UN warns Aleppo risks becoming a ‘graveyard’

[thaibeachlovers]

The only thing clear to me about this fiasco, is that anyone trying to get the west involved militarily should be shown the door by any right thinking person.

There are going to be no winners whatever the result of the war.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'll take a few jailed and tortured/killed political dissidents over hundreds of thousands of maimed and killed innocents any day.

 

You're arguing for making the perfect the enemy of the good.

One person's dissident is another's freedom fighter.  From what I've read, many were in jail just for talking out against Assad.  Zero freedom of speech in Syria.  One reason for the outbreak of the civil war.  Assad pushed things too far.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'll take a few jailed and tortured/killed political dissidents over hundreds of thousands of maimed and killed innocents any day.

 

You're arguing for making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

Unsure of your definition of a 'few', but thousands of dissidents  were murdered and tortured in Assad's jails prior to the civil war, including children. Since the civil war the toll is now in the tens of thousands tortured and murdered in his jails.  I suggest the affected families will never forgive the regime especially taking account the culture of blood feuds. How do you think Assad will ever deliver unification of the Syrian people?

[Morch]

8 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

I acknowledge that Asaad's brutal crackdown on the protesters was a factor in starting the war.  I wonder what instigated the protesters and whether they would have remained peaceful when Asaad didn't step down.  There are obviously complicated proxy fights going on but I think that it was clear to the Syrians that the alternative to Asaad would not have been a secular, democratic regime.  It probably would have been a strict, Sunni-dominated Islamic regime with dire consequences for the Alawites, Christians and other non-Sunni groups.  The Western press laments the destruction and death in Eastern Aleppo on a daily basis.  There seems to be no speculation as to the consequences if the Asaad regime loses the fight and no reporting of the suffering on the othe side.  The bias is glaring and the reporting is superficial.  As it has been noted, the rebels and civilians are not going to walk away from the fight, so Assad and the Russians will have no alternative but to destroy them completely.  Somehow, the Condoleezza Rice objective of creating democratic countries in the Middle East seems still to be operative and underlying the Western approach and propaganda.  It didn't and doesn't seem to be achievable.  Given the tribal nature of politics and power in the Middle East, it wasn't a rational objective to begin with.  Possibly with Mr. Trump as president we will see a much better organized campaign to destroy ISIS and put their backers in their place.

 

Agreed that anarchy, or rule by extreme Islamist organizations cannot be said to be a positive outcome - neither from the locals point of view, or that of most foreign parties involved. The trouble with the postulated alternative is that it is all too often fixated on Assad's own political survival, as well as on retaining Syria's territorial integrity. Both these issues present significant hurdles to any future arrangement and yet both aren't a must, or even desirable.

 

By this stage, it is hard to see how Assad can regain any semblance of legitimacy (mind, that's not the same as submission). Rather, his presence is all too likely to serve as a rallying cause for future insurgency and disquiet. Shouldn't be too hard finding an alternative strongman (the outward veneer of democracy is less of an immediate concern, or even hope) with less antagonistic reactions. With regard to Syria's territorial integrity - and especially with reference to the Kurds: harder to reach an understanding on that one, what with added Iraqi and Turkish objections, but perhaps not entirely impossible if a US/Russia can cut a deal. Less optimistic on this one, though.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Another foreign policy fiasco that can be laid at the feet of the Obama-Hillary administration. 

 

It's pretty much a long standing US foreign policy, not specifically an Obama-Clinton administration thing.

Doesn't make it any more successful or anything, though. Just not quite as partisan as some points of view on this topic.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Assad is the President of Syria and fighting a civil war to keep his country together...would you have labeled Lincoln as part of the problem for fighting to keep the United States together?

 

If it wasn't for Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians, you'd have in the heart of the Middle East another complete fiasco like we see in Libya.

 

Far as I recall Lincoln did not have a previous record of ruling as dictator while applying brutal means to repress his people.

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I agree...it's a right-royal mess, with unclean hands all around. My opinion, and that's all it us, is that the people of Syria were better off before the revolt by some elements of Syrian society against the Assad dictatorship than they are now.

 

Sometimes change for change's sake is not always better...especially when lives are at stake.

 

 

 

Sometimes change for change's sake is not always better

 

Curiously, the opposite view was often argued with regard to the latest US presidential elections. In retrospect, it could even be said to be one of the underlying reasons for how things turned out. As to how this is relevant to the topic, refer to your following post:

 

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I'll take a few jailed and tortured/killed political dissidents over hundreds of thousands of maimed and killed innocents any day.

 

You're arguing for making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

That would be an outsider's point of view, disengaged from local sentiment and perhaps seeing a larger picture. While it may be a correct, reasonable take on the situation - that's does not necessarily conform to local views.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The Syrian debacle is not due to Obama/Hillary nor US foreign policy.  It's the direct result of a brutal dictator who's treated his people poorly for a long time, and his father before.  Blame lies with the head of state.  Which is Assad.  He's the flash point.  Though US foreign policy sure didn't help things.  Nor did the interference from Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....it's a huge mess with no easy answers.

 

With respect.

 

I wouldn't play down too much the accountability of US foreign policy debacles as contributing to the creation of this mess. Granted that there usually needs to be some actual incentive for people to take up arms against the government, and that Assad's regime supplied this in abundance. 

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

One person's dissident is another's freedom fighter.  From what I've read, many were in jail just for talking out against Assad.  Zero freedom of speech in Syria.  One reason for the outbreak of the civil war.  Assad pushed things too far.

I agree with you that the Assad clan are murderous psychopaths, on par with the Saddams and Kims of the world. The question is is it better to have them in charge and keeping the many ethenicities and religious tensions in the country in check and living in relative peace (of course without Western notions of political rights) or to encourage elements of the population to blow-off the lid and see what happens. I'm making the argument that, at the present time, it's better to go with the former. 

[OMGImInPattaya]

51 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Unsure of your definition of a 'few', but thousands of dissidents  were murdered and tortured in Assad's jails prior to the civil war, including children. Since the civil war the toll is now in the tens of thousands tortured and murdered in his jails.  I suggest the affected families will never forgive the regime especially taking account the culture of blood feuds. How do you think Assad will ever deliver unification of the Syrian people?

Yes thousands tortured/murdered for political activity, which they voluntarily undertook knowing the likely consequences.

 

Now, due to outside meddling (from many countries) and Obama/Hillary support for "regime change," but little actual help, we have almost half-million dead/injured people and millions of refugees. I stand by my argument that the Obama administration policy was/is wrong and the people of Syria have suffered mightly from it.

[OMGImInPattaya]

47 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Far as I recall Lincoln did not have a previous record of ruling as dictator while applying brutal means to repress his people.

 

 

But that's not the question nor a choice the people of Syria have at the moment is it.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

But that's not the question nor a choice the people of Syria have at the moment is it.

 

Yet that's the example you used as an argument. What was your point, then?

[OMGImInPattaya]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yet that's the example you used as an argument. What was your point, then?

The point should be obvious...the number one task of any leader is to protect the unity of the nation by all means necessary...Lincoln did it by engaging in a brutal civil was that left over half-a-million of his countrymen dead (still the highest of any US war)...and when Assad was confronted with a similar situation he took the same course.  Lincoln is lauded...Assad is damned...the point is that just about any national leader in this situation will choose this course.

Edited December 3, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The point should be obvious...the number one task of any leader is to protect the unity of the nation by all means necessary...Lincoln did it by engaging in a brutal civil was that left over half-a-million of his countrymen dead (still the highest of any US war)...and when Assad was confronted with a similar situation he took the same course.

 

Many will agree that Syria is an artificial construct, and that national sentiment is not necessarily an integral part of the way ME societies define themselves. To an extent, this is something projected on the ME by earlier Western influence.

 

And as pointed out before, drawing parallels between Assad and Lincoln is absurd considering Assad's history. His main consideration is not necessarily the preservation of the country for the benefit of the people, but first and foremost for his own gain and survival. 

 

It is not a "similar" situation, nor the "same" course.

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I agree with you that the Assad clan are murderous psychopaths, on par with the Saddams and Kims of the world. The question is is it better to have them in charge and keeping the many ethenicities and religious tensions in the country in check and living in relative peace (of course without Western notions of political rights) or to encourage elements of the population to blow-off the lid and see what happens. I'm making the argument that, at the present time, it's better to go with the former. 

Danged if you do, danged if you don't!  Almost seems to be a no win situation.  But you are right, it was much better before this war started.  Unfortunately, Assad's actions are what caused the war.  Mind numbing. LOL

[ddavidovsky]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Danged if you do, danged if you don't!  Almost seems to be a no win situation.  But you are right, it was much better before this war started.  Unfortunately, Assad's actions are what caused the war.  Mind numbing. LOL

 

Why assume Assad is reasonless evil? Fact is, he is just defending himself and his own people from hostile sectarian forces  who are trying to eradicate him and the society he had set up and in which a large proportion of the country people were living prosperously. He wants security, and the rebels where threatening to overturn all that. When people are threatened, they fight back. What's not to understand?
 

I judge groups according to their ability to organise themselves. The Alawites may not be the outright majority in 'Syria' but they  clearly have the superior capacity for social organisation, and therefore are the best prospect for running the country. 

[simple1]

43 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Why assume Assad is reasonless evil? Fact is, he is just defending himself and his own people from hostile sectarian forces  who are trying to eradicate him and the society he had set up and in which a large proportion of the country people were living prosperously. He wants security, and the rebels where threatening to overturn all that. When people are threatened, they fight back. What's not to understand?
 

I judge groups according to their ability to organise themselves. The Alawites may not be the outright majority in 'Syria' but they  clearly have the superior capacity for social organisation, and therefore are the best prospect for running the country. 

 

Alawites represent approx 12% of the population, along with Christians, other minorities and some Sunnis, around 25% of the population work with the dictatorship. When the French controlled Syria, the wealthy Sunni elite made the grave mistake of looking down on military service so eventually the Alawites gained control of the military, the rest is history. Ain't particularly surprising they are able to as you put it, 'organise' themselves with their decades long violent suppression of any protests and associated extreme methods including torture of children.

 

For those interested in the depth of the current conflict complexities it is well worth researching the latest article by David Kulcullen in 'The Australian' newspaper.

Edited December 3, 2016 by simple1

[craigt3365]

47 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Why assume Assad is reasonless evil? Fact is, he is just defending himself and his own people from hostile sectarian forces  who are trying to eradicate him and the society he had set up and in which a large proportion of the country people were living prosperously. He wants security, and the rebels where threatening to overturn all that. When people are threatened, they fight back. What's not to understand?
 

I judge groups according to their ability to organise themselves. The Alawites may not be the outright majority in 'Syria' but they  clearly have the superior capacity for social organisation, and therefore are the best prospect for running the country. 

You are aware of how many people he is responsible for killing?  He is the president and in charge of the government.  Under his watch, many hundreds of thousands of people have died.  That's on him.  He's the president.  If the people are against him, then step down. 

 

I judge groups on their track record for human rights.  And under his watch, they weren't good.  Can not argue with that.  If they were so good for the country, they wouldn't be in this mess.  Right?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You are aware of how many people he is responsible for killing?  He is the president and in charge of the government.  Under his watch, many hundreds of thousands of people have died.  That's on him.  He's the president.  If the people are against him, then step down. 

 

I judge groups on their track record for human rights.  And under his watch, they weren't good.  Can not argue with that.  If they were so good for the country, they wouldn't be in this mess.  Right?

Regardless of what he did, I don't want to see the west getting involved in this. So far they have resisted, but if the wailing gets louder in the UN, who knows?

The rebels hate us and everything about our way of life.

Hopefully the powers that be haven't forgotten how the Taliban came about and what that led to.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Regardless of what he did, I don't want to see the west getting involved in this. So far they have resisted, but if the wailing gets louder in the UN, who knows?

The rebels hate us and everything about our way of life.

Hopefully the powers that be haven't forgotten how the Taliban came about and what that led to.

 

I would recommend you Google the article I referred to above. There is a great deal of lack of understanding concerning the various 'rebel' groups fighting in Syria, not all are anti Western, especially the Kurds

[DogNo1]

Craigt3365, that's an interesting quote but is hardly a one- line explanation for the creation of ISIS.  The writer lays blame on the post colonial elites for not creating genuine democratic societies with a sense of national unity.  Would that have been possible- getting various tribes to unite for the common good?  I recently heard a talk by a Mr. Murphy, an old veteran foreign service officer who personally knew the elder Asaad, Menachem Begin, the King of Jordan, Col. Nasser and other important figures from the 40's through the 60's.  Things really were very tribal and quite fragmented in those days,  not to mention the Israeli terrorists who successfully unbalanced the British Palestine Mandate's effort to keep a manageable proportion of Jews to Palestinians.  I don't think that we can lay the responsibility for all of the chaos in the Middle East at the feet of the post-colonialists who is us, I guess.  There is plenty of fault to go around but I rather liked Joe Biden's  proposal to divide Iraq into three states.  Unfortunately, that goes against the American imperial mission of creating secular, multi- ethnic and democratic societies.  We are going to save the world from itself no matter the cost in blood and treasure.  Fortunately, I think that Mr, Trump and General Mattis will formulate expedient and pragmatic plans for taking care of ISIS.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Regardless of what he did, I don't want to see the west getting involved in this. So far they have resisted, but if the wailing gets louder in the UN, who knows?

The rebels hate us and everything about our way of life.

Hopefully the powers that be haven't forgotten how the Taliban came about and what that led to.

The west is already deeply involved.  The refugee crisis is a huge problem for Europe and neighboring countries.  This nonsense needs to stop.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

Craigt3365, that's an interesting quote but is hardly a one- line explanation for the creation of ISIS.  The writer lays blame on the post colonial elites for not creating genuine democratic societies with a sense of national unity.  Would that have been possible- getting various tribes to unite for the common good?  I recently heard a talk by a Mr. Murphy, an old veteran foreign service officer who personally knew the elder Asaad, Menachem Begin, the King of Jordan, Col. Nasser and other important figures from the 40's through the 60's.  Things really were very tribal and quite fragmented in those days,  not to mention the Israeli terrorists who successfully unbalanced the British Palestine Mandate's effort to keep a manageable proportion of Jews to Palestinians.  I don't think that we can lay the responsibility for all of the chaos in the Middle East at the feet of the post-colonialists who is us, I guess.  There is plenty of fault to go around but I rather liked Joe Biden's  proposal to divide Iraq into three states.  Unfortunately, that goes against the American imperial mission of creating secular, multi- ethnic and democratic societies.  We are going to save the world from itself no matter the cost in blood and treasure.  Fortunately, I think that Mr, Trump and General Mattis will formulate expedient and pragmatic plans for taking care of ISIS.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

Agreed it's not all the fault of post colonial elites, but when lines in the sand were drawn and countries created, problems did arise.  Mainly, as you say, due to tribal issues.  The same issues creating problems today. 

 

As that one line quote said, it's also the fault of the current leaders in the ME.  And now, there's a huge problem with the Saudi Arabia/Iran divide.  #1 problem in the ME now, IMHO.

 

Worth a read if you have the time:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war

 

Quote

 

The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's tearing apart the Middle East, explained

The supposedly ancient Sunni-Shia divide is in fact very modern — and it's not really about religion.

 

 

[NumbNut]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed it's not all the fault of post colonial elites, but when lines in the sand were drawn and countries created, problems did arise.  Mainly, as you say, due to tribal issues.  The same issues creating problems today. 

 

As that one line quote said, it's also the fault of the current leaders in the ME.  And now, there's a huge problem with the Saudi Arabia/Iran divide.  #1 problem in the ME now, IMHO.

 

Worth a read if you have the time:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war

 

 

 

Vox is an excellent webpage, that's a great link Craig, thanks for that. You're an astute judge mate, and not just in relation to the Middle East. Our personal politics may differ but I think our analysis and respect for both the facts and history of the area are similar.

 

I read your posts with interest, don't stop posting mate!

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Vox is an excellent webpage, that's a great link Craig, thanks for that. You're an astute judge mate, and not just in relation to the Middle East. Our personal politics may differ but I think our analysis and respect for both the facts and history of the area are similar.

 

I read your posts with interest, don't stop posting mate!

LOL Not sure about astute.  But I am a bit of a news junkie, gives me something to do, in between my travels.  And like events to be portrayed properly.  There are soooo many fake news sites out there now.  It's hard to figure out what's true and what's not.

 

We use to have several members constantly quoting Zerohedge.  Then they got busted for publishing fake news just to make money, and the posts stopped. LOL.  Sadly, many more like that are out there.  Click bait.

 

I do think Vox is pretty good.  If you find more, let us know!

[NumbNut]

^ 

Yeah, fake news sites are the bane of the interwebz. I had high hopes in the early days of the internet. I though the advent of a truly open multimedia platform available to most of the world's population would mean an end to the majority of BS spewing from  partisan angles, both left and right wing... just how wrong was I? BS is the new medium eh, it certainly seems that way. I wish some of our esteemed fellow TVF members would refrain from posting such openly biased links, especially when their bona fides can be established with a few clicks of your own. I don't understand why some TVF folks are quite happy to appear as idiots for everyone else on here who possesses a critical mind...  I don't understand that mindset.

 

I wish the Kurds had been invited to attend the Versailles Treaty post WWI and been allowed to put forward their case... A stunning oversight that the largest ethnic group in the Middle East was unrepresented! Especially when the Ottoman Empire had been dissolved following WWI, a blank slate really that could have been rewritten to benefit the vast majority of the local inhabitants. It may have addressed Kurdish grievances enough to give them faith in the political process maybe.

 

A massive opportunity was wasted there. But with Britain and France being then so imperially minded, it's pie in the sky to believe they'd agree to anything that didn't benefit themselves following WWI. Being bankrupted also wouldn't have helped the situation I supposed.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

I would recommend you Google the article I referred to above. There is a great deal of lack of understanding concerning the various 'rebel' groups fighting in Syria, not all are anti Western, especially the Kurds

I am well aware of the Kurds and I would like to see the US man up and openly ally with them, including giving them all the weapons they need.

However, I know that the US can't do that because of Turkey. I also believe that if the Kurds win too much the Turks will crush them.

It says much as to this conflict that the west can't trust any of the rebels ( except the Kurds ), but won't help the Kurds because of a country fast becoming an Islamic theocracy.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, NumbNut said:

^ 

Yeah, fake news sites are the bane of the interwebz. I had high hopes in the early days of the internet. I though the advent of a truly open multimedia platform available to most of the world's population would mean an end to the majority of BS spewing from  partisan angles, both left and right wing... just how wrong was I? BS is the new medium eh, it certainly seems that way. I wish some of our esteemed fellow TVF members would refrain from posting such openly biased links, especially when their bona fides can be established with a few clicks of your own. I don't understand why some TVF folks are quite happy to appear as idiots for everyone else on here who possesses a critical mind...  I don't understand that mindset.

 

I wish the Kurds had been invited to attend the Versailles Treaty post WWI and been allowed to put forward their case... A stunning oversight that the largest ethnic group in the Middle East was unrepresented! Especially when the Ottoman Empire had been dissolved following WWI, a blank slate really that could have been rewritten to benefit the vast majority of the local inhabitants. It may have addressed Kurdish grievances enough to give them faith in the political process maybe.

 

A massive opportunity was wasted there. But with Britain and France being then so imperially minded, it's pie in the sky to believe they'd agree to anything that didn't benefit themselves following WWI. Being bankrupted also wouldn't have helped the situation I supposed.

IMO the western powers deliberately combined different ethnicities into countries precisely to prevent them becoming powerful. By encouraging ethnic conflict, they knew countries would always be weak, allowing the west to dominate, even if not in direct control.

IMO, that is why a single Kurdish state was not created.

[simple1]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the western powers deliberately combined different ethnicities into countries precisely to prevent them becoming powerful. By encouraging ethnic conflict, they knew countries would always be weak, allowing the west to dominate, even if not in direct control.

IMO, that is why a single Kurdish state was not created.

 

Actually the Treaty of Sevres after WW1 signed by the Principal Allied Powers did call for Kurdish Autonomy, at least in today's Turkey, but was crushed by Ataturk.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurds#After_World_War_I

[DogNo1]

Various factors and personalities influence treaties and events, many of which do not become apparent without in-depth research.  How many people are aware that a major cause of the Vietnam War was John Foster Dulles abandoning the negotiations in Geneva that were to lead to free elections for a government to replace the temporary head, the Emperor Bao Dai.  It is said that he knew that the Vietnam Minh faction lead by Ho Chi Minh would win and he couldn't countenance that outcome.

 

I don't know what factors influenced the post-WW I treaty and boundary drawing in the ME but someone has probably written about them.  Can anyone recommend some pertinent books?