Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pie said:
That could very easily give the rebels a military advantage, which would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Depends, as it is the only real hope for the rebels to succeed would be through the extremist groups, but with western backing, moderate groups may seem a better option.
 
Pie said:
That could very easily give the rebels a military advantage, which would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

In a war where neither side is what we'd consider the "good guys", we can't win. We just want it to be over as quickly as possible with minimal civilian casualties. We certainly don't want it being a stalemate, and we don't want Assad in power either.

Schad said:
Absolutely, and that's why it is largely necessary. But in the larger story of the Syrian civil war, it'll be a footnote.

Related, but I keep hearing right-wing blowhards lament the fact that Obama doesn't have the strength to simply remove Assad and install 'someone friendly to the US/Israel'. How the **** have they not figured out by now that you cannot cow the world simply by swinging your dick around? You just got stalemated by ragtag militias twice in a decade yet you believe that you can point at a country and say "yeah, replace that guy with some other guy" and it'll happen without any strife?
Click to expand...

Well thankfully that's why the US government hasn't supported the idea of actually joining the war. I don't think anyone can foresee a realistic outcome which is pleasing from a western, democratic point of view, so we just want the conflict to end and whomever governs the country after that is Syria's business.
 
I've heard someone before say that "America are the policemen of the world", which is absolutely true. If they want to spend billions on all these invasions and wars, it's up to them, but I'd rather the UK stayed out of it as it's not like America are lacking strength, as well as the costs.
 
Joe said:
In a war where neither side is what we'd consider the "good guys", we can't win. We just want it to be over as quickly as possible with minimal civilian casualties. We certainly don't want it being a stalemate, and we don't want Assad in power either.
Click to expand...

IMO, looking at the big picture, Assad in power is better than the rebels
 
Maybe I am being stupid, but why not a Libya-style no fly zone? Incorporating some strikes on military positions/hardware. It helped neutralise the unbalanced threat that Gaddafi forces had been brutally using and accelerated the end of the conflict without having a state v state war. The chemical attacks were shocking but even if they are gone, people are still getting killed by "normal" weapons, and Syria would probably dare not risk using them again and enraging the world any more.

I realise that Libya and Syria are not the same situations (partly because the Syrian rebels don't really seem to be winning the war) but still.
 
If a country is going through a civil war it is not up to the West or anyone else for that matter to get involved unless there are humanitarian issues, which in this case there certainly is. If and when the US and France do take action it should be to eliminate Assad's ability to use chemical Weapons. It shouldn't be about arming the rebels and changing the course of the conflict with regime change being the ultimate aim.
 
Pie said:
Both sides are terrible, no doubt about that.

But which do you think will result in a more stable country?
Click to expand...

Assad's country was stable until he started depriving his citizens of their fundamental human rights. How can that country possibly go back to being stable under his regime now? There are Islamist states in the world which are relatively peaceful, even if many of their principles do conflict with ours.
 
Qwerty said:
Maybe I am being stupid, but why not a Libya-style no fly zone? Incorporating some strikes on military positions/hardware. It helped neutralise the unbalanced threat that Gaddafi forces had been brutally using and accelerated the end of the conflict without having a state v state war. The chemical attacks were shocking but even if they are gone, people are still getting killed by "normal" weapons, and Syria would probably dare not risk using them again and enraging the world any more.

I realise that Libya and Syria are not the same situations (partly because the Syrian rebels don't really seem to be winning the war) but still.
Click to expand...

The difference between the chemical attacks, and the other "normal" violence is that the chemical attacks purposefully targeted civilians, and also we tend to consider chemical weapons to be worse than "normal" weapons as they cause greater suffering. Most of the violence has been between Assad's forces and the FSA soldiers, rather than directed at regular civs.

I imagine airstrikes might be considered more of an act of war than a missile strike, which is really just a warning. The US really wants to avoid actually joining the war, and physically sending their military over there.
 
Pie said:
Both sides are terrible, no doubt about that.

But which do you think will result in a more stable country?
Click to expand...

In a round about way I see what you're saying, and you're probably right. But in the short term the treatment he's giving needs to be stopped, and that's where the US come in.
 
Joe said:
The difference between the chemical attacks, and the other "normal" violence is that the chemical attacks purposefully targeted civilians, and also we tend to consider chemical weapons to be worse than "normal" weapons as they cause greater suffering. Most of the violence has been between Assad's forces and the FSA soldiers, rather than directed at regular civs.

I imagine airstrikes might be considered more of an act of war than a missile strike, which is really just a warning. The US really wants to avoid actually joining the war, and physically sending their military over there.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, otherwise it would have happened weeks, even months ago. I don't think a war is on the cards, I think there are definitely ways to minimalise the damage.
 
I dislike the way the western powers are very selective about the human rights abuses that they see fit to be outraged about, and wish to intervene with military action to prevent.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria yes

Zimbabwe, Yemen, Somalia, China - no
 
olddellboy said:
I dislike the way the western powers are very selective about the human rights abuses that they see fit to be outraged about, and wish to intervene with military action to prevent.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria yes

Zimbabwe, Yemen, Somalia, China - no
Click to expand...

We and the US are very vocal about our outrage towards all of the above, but we always have to consider whether intervention would be practical or not, and sometimes it just isn't. Zimbabwe is a very complex situation which we could only really resolve by colonizing it again. Same with Somalia. China is just far too powerful and is an important ally which is steadily improving its citizens' quality of life.

We at least take diplomatic and charitable measures.
 
olddellboy said:
I dislike the way the western powers are very selective about the human rights abuses that they see fit to be outraged about, and wish to intervene with military action to prevent.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria yes

Zimbabwe, Yemen, Somalia, China - no
Click to expand...

Well, China may be a bridge too far whatever their case, but I appreciate what you say. Zimbabwe, for example, has just elected Mugabe again. He swung that on fear alone.
 
Pie said:
Both sides are terrible, no doubt about that.

But which do you think will result in a more stable country?
Click to expand...

Neither. There will be no stability while Assad is in power, and there will be no stability for years after he's gone. Such is the nature of any transitional state, but the Alawite domination of power is not going to last long.
 
TheSecondStain said:
Well, China may be a bridge too far whatever their case, but I appreciate what you say. Zimbabwe, for example, has just elected Mugabe again. He swung that on fear alone.
Click to expand...

You can add Rwanda, Sudan and Sierra Leone on to that list whilst you're there. I thorough recommend reading "A Long Way Gone" by Ishmael Beah about Sierra Leone, and "What Is The What" by Dave Eggers about Sudan for some genuinely human stories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back