Syrian troops capture east Aleppo neighborhood from rebels

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Scott said:

Countries which operate under a dictatorship take a long time to establish what would be considered as a reasonable gov't structure.    There aren't a lot of people with opposing ideas in the wings to take power; they quickly get eliminated or imprisoned or flee the country.   In Iraq, Saddam would have been succeeded by his son(s), who were also eliminated.   In North Korea, eliminating Kim Jong Un, would result in a similar power vacuum.  

 

In countries with dictatorships, the structure and function is so concentrated on a very, very small group that the country is unable to cope with the removal.   It requires a lot of assistance from outside entities to help these countries move back to some sort of sustainable level of operation.  

 

There's a high degree of risk in these countries.  

 

 

Most modern day ME countries are artificial creations in the sense that there little by way of national identity or unity, and often incorporate antagonistic populations. This is compounded by neighboring countries sharing these characteristics and thus borders and spheres of influence coming into question. As far as I understand such divisions do not exist (or are at least not on the same level) with regard to North and South Korea. Perhaps more similarities with Germany there.

 

I think some of the post-dictatorship trouble ME countries face is related to attempts directed at keeping original frameworks (read territorial designations) in place. Harder to find viable strongman candidates who will not spell antagonism and confrontation from sizeable factions within their supposed "turf". Might be easier (not easy) to apply if territorial divisions were better conforming with demographics.

 

While it is true that dictators tend to exert tight control over the emergence of potential competitors and successors, it doesn't mean that there are no capable people around. It is a certainty that there are names floated in Moscow and Washington, both with regard to those acceptable to other parties and those deemed favorable to each side's interests.

[simple1]

19 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Sorry, I was just trying to say, that Saddam didn't support any Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

 

Whilst it is claimed Saddam did not support the likes of Al Qaeda, he did support other terrorist groups including Hamas, PKK and Palestinian organisations such as Abu Nidal.

 

Not surprising Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda as corrupt dictators such as him would likely have been on their hit list. if they thought they could have got access to him.

Edited December 6, 2016 by simple1

[Morch]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Very interesting article on BBC. Basically saying even if Syria retakes Allepo, Iraq retakes Mosul and the Kurds retake Raqqa, IS will not go away.  Assad is too weak and his army is in shambles. Same in Iraq.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38209766

 

Another interesting comment:

 

 

 

There was another article linked on the same page, which did a decent job of analyzing the Russian angle:

 

Syria war: How Moscow’s bombing campaign has paid off for Putin

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37507207

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There was another article linked on the same page, which did a decent job of analyzing the Russian angle:

 

Syria war: How Moscow’s bombing campaign has paid off for Putin

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37507207

This part was funny:

Quote

Russian information operations, which insist upon presenting their Syrian campaign as a struggle for civilisation against terrorism, may convince few but pro-Russian trolls.

And this:

Quote

But the overall level of casualties appears to have been limited, and news of combat deaths (like those among Russian forces in eastern Ukraine) is restricted - another reason why there has been no domestic backlash against the Syrian adventure.

 

Good article!

[Scott]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Most modern day ME countries are artificial creations in the sense that there little by way of national identity or unity, and often incorporate antagonistic populations. This is compounded by neighboring countries sharing these characteristics and thus borders and spheres of influence coming into question. As far as I understand such divisions do not exist (or are at least not on the same level) with regard to North and South Korea. Perhaps more similarities with Germany there.

 

I think some of the post-dictatorship trouble ME countries face is related to attempts directed at keeping original frameworks (read territorial designations) in place. Harder to find viable strongman candidates who will not spell antagonism and confrontation from sizeable factions within their supposed "turf". Might be easier (not easy) to apply if territorial divisions were better conforming with demographics.

 

While it is true that dictators tend to exert tight control over the emergence of potential competitors and successors, it doesn't mean that there are no capable people around. It is a certainty that there are names floated in Moscow and Washington, both with regard to those acceptable to other parties and those deemed favorable to each side's interests.

Many Western Countries, notably the USA, Canada and Australia, are also artificial constructs.   The Western democracies have had an active dialogue with opposition groups.   It's a strong and straightforward dialogue.   The goal is some type of unity and consensus.   Dictatorships do not have this and eliminate opposition.   When the opposition gets into power, they eliminate their opposition.   So there is little chance of inclusion.

 

 

[Morch]

18 hours ago, Scott said:

Many Western Countries, notably the USA, Canada and Australia, are also artificial constructs.   The Western democracies have had an active dialogue with opposition groups.   It's a strong and straightforward dialogue.   The goal is some type of unity and consensus.   Dictatorships do not have this and eliminate opposition.   When the opposition gets into power, they eliminate their opposition.   So there is little chance of inclusion.

 

 

 

Yes and no. The three examples mentioned did not exactly involve foreign powers arbitrarily creating national constructs consisting of the original local population. Additionally, these three countries had developed societies and systems of governance which rely on certain historical references and connections that do not exist with regard to the ME. 

 

Democracy, pluralism, inclusion and resolving differences through peaceful means are the products of certain conditions. Attempting to apply the former, in an of-the-shelf manner, to countries and circumstances which which do not experience the latter is possible - just that the prospect for similar results is questionable

 

This is why I'm not placing much belief or exhibiting hope in allusions to democracy when it comes to certain countries. Democracy did not happen overnight in the West, and it is fragile enough even so. Not a bad idea, perhaps, to include elements which could promote democracy over time, but while keeping expectations at a realistic level.