive views.

This statement is not interesting because being "hyper-capitalist" or "mainline" has any kind of relevance to the debate at hand (and really, being hyper-capitalist and mainline has no relevance to the debate), but because it is obvious that you have taken the stance that you have on the Syrian issue not because you actually believe in what you are saying, but because of some sort of blind ideological adherence most commonly seen amongst extremists and radicals. The support for military intervention comes from across the political spectrum (from Hollande in France, to McCain in the United States), it is not reserved for "hyper-capitalists" and "mainliners".But of course, anything that diverges from your opinion must belong to the "right": a villanous, evil, malicious, secretive world conspiracy intent on destroying the Working Man's hard-earned achievements.

[Kitsunegari]

Turkey is one of the strongest opponents of Assad and has repeatedly voiced their support for action.

EG:

Turkey, long hailed as one of America’s most important regional allies, has shifted from a vociferous advocate of intervention to an ambivalent player in the looming conflict as military action draws closer. This underscores the country’s domestic political constraints, as well as strains in the alliance between Washington and Ankara that have long been simmering just beneath the surface.

[Kitsunegari]

Dp :/

[Aanker]

Turkey's ambivalence goes hand in hand with Obama's decision to ask Congress for approval. The postponed military strike will leave more time for evidence to accumulate, and the UN to give the matter further consideration (even Russia has shifted in its position). But it will also diminish the credibility of the "West" in the eyes of the rebels, and - as we have seen - potentially turn away some initial participants. These may or may not return later.

[Tureuki]

They say extremists are not the majority among rebels, lets say they're not, whats gonna happen to that "minority" after Assad downs ? are they going to just drop their weapons and hug a new secular and democratic state ?

[Vanoi]

They say extremists are not the majority among rebels, lets say they're not, whats gonna happen to that "minority" after Assad downs ? are they going to just drop their weapons and hug a new secular and democratic state ?

I'm sure some will try and compromise with the other groups into forming a government (like in Libya) but in this situation i think some groups are going to fight among each other after Assad is taken out.

[Azog 150]

In the past two years US/Britain/France have put forward three fairly tame resolutions on Syria and Russia has vetoed all three. The diplomatic well has been thoroughly poisoned.

I think Russian diplomats can clearly see that if they want a say in the current international response, they will have to come to the mountain because the mountain isn't coming to them.

That's kind of my point. We put forward a resolution. We didn't get them involved in making such a resolution in the first place. It was a case of, "oh hey, here is a resolution against your ally. Yay or nay?"

If we publicly got Russia and China involved in the resolution making process we might have more success.