Well, I see no reason to believe that a split-up Syria would necessarily be any less violent than a re-unified Syria.
Alas, partitioning doesn’t always work out quite as smoothly as one might like…
I don’t understand what your concern is, no one in America is discussing a no fly zone(NFZ). We never intended to since the conflict began in 2011, so please chill and don’t go berserk. Even with migrants streaming from Syria there is no chance in hell we will have an American led NFZ, at least not with this administration. This could change if the conflict is still raging when a new president takes office.
The most talking has centered on a safe zone in Northern Syria, where migrants fleeing Assad and ISIS can go to instead of leaving Syria. Turkey has been a big proponent of this, but the U.S has brushed it off and without U.S involvement, it won’t work. So let’s a 100,000 refugees come into Europe, there won’t be a NFZ.
Now your other points are quite contradicted by actual events on the ground. Of course Russia won’t support it, that means grounding Assad planes on the ground.
Now as you alluded to, a NFZ will ground regime planes, and the regime is ONLY actor in Syria that has planes. Not ISIS nor any other group. So it’s purpose is stop regime bombings of cities and rebels.
Now your last point is just plain old nonsense, :smack:. You say we should “hold our nose and let Assad stay in power”, how does this make ANY sense. The refugees have happened DESPITE Assad being in power, heck he is a main driver of them! Bombing entire cities. Did you only think ISIS is to blame for all this?!:smack::dubious:
Please explain to me your logic that Assad remaining in power will stem refugees and bloodshed? You say it will prolong the conflict, as if it has not been prolonged enough!
The phucker has been in power for the entire conflict and the conflict has not ended! How come it has not ended when you state that Assad should remain in power, well Jesus, he in power!:eek:
And ISIS has grown in Syria DESPITE Assad being in power, how come what you state has not happened? Or will the magical, genius Russians solve all this?
I find it bizarre that some say Assad remaining in power in Syria will stop the conflict and all it’s byproducts. Last I checked he has been in power.
Does your own statement make ANY sense to you? How long more does it have to take until Assad stops the conflict, extremists and refugees? A year, four more years?
Amazing how many think Assad is a solution, reminds me of those who said he is a reformer even after all these years and contrary to evidence?
I bet you will still say four years from now when Assad is hypothetically in power and the war is ongoing, that he is the solution. We will see the end results of these Russians.
Then I want to hear from the “Assad is the solution/Russia is the greatest crowd”.
This is not very accurate, it ended 25 years ago and there has been NO civil war there. Heck many of the various groups and war lords are now defunct.
I will concede that Lebanon is politically weak and needs to make big political, systemic changes. But to say the civil war is in a pause after all this time is bit of a stretch.
It’s a weak state, and Hezbollah needs to be disarmed, but that won’t happen until Iran and Assad(yeah him) let go. Remember the assassinations Assad ordered in Lebanon, he’s been too busy at home.:D;)
It sucks, but Gaddafi was a dead man walking. It became clear most of his people were sick of him. I wonder what would have happened had not intervened, would he have crushed it and everything gone back to normal or would we would see prolonged conflict like Syria.
I say it is good he died, especially in that fashion. Just a savage all around. Plus despite the chaos in Libya, far, far, far, far, far to power of 10, less people have died in Libya after it’s regime was ousted, than under the current, “reformist” Assad in Syria.
So regimes remaining in intact does not translate to less people dying. Deaths in Libya and Syria should not be compared at all, at any point.
If by his people you mean the same Islamic forces we like to support elsewhere, then no he wasn’t popular. if you mean the whole populace - sources please, pre 2011 opinion poll would be nice.
You think that it was possible to have accurate, reliable opinion polls in Libya while it was ruled by Ghaddaffi?
Sorry, but expecting such things makes little sense.
No idea. But I suppose this means Nemo can’t back his/her claim up. Same with his claim less people have died since he went. Based on what survey ?
Several presidential candidates including but not limited to Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina are discussing a no-fly zone.
Your heavy reliance on emoticons and all-caps in your post would suggest 'tis you, sir, who may already have gone berserk.
Agreed that President Obama seems to be holding firm in resisting calls for a NFZ, though he’s been known to buckle to hawkish critics in the past.
It hasn’t always been clear if what people are calling for is a NFZ or a safe zone, or both. For example William Galston in the WSJseems to use them as interchangeable. In any case, US involvement in creating safe zones strikes me as an equally bad idea, but that’s not what my post was about.
Not sure what you’re saying here. Perhaps you could rephrase.
Um… Russia? What are you talking about?
The refugee crisis has arisen as a consequence of the armed conflict between Assad and the rebels. Obviously as bad as the Assads have always been, the current flow of migrants does not predate the conflict. Now, maybe at this point Assad has ruined so many lives that there is no scenario where he remains in power and the fighting ceases. But you haven’t made that argument. Not only that, you haven’t explained how Assad leaving (dead or alive) would improve matters with respect to the ongoing violence and refugee crisis.
The refugees and bloodshed are a function of the conflict between Assad and the rebels. If Assad is prevented from destroying rebel elements including ISIS, a situation of stalemate is likely to persist. That would prolong the conflict, compared to the alternative of Assad prevailing.
That seems to be a large part of what is driving Russia’s involvement. There seems to be a stalemate that could drag on indefinitely, and a political settlement between Assad and the various rebel factions seems unthinkable at the moment. That doesn’t leave many options other than allowing the stalemate to persist or to tip the balance in favor of one side or the other. It would be great if the Syrian Moderates ™ could be the side in whose favor the balance is tipped; unfortunately they cost around $100MM per soldier, evidently.
Not sure what you’re trying to say.
You’re reading too much into my post. I’m just saying a US-imposed NFZ strikes me as a dumb idea.
No one is saying Assad remaining in power is a sufficient condition for stopping the conflict. But for the conflict to end, either one side has to win or there has to be a political settlement.
How should I know? That has nothing to do with whether a NFZ is a good or bad idea.
So, what do you propose should be the End Game in Syria?
The fact that you would respond with the phrase “no idea” would seem to indicate one of two possibilities.
The first that you know nothing about life in a dictatorship and have foolishly projected life in a free country onto life in a dictatorship.
The second that you were demanding evidence you knew couldn’t be produced and as such were clearly not interested in an honest debate.
Why does nobody want to tell me the percentage of support Gadaffi had ?
5% ? 20% ? 99.99999% ?
Whatever it was, it wasn’t zero as was said by mr/mrs Nemo.
So now France and Russia are offering to ally with the democratic parts of the FSA to fight Islamic State.
“If we assume that this [FSA] is the military wing of the so-called healthy part of the opposition, then uniting their forces [with Assad’s army] against the common enemy – ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations – could create good ground for the political settlement in Syria,” Putin added.
So could the end game be concession from the Syrian government to the democratic elements, after a push back against the theocratic revolutionaries ?
Why do you continue to stupidly demand an answer to a question that you know can’t be answered?
Dictators don’t allow such polls and no one who lives there would be stupid enough to answer such questions honestly.
Is Nema’s use of the phrase “zero percent support”, or words to that effect, bothering you?
If so, I feel dumb saying something that should be obvious, but that is what’s known as hyperbole. Nema wasn’t being literal. Nema’s point was that Gaddaffi was wildly unpopular and so unpopular that he had to depend on foreign mercenaries.
No serious person disputes this.
Anyway this is the last post on the matter. If you wish to discuss further I suggest opening a thread in the Pit.
I don’t know about Lybia but the Russian Communist Party and leadership enjoyed nearly unanimous support, and that didn’t help them a damn bit when President Reagan ordered Gorbachev to “Tear down that wall!”
Amerikans like bull in china shop.
Ibn Warraq explained it better. I have to point out that never in my comment did I mention Gaddafi had NO support. Of course he had support among segments of his own population. That is beside the point.
Also there is no way any source could gauge Libyan support for Gaddafi. What matters is that many Libyans rose up against his rule after seeing what happened to their east in Egypt, and their west in Tunisia. Did 100% of Libyans partake in the revolution, of course not. No revolution in history has 100% of the people in said country take part in. What matters is again, many of his people rose up against him in cities through out Libya, and many segments of the military defected and backed the protesters and rebels.
And yes as already pointed out, Gaddafi was a dictator, so there were no free and fair polls to gauge popular support. But it does not matter, Libya, like every country on Earth, has different opinions amongst it’s people.
Sounds good ideally, but I seriously doubt any opposition of merit would join forces with Assad, and is they do it would be to only temporary to fight ISIS and then turn against Assad. France and Russia are kidding themselves if they think the opposition would rally behind the regime.
I never claimed that less people died after Gaddafi left, maybe I should have explained better in my previous comment. Yes Libya is unstable in the time being, and more people have died in fighting since the uprising in the country and after, than before the uprising. That is not surprising, and it was not my point.
My point was comparing deaths post revolution Libya with Syria since the uprising. I don’t think anyone would find it hard to believe or would doubt that more Syrians are being killed than Libyans. Yes there are militias in Libya, but it is foolish to compare amount of people killed in Libya with those being killed in Syria. This shows that a dictator remaining in power does not mean less casualties than a post revolution country like Libya, even with chaos.
Far more people are being killed in Syria than Libya since 2011.
Donald Rump I misunderstood you. I initially thought that you meant Syria would always be worse off without Assad, and that only Assad can stop refugees flows and casualties. Which I meant to say is factually incorrect because he has been in power through all this.
But I agree with the point you made, yes one side has to become stronger and ideally defeat the other side for the conflict to end. A stalemate would mean fighting continues. Right now Assad’s allies are trying to give him the upper hand to defeat the rebels(all of them) and ideally this “would end the conflict” as Assad and Russia, Iran hope to achieve.
I meant to say in regards to NFZ that our current administration will not go forward with it, and with Russian bombing, it is off the table. Yes it could change when a new president comes into office, but I’m disregarding what candidates running for office are saying. For now President Obama is in charge and judging by the last four and half years, he won’t put in place a NFZ.
Hope that clears it. I had initially misunderstood you, my apologies.
Why do you stupidly think that nobody ever made an educated estimate of such things?
It doesn’t have to be a Pew poll to be reasonable evidence for the claim. Secondly, why wouldn’t a dictator want to keep tabs on his popularity ? The paranoia demonstrated by dictators is a sign that they pay great attention to their popularity within a population. It’s nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Are telling me Gaddafi didn’t have feedback from his intelligence services about what was going on beyond his palace ?
Did they leave behind documentation of this in their records, like they did with so much else ?
How would they know when to crack down on a rebellion if they didn’t know what the people felt about them ?
Are you telling me that this isn’t a subject for study amongst all the politically interested parties across the world ?
UN, EU, AU, universities, think tanks, intelligence services, journalists, historians etc all gather such data and make such estimates regardless of whether a dictator would arrest pollsters or not. Nemo needs to back his claim up with some of that.
I’d go with that.
Both of you - and the rest of you - calm the heck down or I’ll shut this thread down.
Don’t MAKE me turn this Message Board around!