Who Do You Support in the Syrian Civil War?

Red_Dave · Feb 15, 2014

reinoe said:
Anyone who supports the rebels supports Al-Qaeda.

Aside from the fact they are killing each other?

Paleocon · Feb 16, 2014

Assad, the rightful and lawful ruler of Syria.

reinoe · Feb 16, 2014

Red_Dave said:
Aside from the fact they are killing each other?

Assad has every right to fight and kill anyone whom is allied with Al-Qaeda. We used to have the same belief but then our politicians bowed down to Defense Contractor lobbyists.

Red_Dave · Feb 16, 2014

reinoe said:
Assad has every right to fight and kill anyone whom is allied with Al-Qaeda. We used to have the same belief but then our politicians bowed down to Defense Contractor lobbyists.

I meant that the Al-Qaeda aligned rebels and the FSA have been killing each other. And Assad doesnt have the right to do FA , no one voted for him.

MadLib · Feb 17, 2014

I chose "other" - I support the moderate rebels that compose the Free Syrian Army, but the organization itself is too decentralized to be considered a serious obstacle to the rising Islamist influence. If we do continue our support for the rebels, we should work with moderate rebel leaders to establish a unitary, secular military structure that will facilitate the transfer of aid to rebel brigades and show that the moderate rebellion has just as much potential as the jihadists.

If not, the FSA is the next best choice.

MadLib · Feb 17, 2014

DaveFagan said:
He helped the USA by providing refuge for 20% of the Iraqi population during our War of Terror against Iraq.

He also allowed foreign jihadists to pass through Syria on their way to Iraq. I believe an appreciable if not an overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda in Iraq were funneled into Iraq through Syria.

stabilized Lebanon

He didn't stabilize jack **** in Lebanon. He used death squads to murder political opponents, including a Lebanese PM, and continually denied the Lebanese people their right to be a democracy rather than his own personal property.

Assad is more dangerous to US interests than Saddam was pre-invasion. Whatever else is going on with the rebellion, facilitating the removal of the Baathist dictatorship should be our number one priority in the Middle East.

DaveFagan · Feb 17, 2014

MadLib said:
He also allowed foreign jihadists to pass through Syria on their way to Iraq. I believe an appreciable if not an overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda in Iraq were funneled into Iraq through Syria.

He didn't stabilize jack **** in Lebanon. He used death squads to murder political opponents, including a Lebanese PM, and continually denied the Lebanese people their right to be a democracy rather than his own personal property.

Assad is more dangerous to US interests than Saddam was pre-invasion. Whatever else is going on with the rebellion, facilitating the removal of the Baathist dictatorship should be our number one priority in the Middle East.

It's the CIA funneling the radical Islamists into Syria, so it was probably the CIA funneling radical Islamists into Iraq. Leopards and spots, don't ya' know. Shut off your TV and start surfing the Internet to find out what's going on. We are the bad guys in Syria. The USA, the CIA, Saudis, Israelis, etc. are all fomenting insurrection in Syria. This is not a guess or opinion, it is documented. It's about OIL and pipelines and Mediterranean ports. It is a war with a Corporate agenda. Wake up.

Woodman909 · Feb 17, 2014

Cleveland Browns... all three will be losers. Let them kill each other.

MadLib · Feb 20, 2014

DaveFagan said:
It's the CIA funneling the radical Islamists into Syria, so it was probably the CIA funneling radical Islamists into Iraq. Leopards and spots, don't ya' know.

Yep, the CIA was definitely funneling al-Qaeda into Iraq in order to kill Americans. That wouldn't harm support for the war at home at all, would it?

Shut off your TV and start surfing the Internet to find out what's going on. We are the bad guys in Syria. The USA, the CIA, Saudis, Israelis, etc. are all fomenting insurrection in Syria. This is not a guess or opinion, it is documented. It's about OIL and pipelines and Mediterranean ports. It is a war with a Corporate agenda. Wake up.

I only watch TV (well, Netflix, really) for sitcoms and Doctor Who, not for news. That I do get from the Internet, but not from schizophrenic crackpots like Alex Jones. Nice try, though.

DaveFagan · Feb 20, 2014

MadLib said:
Yep, the CIA was definitely funneling al-Qaeda into Iraq in order to kill Americans. That wouldn't harm support for the war at home at all, would it?

I only watch TV (well, Netflix, really) for sitcoms and Doctor Who, not for news. That I do get from the Internet, but not from schizophrenic crackpots like Alex Jones. Nice try, though.

To get right to the nitty gritty, the CIA was chartered to help USA Corporations overseas. It was not to help John Q. Citizen. Now Wars are good for Military/Industrial/Corporate complex denizens. Stopping wars would be bad for Corporate business. Generating/continuing wars is good Corporate marketing. You know that we are not really spreading freedom and democracy but pursuing Strategic military geography and Corporate resources and historically and continually the USA Military/Industrial/Corporate Complex has profited handsomely from war and more war and old wars and new wars and it's just good business. War is good business and business is good. Anyways, having al Qeda in Iraq would be good for the war business. We support al Qeda in Syria, so what's the difference?

cpwill · Feb 20, 2014

I support
A) getting the chemical and any bio (if they exist) weapons out of range of the combatants
B) providing safe zones for internally displaced persons, and then

C) arming any side as soon as they begin to lose. If Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Assad want to kill each other in Syria, I am in favor of them doing that as much as and as long as possible.

MadLib · Feb 20, 2014

cpwill said:
C) arming any side as soon as they begin to lose. If Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Assad want to kill each other in Syria, I am in favor of them doing that as much as and as long as possible.

I feel like it would be more in our strategic interests to make sure that the moderate rebels win, at the expense of al-Qaeda and the Assad regime; making sure that the later collapses is especially important to undermining Iran's position in the Arab World. The FSA is far too demoralized for us to effectively deliver aid to the moderate rebels, so we should work out a new, unified military structure with the Syrian opposition. Such a structure would streamline the transfer of aid, and American intelligence can cooperate with opposition leaders to admit moderate brigades on an individual basis based on their past collaboration with ISIS and al-Nusra.

It also seems to me that the large numbers of native Syrian rebels that serve under Islamist factions do so not because of a commitment to extremism but because they see no better option to attempt to bring down Assad. Once a powerful and credible Western-backed opposition has been established, I predict that many of the Islamists would switch over. This should not be discouraged, but former Islamist brigades should receive no lethal aid and little non-lethal aid until their trustworthiness is confirmed.

cpwill · Feb 20, 2014

MadLib said:
I feel like it would be more in our strategic interests to make sure that the moderate rebels win, at the expense of al-Qaeda and the Assad regime

Sure. While we're at it, it's also in our strategic interests to see Russia renounce empire and cease attempting to control its Near Abroad. When you find a way to pull that off, let me know.

Because the "moderate rebels" (to the extent that any exist in Syria, which is rather questionable, frankly) have about as much chance beating both ISIL and the Assad/Hezbollah/Quds triad as Putin waking up tomorrow having been visited by the Ghosts of Russia Past, Present, and Future, and delivering turkey dinners to all the Bob Cratchetts of the world.

There is no plausible future (at current) in which anyone that we would want in charge of Syria wins. Meanwhile, the conflict there is dragging on Iranian and Wahhabist resources, personnel, and attention. Until the situation changes so that we can plausibly effect a positive final outcome, therefore, let's not mess this up.

making sure that the later collapses is especially important to undermining Iran's position in the Arab World.

You are certainly correct. Nothing fails like failure in the Middle East. That's going to require (at present) large-scale and persistent military intervention, of course, which isn't a political possibility for either the U.S. or the E.U.

The FSA is far too demoralized for us to effectively deliver aid to the moderate rebels, so we should work out a new, unified military structure with the Syrian opposition.

....do you know how much money, time, training, effort, deployment of combat power, and space requirements are behind that neat little phrase?

Hint - we did this in Iraq. It took us about 6 years, and we had to deploy over a million people at one time or another. We've been trying it in Afghanistan - so far, success is..... spotty.

It also seems to me that the large numbers of native Syrian rebels that serve under Islamist factions do so not because of a commitment to extremism but because they see no better option to attempt to bring down Assad. Once a powerful and credible Western-backed opposition has been established, I predict that many of the Islamists would switch over.

That is an interesting claim with a not implausible assumption - what are you basing it on?

This should not be discouraged, but former Islamist brigades should receive no lethal aid and little non-lethal aid until their trustworthiness is confirmed.

:lol: remember the last batch of "non-lethal aid" we sent? We sent them camera's and recording equipment to document the regimes' atrocities, and they used it to tape themselves eating human hearts and threatening to commit ethnic cleansing? :lol: oh, those rascally little Syrian buggers - you just can't turn your back on em, can you? :lol:

But hey - at least they were moderate genocidal cannibals, right? :lol:

Muhammed · Feb 20, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?

Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Gov
Free Syrian Army
Islamic Front
al-Qaeda Network (im sure none of you do...hopefully)
Other (explain)

Will I get droned if I say what I really think?

MadLib · Mar 2, 2014

cpwill said:
Sure. While we're at it, it's also in our strategic interests to see Russia renounce empire and cease attempting to control its Near Abroad. When you find a way to pull that off, let me know.

I'm sure I had a clever little retort for this, but considering recent events, it's a little late for that now, isn't it? :doh:

Because the "moderate rebels" (to the extent that any exist in Syria, which is rather questionable, frankly) have about as much chance beating both ISIL and the Assad/Hezbollah/Quds triad as Putin waking up tomorrow having been visited by the Ghosts of Russia Past, Present, and Future, and delivering turkey dinners to all the Bob Cratchetts of the world.

The moderate rebels are still the only serious challenge to Assad's rule. Assad deliberately aided the jihadist rebels in order to divide and conquer the opposition. The Islamists seem to be content controlling Syria's northern regions rather than attempting to conquer the entire country; and even if they somehow did manage to overthrow Assad, they'd fracture amongst themselves and turn Syria into the warlordism that was Somalia and Afghanistan in the 1990s.

At the beginning, the Free Syrian Army consisted of protestors and SAA soldiers who defected to defend them. The power vacuum that occurred as a result of a lack of Western support - unlike in Libya - was filled by al-Qaeda's affiliates, as they had superior arms and ability (no doubt as a result of support from the Gulf States). For quite a while, the FSA consisted of anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 troops and led the opposition militarily. al-Nusra had been the only Islamist faction with any meaningful connection to al-Qaeda, and it constituted only about 5% of the total opposition forces. Now, even though this proportion has been reversed, it demonstrates that there is no reason the Islamists must dominate the rebellion.

There is no plausible future (at current) in which anyone that we would want in charge of Syria wins. Meanwhile, the conflict there is dragging on Iranian and Wahhabist resources, personnel, and attention. Until the situation changes so that we can plausibly effect a positive final outcome, therefore, let's not mess this up.

You know that great Hitchens quote you use so often? I can hardly think of a more applicable situation than that in Syria. Obviously one of those two factions is going to win absent Western intervention, and neither one is friendly towards American interests in the region or to the human rights of the Syrian people. If Assad wins, Iran's gateway into the Arab World is preserved (I will elaborate on this below). If Saudi Arabia and Qatar get what they want, Iran's influence will wane, but Syria will become permanently destabilized (almost certainly so that the Gulf States can preserve their oil duopoly) and a potential new breeding ground for terrorists, requiring an invasion in the event of a terrorist attack.

You are certainly correct. Nothing fails like failure in the Middle East. That's going to require (at present) large-scale and persistent military intervention, of course, which isn't a political possibility for either the U.S. or the E.U.

Syria is how Iran delivers support to Hamas and colonizes Lebanon through Hezbollah. Remove Assad, and Iran's sphere of influence will collapse.

....do you know how much money, time, training, effort, deployment of combat power, and space requirements are behind that neat little phrase?

Hint - we did this in Iraq. It took us about 6 years, and we had to deploy over a million people at one time or another. We've been trying it in Afghanistan - so far, success is..... spotty.

You probably are more knowledgeable on this than I am, but the situations don't seem comparable. In Iraq, the Baathist military establishment was dismantled and the Multinational Force had to start from scratch. Afghanistan is definitely closer to Syria in this regard, but there was no significant preexisting national army, and the Northern Alliance was fragmented ethnically in a way that the FSA is not.

That is an interesting claim with a not implausible assumption - what are you basing it on?

What we've seen is that the number of FSA rebels has decreased as that of the Islamic Front, ISIS, and al-Nusra increases. Since the latter are objectively a more formidable force, it's not far-fetched to assume that desperate FSA fighters defected over, thereby changing the balance.

:lol: remember the last batch of "non-lethal aid" we sent? We sent them camera's and recording equipment to document the regimes' atrocities, and they used it to tape themselves eating human hearts and threatening to commit ethnic cleansing? :lol: oh, those rascally little Syrian buggers - you just can't turn your back on em, can you? :lol:

But hey - at least they were moderate genocidal cannibals, right? :lol:

Come on, you can't use isolated incidences such as these to indict a movement with at least 100,000 members. It's impossible that in a civil war of this scale that atrocities won't be committed by all sides. That happened in Spain, Russia, and even the United States.

cpwill · Mar 2, 2014

MadLib said:
I'm sure I had a clever little retort for this, but considering recent events, it's a little late for that now, isn't it? :doh:

Reality has a way of catching up to optimists when it comes to foreign affairs.

The moderate rebels are still the only serious challenge to Assad's rule

:lol: the moderate rebels A) do not really exist, we are talking about different variations on Islamists and B) inasmuch as there are groups less directly connected to Islamist Jihad abroad, they aren't even able to consolidate the rebels, much less Syria.

Assad deliberately aided the jihadist rebels in order to divide and conquer the opposition.

Assad aided ISI(L) years ago when they were fighting Americans. Not now.

The Islamists seem to be content controlling Syria's northern regions rather than attempting to conquer the entire country; and even if they somehow did manage to overthrow Assad, they'd fracture amongst themselves and turn Syria into the warlordism that was Somalia and Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Probably, however, that is at current rather unlikely to happen.

At the beginning, the Free Syrian Army consisted of protestors and SAA soldiers who defected to defend them.

And others, but sure. Mind you, the Protesters were mostly Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates, but sure. And we had a few golden moments there.... that we let slip away through inaction. I was screaming at the time that we needed to get involved, that this was way, way, way more important than Libya, but that moment has passed. You don't get to rewind to 2011 and demand a do-over in real life.

The power vacuum that occurred as a result of a lack of Western support - unlike in Libya - was filled by al-Qaeda's affiliates, as they had superior arms and ability (no doubt as a result of support from the Gulf States).

When you say "unlike in Libya", do you mean to suggest that power vacuums in that country have not been filled by AQ affiliates?

For quite a while, the FSA consisted of anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 troops and led the opposition militarily. al-Nusra had been the only Islamist faction with any meaningful connection to al-Qaeda, and it constituted only about 5% of the total opposition forces. Now, even though this proportion has been reversed, it demonstrates that there is no reason the Islamists must dominate the rebellion.

Again, you are conflating "Islamists" with "AQ affiliates", when those two things are not interchangeable.

You know that great Hitchens quote you use so often? I can hardly think of a more applicable situation than that in Syria.

I agree. And the "something else" that happens here is that AQ & Co. and Assad/Iran/Hezzbollah exhaust each other. At current, we aren't going to get a better end result than that, and so our goal to maintain the current status where all players have enough incentive to project power to keep their proxies from losing, but not enough to decisively win. SO much better if Saudi Arabia and Iran can be convinced to use their terrorist offshoots to wage a war in Syria v the Persian Gulf.

Obviously one of those two factions is going to win absent Western intervention,

Why is that obvious? What seems to be happening is that conflict continues. If any side is winning right now, it is the Assad regime.

and neither one is friendly towards American interests in the region or to the human rights of the Syrian people. If Assad wins, Iran's gateway into the Arab World is preserved (I will elaborate on this below). If Saudi Arabia and Qatar get what they want, Iran's influence will wane, but Syria will become permanently destabilized (almost certainly so that the Gulf States can preserve their oil duopoly) and a potential new breeding ground for terrorists, requiring an invasion in the event of a terrorist attack.

And set the stage for a power struggle between the Saudis and Turkey.

Syria is how Iran delivers support to Hamas and colonizes Lebanon through Hezbollah. Remove Assad, and Iran's sphere of influence will collapse.

Again, I was yelling exactly this years ago, when the math was different. But the math has since changed, due to our inaction.

You probably are more knowledgeable on this than I am, but the situations don't seem comparable. In Iraq, the Baathist military establishment was dismantled and the Multinational Force had to start from scratch.

With trained individuals representing an able nationalist identity. The situations are indeed comparable as to the mission you are proposing - shaping the force in a way you are describing would require massive investment, for an unsure return.

What we've seen is that the number of FSA rebels has decreased as that of the Islamic Front, ISIS, and al-Nusra increases.

Yup. As I've pointed out, the moment for what you want has passed.

Since the latter are objectively a more formidable force, it's not far-fetched to assume that desperate FSA fighters defected over, thereby changing the balance.

:shrug: given the ideological overlap between the groups, that is not unlikely at all.

Come on, you can't use isolated incidences such as these to indict a movement with at least 100,000 members

I can for one reason - we selected these guys are the ones least likely to abuse our aid. Those guys? They were the good guys. That's who we are going to be dealing with and supporting if we decide to go in and try to stand up and train an opposition force into a semi-professional fighting organization.

ChrisL · Mar 2, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?

Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Gov
Free Syrian Army
Islamic Front
al-Qaeda Network (im sure none of you do...hopefully)
Other (explain)

None of the above! I don't trust any of them.

Smeagol · Mar 2, 2014

TheDemSocialist said:
Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?

Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian Gov
Free Syrian Army
Islamic Front
al-Qaeda Network (im sure none of you do...hopefully)
Other (explain)

Other: I support ending the reason insanity in the Middle East is everybody's problem and why dictators and terrorists exist there, the monopoly oil has on transportation and by extension its utter control over the American and global economies and the single common denominator in almost every national security crisis America faces. I'm rooting for Elon Musk.

Who Do You Support in the Syrian Civil War?

Who do you support in the Syrian Civil War?

Bashar Al-Assad and the Syrian gov

Free Syrian Army

Islamic Front

al-Qaeda Network

Other (explain)

More options

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist

Paleocon

reinoe

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist

MadLib

monstrous vermin

MadLib

monstrous vermin

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

Woodman909

MadLib

monstrous vermin

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

cpwill

MadLib

monstrous vermin

cpwill

Muhammed

MadLib

monstrous vermin

cpwill

ChrisL

Smeagol