By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Syria, the outcome!

miz1q2w3e on 23 November 2011

Just stopping by to say that "outcome" is one word :)



Around the Network
miz1q2w3e on 23 November 2011
MDMAniac said:
Oh c'mon, just nuke them all already. America FUCK YEAH! Russia is so scared, their chief commy was broadcasted today shitting his pants xD



Lucas-Rio on 23 November 2011
Joelcool7 said:
Branko2166 said:
The best thing for the west is to stay out of Syria. Unfortunately they seem intent on trying to topple the Syrian government. What everyone needs to realise is that the picture being painted in the mainstream western media is fairly biased.

Syria's sin is that it is one of the links of opposition to Israel. Syria is very strategic because it is the bridge that connects Iran and Lebanon. The United states tried a couple of years back to convince Syria to cut its ties with Iran but Syria refused on the grounds that it wasn't in its national interest. For this reason there is a serious effort to arm and support an insurgency by the west as well as the gulf states which are desperate to reduce Iran's influence in the Middle East.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that any foreign intervention will lead to a massive region wide war. Syria has a mutual defense pact with Iran and they will not sit idly by while their main ally is taken out. No country in the vicinity can intervene either without suffering major consequences. I will do a quick rundown of countries and the risks involved.

Israel- Any military action by Israel will lead to a renewed conflict with Hezbollah as well as against Syria on the Golan front. Not to mention possible missile strikes from Iran.

Turkey- Iran and Syria would start to actively support the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey.

Lebanon- Is a non factor against Syria because Hezbollah effectively controls the country and they are Syria's allies.

Gulf States- Will suffer greatly when Iran closes off the strait of Hormuz. This coincidentally will also be a huge shock on the world economy as exports of oil from the region grind to a halt.

Russia- Already has a naval base at the port of Tartus in Syria. Syria happens to have a strong relationship with Russia and this was made more obvious when Russia used its veto power at the UN in support of Syria. It is safe to assume that in the event of intervention Russia will provide all the weaponry Syria needs and may play a role in preventing a naval blockade of Syria. I don't have to get into detail about what would result if any country attacked the Russian fleet at Tartus.

This is just a brief summary of the situation and a reason why I don't believe there will be intervention unless the countries involved are prepared for a massive regional war.

Also on a side-note while I concede that the government in Syria has many flaws I also think it is a great model for other countries in the region. Syria is one of the most diverse and tolerant countries in the middle east. Though Sunni muslims are the majority there are over 2 million Christians and close to 3 million Alawites as well as many Kurds. I fear that if the current government collapses the minorities in Syria will suffer greatly.

It is well documented that Syria became a safe haven for thousands of fleeing Christians from Iraq and I fear that a war will lead to more persecution. The best course of action I believe is to leave Syria to the Syrians and allow them to work their own problems out. Intervention will only lead to the deaths of thousands and the possible displacement of millions of people.

Your sort of missing the point. A huge war in the region is inevitable and its going to happen sooner or later. Within the next ten years at longest. Israel is going to have its hand forced if Iran continues to pursue nukes, Israel has been talking a while that they will have to strike the nuclear facilities in Iran if Iran appears to be getting close to getting Nuclear weapons.

So Israel is already gearing up for this regional war. Statements from military say Israel is prepared for an air war with Iran, a ground incursion into Gaza and if necessary an incursion into Lebanon if Hezbollah attacks. Israel appears prepared for another huge war in the region and have realized that it is likely necessary.

Turkey is not stupid, they know that Iran is a huge threat to the regions stability. They know together Syria and Iran could try to take over the whole region. This threatens Turkey's influence and the last thing they want is a huge war to occur without their prior knowledge. Turkey knows they have to be a major player. Turkey also knows what is at stake and they don't want Iran getting nukes either.

Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia has long been concerned with Iran's power and influence and Saudi Arabia has publicly talked about the fact that Iran needs to be dealt with. I doubt Saudi Arabia will be too concerned to see Iran fall fighting alongside Syria. Saudi Arabia wants to be one of the more influential countries in the Middle East and they don't want Iran exerting any more authority.

The rest of the Arab states, most of them feel threatened by Iran and given the chance to off Syria and Iran they would definitely bite at the opportunity. With an Israeli , Iranian conflict inevitable an intervention into Syria would see the end of the threat to the region. Sure Israel would still exist but the gulf states and the other middle eastern countries would no longer have to fear Iran or Syria.

Iran will be crippled by Israel's over whelming air power, a ground incursion is far less likely. But the air campaign should destroy the Iranian Air Force, the missile defence network and cripple the nuclear facilities. With Syria also out of the picture Iran will no longer pose a threat to regional stability.

 

Lastly the guy who mentioned Gaddafi's army was only 10,000 reservists. That's not what the stats say. I read 50,000 in the army (Volunteers 25k and reservists 25k) an Air Force of 21,000 personal and Navy 8,000.Include the feared Pan-African Union (Mercenary force which Gaddafi hired to help him control the country) they number around 7,000.

That may not be 200,000 like Syria but it was definitely a big enough force to control Libya. Also those who say Libyan forces would have crushed the rebellion if Nato didn't intervene. Well thats not entirely true, Gaddafi's forces were posed to enter Benghazi but their entrance would have been a slaughter. The city wouldn't have fallen over night and Libya's Air Force wasn't capable of destroying the armor and weapons in the city. It would have been a blood bath and the fighting would have continued for months much like how with over whelming force Gaddafi's troops couldn't take Misrata. Then you must also look west where the rebelion was growing, yah Gaddafi had cleared Zawiya but they would have had a very tough time clearing the mountains.

Not to mention a lot of Gaddafi's forces were secretly waiting for their chance to turn. The rebellion would have eventually led to more desertions The civil war would have likely lasted 5-10 years but Gaddafi would have been toppled in the end. Though users are right and Syria has far more sophisticated weapons, but if they face deserters on the scale of Libya and stiff enough protests even those weapons will not spare them. Its very hard for a Government to stay in power when the people have decided its over.


Libya's armed forces were a joke, really. The army was super weak and underequiped. The big majority of the army deserted the first week, not to the opposition but just ran away. They never won a war and in fact lost withs tanks a war against Tchad who only had technicals.

Gaddafi relied more on the "elite units" of his sons than on his weak army. But even with that, they were very very weak.

And in spite of that the opposition was losing all the battles before NATO came in. Misrata only resisted because of NATO. Before that, Gaddafi forces had pushed so deep in the city that its control was only a matter of time. Gaddafi had the war won before NATO came in.

Syria has a much much stronger army, and the profesionnal soldiers are also super loyal to Assad clan. NATO won't came. I don't see the opposition having a chance to even control a part of Syria.

 

As for Israel air power, it couldn't even destroy Hezbollah, it won't beat Iran. Israel was the main militaru power of the region but the gap has decreased by a lot. Arabs countries have still a weak army but Iran has developped itself too much for Israel.



Joelcool7 on 23 November 2011
Lucas-Rio said:


Libya's armed forces were a joke, really. The army was super weak and underequiped. The big majority of the army deserted the first week, not to the opposition but just ran away. They never won a war and in fact lost withs tanks a war against Tchad who only had technicals.

Gaddafi relied more on the "elite units" of his sons than on his weak army. But even with that, they were very very weak.

And in spite of that the opposition was losing all the battles before NATO came in. Misrata only resisted because of NATO. Before that, Gaddafi forces had pushed so deep in the city that its control was only a matter of time. Gaddafi had the war won before NATO came in.

Syria has a much much stronger army, and the profesionnal soldiers are also super loyal to Assad clan. NATO won't came. I don't see the opposition having a chance to even control a part of Syria.

 

As for Israel air power, it couldn't even destroy Hezbollah, it won't beat Iran. Israel was the main militaru power of the region but the gap has decreased by a lot. Arabs countries have still a weak army but Iran has developped itself too much for Israel.


I'm not sure how much of Gaddafi's army deserted. To my knowledge Gaddafi put out a kill order on anyone who fled or deserted and many were slaughtered, the rest either stayed with the army till the rebels were taking over or defected. The Gaddafi army was always kept weaker then Gaddafi's elite forces because Gaddafi always feared that his army would attempt a coup and he wanted to be able to resist and remain in power. It was a safe guard a fail safe so to speak.

Also yes the Government had almost taken Misrata and they were moving on Benghazi. But even if they took those two cities the rebellion would not have stopped. It was spreading across the country, Gaddafi would then have to squash it in the mountains in the west as well as the other towns and cities in the east. Gaddafi's forces could have put up a fight and kept Gaddafi in power for up to say 10 years of a bloody insurgency. But eventually Gaddafi would be toppled.

Syria is different. 40% of the country according to BBC are still in full support of Assad, couple that with his 200k troops and you've got a force capable of fighting a 20 year war. But Assad won't be in power at the end of the war if not from natural death he will eventually be brought down. Regardless of intervention.

Also unlike Libya Syria can't crush the opposition forces by invading a couple cities and crushing them. Syrian rebels are everywhere they aren't concentrated in easily defeated targets. Syria's forces across the country will have to be fighting constantly their is no safe place for them to regroup re-arm and concentrate their fire. Libya's rebels were not a constant presence in Tripoli, most armed rebels fled to Benghazi and other Misrata and such. They secured cities, in doing so they made it easy for Nato to provide support but if Nato hadn't come it would have been far easier for Gaddafi to put them down.

Syria is not in that position. They are in for a very long insurgency or civil war. They cut down one leader another will replace him take one base a new one will pop up somewhere else. The rebelion is beyond containment unlike it was in Libya, also unlike Libya due to this lack of confinement Syria can't turn say the capital on another city. Because the fighting will go on in the capital Syrian forces will continue to inflict casualties on the population. Hatred will grow and the rebellion will grow all efforts to contain it will only slow down Assads eventual demise.

Syria is likely to turn into a new Afghanistan or Iraq. They will never be at peace until Assad is gone if after is even possible. Assad will be constantly fighting insurgent groups to maintain power. The country will not see peace for a very long time unless foreign intervention is executed.

Rebelion is like a cancer, you can try to cut out the infected tissue (put down the rebellion) that might work for a little while but pretty soon the cancer is back. You repeat the process to give yourself a little longer, then you turn to Kemo to kill the cancer but even if Keno works the cancer will likely return in a few months/years to kick your ass.

The only way for Syria to avoid a huge insurgency/civil war is for Assad to step down. If Assad does not step down peacefully then he will eventually be brought down, by the time he is Syria will lay in ruin.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

huaxiong90 on 23 November 2011

My brain is seriously hurting from reading the comments here...I don't want to sound like some arrogant asshole, nor do I mean to attack anyone, but seriously guys...



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Around the Network
Robbie2010 on 24 November 2011

UNESCO’s executive board, which includes the US, France, the UK and other Western democracies, unanimously elected Syria to a pair of committees – one dealing directly with human rights issues.....

WTF???

http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/11/unesco-director-slams-syrias.html



Lucas-Rio on 24 November 2011
Joelcool7 said:
Lucas-Rio said:
 


Libya's armed forces were a joke, really. The army was super weak and underequiped. The big majority of the army deserted the first week, not to the opposition but just ran away. They never won a war and in fact lost withs tanks a war against Tchad who only had technicals.

Gaddafi relied more on the "elite units" of his sons than on his weak army. But even with that, they were very very weak.

And in spite of that the opposition was losing all the battles before NATO came in. Misrata only resisted because of NATO. Before that, Gaddafi forces had pushed so deep in the city that its control was only a matter of time. Gaddafi had the war won before NATO came in.

Syria has a much much stronger army, and the profesionnal soldiers are also super loyal to Assad clan. NATO won't came. I don't see the opposition having a chance to even control a part of Syria.

 

As for Israel air power, it couldn't even destroy Hezbollah, it won't beat Iran. Israel was the main militaru power of the region but the gap has decreased by a lot. Arabs countries have still a weak army but Iran has developped itself too much for Israel.


I'm not sure how much of Gaddafi's army deserted. To my knowledge Gaddafi put out a kill order on anyone who fled or deserted and many were slaughtered, the rest either stayed with the army till the rebels were taking over or defected. The Gaddafi army was always kept weaker then Gaddafi's elite forces because Gaddafi always feared that his army would attempt a coup and he wanted to be able to resist and remain in power. It was a safe guard a fail safe so to speak.

Also yes the Government had almost taken Misrata and they were moving on Benghazi. But even if they took those two cities the rebellion would not have stopped. It was spreading across the country, Gaddafi would then have to squash it in the mountains in the west as well as the other towns and cities in the east. Gaddafi's forces could have put up a fight and kept Gaddafi in power for up to say 10 years of a bloody insurgency. But eventually Gaddafi would be toppled.

Syria is different. 40% of the country according to BBC are still in full support of Assad, couple that with his 200k troops and you've got a force capable of fighting a 20 year war. But Assad won't be in power at the end of the war if not from natural death he will eventually be brought down. Regardless of intervention.

Also unlike Libya Syria can't crush the opposition forces by invading a couple cities and crushing them. Syrian rebels are everywhere they aren't concentrated in easily defeated targets. Syria's forces across the country will have to be fighting constantly their is no safe place for them to regroup re-arm and concentrate their fire. Libya's rebels were not a constant presence in Tripoli, most armed rebels fled to Benghazi and other Misrata and such. They secured cities, in doing so they made it easy for Nato to provide support but if Nato hadn't come it would have been far easier for Gaddafi to put them down.

Syria is not in that position. They are in for a very long insurgency or civil war. They cut down one leader another will replace him take one base a new one will pop up somewhere else. The rebelion is beyond containment unlike it was in Libya, also unlike Libya due to this lack of confinement Syria can't turn say the capital on another city. Because the fighting will go on in the capital Syrian forces will continue to inflict casualties on the population. Hatred will grow and the rebellion will grow all efforts to contain it will only slow down Assads eventual demise.

Syria is likely to turn into a new Afghanistan or Iraq. They will never be at peace until Assad is gone if after is even possible. Assad will be constantly fighting insurgent groups to maintain power. The country will not see peace for a very long time unless foreign intervention is executed.

Rebelion is like a cancer, you can try to cut out the infected tissue (put down the rebellion) that might work for a little while but pretty soon the cancer is back. You repeat the process to give yourself a little longer, then you turn to Kemo to kill the cancer but even if Keno works the cancer will likely return in a few months/years to kick your ass.

The only way for Syria to avoid a huge insurgency/civil war is for Assad to step down. If Assad does not step down peacefully then he will eventually be brought down, by the time he is Syria will lay in ruin.

I think you are giving the syrian guerilla too much importance. For the moment, they seem very limited. Protests almost does not happen anymore, the biggest crowds in the streets are in fact pro Assad. There is now a guerilla with some defectors led  by a guy hiding in a camp in Turkey and some armed militias against the regime.

In the past there was also a guerilla against the father of Bashar, with years of assassinations against Alawites. The guerilla was finally crushed in Hama and did not appear again. Rebellions are more often crushed than successfull and I don't see at all of this limited rebellion can down such a strong regime without an foreign military action.



Joelcool7 on 24 November 2011
Lucas-Rio said:

I think you are giving the syrian guerilla too much importance. For the moment, they seem very limited. Protests almost does not happen anymore, the biggest crowds in the streets are in fact pro Assad. There is now a guerilla with some defectors led  by a guy hiding in a camp in Turkey and some armed militias against the regime.

In the past there was also a guerilla against the father of Bashar, with years of assassinations against Alawites. The guerilla was finally crushed in Hama and did not appear again. Rebellions are more often crushed than successfull and I don't see at all of this limited rebellion can down such a strong regime without an foreign military action.


I dunno, maybe I am giving too much credit to Syria's Guerrillas. It also depends on whether I have accurate facts I am going off of what BBC reported and other organizations have said. Which put the dedicated Government support at around 40% or slightly more. If Assad only has 40% of his peoples support and this guerrilla group gains the support of the other 60% then Assad is in major major trouble.

See the problem with cracking down this severely with weapons and slaughtering opposition. You risk degrading your support, its been mentioned he has a very loyal army. But when you start telling your troops to kill unarmed civilians some will defect or desert. Once you order your troops to kill the deserters and defectors you risk further defections and desertions. Those soldiers you called loyal may not end up being as loyal as you think. Those who don't defect aren't necessarily loyal either, they simply fear being shot but if you push them to hard and they get a chance to betray you and be free of your control they will likely defect as well.

Not entirely sure about this, this depends on what you consider successful. Many rebellions get put down but start up shortly after, they aren't really dead. Say Syria actually puts down the rebellion entirely, five years from now rebels will start up again. You can only hold off rebellion you can buy time and keep it at bay. But if the people decide your time is up, its only a matter of time before your time is actually up.

You can't fight your people it may work for a while. You might actually die of natural causes but your people will eventually over throw your Government likely within 50-100 years at maximum. Unfortunately for Assad as long as this rebel group has any military capabilities it will continue to spawn revolution. Assad as long as he hits back with huge military violence attacking the peaceful protestors, he will only increase the power of the rebellion.

I think the US's new policy win over the hearts and minds is now more important in war fare then defeating your enemy militarily. If Assad loses the hearts and minds of his people no amount of military power can protect him. Even if Russia sent their whole army to support Syria's if 90% or higher of the people of Syria turn on the Government then the war will be lost. Just look at America's inability to win Afghanistan they don't have the hearts and minds they don't have the complete support of the Government. If the US couldn't win Afghanistan, Russia couldn't win Afghanistan, Ethiopia couldn't liberate Somalia.

If the people of the country are against you, it doesn't matter who is for you.

Then again you seem to paint a different picture arguing that not as many protestors are actually out there. The Government has more support then we are hearing. If that's the case it could be different but I'm not inside Syria and what I see coming out doesn't suggest that the protests are going away.

Keep in mind protests in Tripoli were almost non existent after the crack down as well. There were tens of thousands of supporters for Gaddafi in the streets. That really didn't mean squat, those supporters disappeared pretty quickly when Tripoli was taken. Also Libya's Government tried to spin the news but they couldn't control all the media in Libya, reporters reported from Benghazi and else where, the Government couldn't spin or control the media. In Syria however the Government is in complete control and they aren't letting much media in to cover the events. Its hard to know just how much of Syria's statements are PR stunts or legit.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer