Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Syria
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
The comments at the article are overwhelmingly hostile. To get back on my soapbox, the elite will do what they want unless the citizens really put up a fight.

What a stupid sentence: "to rescue democracy".


This war and rearrangement might be more akin to democracy, in a brutal way, than what they had before. Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq merge, with Assad holding onto the other parts of Syria, the Kurds taking control of Kurdish Iraq and Syria, Shia Iraq merging with Iran, or being independent but under the influence of Iran. If this could have happened peacefully it would perhaps be the best possible outcome, but at the moment it looks like only the Kurdish areas have a chance to emerge from this functionally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq merge, with Assad holding onto the other parts of Syria, the Kurds taking control of Kurdish Iraq and Syria, Shia Iraq merging with Iran, or being independent but under the influence of Iran.


I agree. Basically you're arguing that the region should break into sectarian quasi ethno states. I completely agree.

The British etc who carved up that area did so without respect to the ethnic groups who were already there. The British should have known better, given their history of internal ethnic conflict.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran is not going to merge with any of Iraq. Different languages, cultures (minus the Shia connection), etc. But yes, I do think iraq and syria will cease to exist in their current forms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Squire wrote:
Titus wrote:
The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/toppling-saddam-was-right-go-back-to-iraq-democracy

Quote:
There is no way that the UK can stand aside at Iraq's moment of greatest need. We have a responsibility to those whose democracy we created. Those who are not utterly silent are sullen, muttering that Blair and Bush caused all this, that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq before 2003. Let's be clear what that statement really is – bloodless, amoral pragmatism of the type Henry Kissinger excelled in. You might as well say: "Saddam may have been a fascist who inflicted genocide on the Kurds, but at least that kept Iran and the jihadists at bay." That remark would have the merit of being honest.

The truth is that if we do not act now, we will surely act later. Having protected the freedom and autonomy of the Kurds since the Kuwait war, we cannot abandon them now, or leave them dependent on protection from Iran. We have to go back to Iraq to rescue democracy. After all, as Margaret Thatcher said at the time of the Falklands, why else do we have armed forces?


I despair. If the Guardian prints something like this a ton of 'liberals' will jump on board immediately.


Don't worry, he's a Blair lackey, and thanks in part to Iraq, liberals aren't such big fans of Tony these days. As Titus noted, a lot of the comments were critical of that crap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bucheon bum wrote:
Iran is not going to merge with any of Iraq. Different languages, cultures (minus the Shia connection), etc. But yes, I do think iraq and syria will cease to exist in their current forms.


I believe Iran is only 60% majority Persian. It's all very messy and complicated.

It's more likely that the Sunni radicals will push the Shia population into Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
bucheon bum wrote:
Iran is not going to merge with any of Iraq. Different languages, cultures (minus the Shia connection), etc. But yes, I do think iraq and syria will cease to exist in their current forms.


I believe Iran is only 60% majority Persian. It's all very messy and complicated.

It's more likely that the Sunni radicals will push the Shia population into Iran.


There is always the Lebanon option, where Lebanon is "independent" but Syria and Iran are heavily involved. Shia Iraq could be "independent" but under Iranian influence. The Kurds will probably still claim to want a unified Iraq to keep the U.S. off their backs, and to reassure Turkey and others, but in almost all aspects act sovereign. I don't see Iran as a boogeyman, but as more moderate and sensible and stable than our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The sheer weight of the violence and number of refugees and foreign fighters and chaos will make rebuilding very difficult regardless of where boundary lines end up getting drawn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We will probably see a long war before any political solution can be imposed. Here's one perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZuNg3cm1PE#t=158

^ Some surprisingly good propaganda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

These ISIS guys are brutal:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-15/isis-jihadists-release-shocking-photos-documenting-slaying-1700-iraqi-soldiers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
We will probably see a long war before any political solution can be imposed. Here's one perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZuNg3cm1PE#t=158

^ Some surprisingly good propaganda.


That was very good. If one group can make them seem moderate and reasonable it is ISIS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html

Quote:
West poised to join forces with Assad in face of Islamic State


22 pages later I feel vindicated.

The article above cites Charles Freeman, which is an interesting source for that paper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Freeman,_Jr.#National_Intelligence_Council_appointment_controversy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141848/kenneth-m-pollack/an-army-to-defeat-assad
Quote:
An Army to Defeat Assad

How to Turn Syria's Opposition Into a Real Fighting Force


^ This was published in the Sept / Oct 2014 issue.

Quote:
...the United States could create a new Syrian military with a conventional structure and doctrine, one capable of defeating both the regime and the extremists.


^ This is quite literally insane, given the outcomes of American aggression in the region.

The author of the above piece in the journal of the CFR is Kenneth M. Pollack. Here's a fun line from his wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_M._Pollack
Quote:
A U.S. government indictment alleged that Pollack provided information to former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) employees Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman during the AIPAC espionage scandal.[9]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ersatzredux



Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Location: Same as it ever was, same as it ever was

PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fun article to be sure. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of moderate Syrians just itching to join this army. I'm sure they'll be just as successful as all the other proxy armies the Americans have set up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Quote:
Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq merge, with Assad holding onto the other parts of Syria, the Kurds taking control of Kurdish Iraq and Syria, Shia Iraq merging with Iran, or being independent but under the influence of Iran.


I agree. Basically you're arguing that the region should break into sectarian quasi ethno states. I completely agree.

The British etc who carved up that area did so without respect to the ethnic groups who were already there. The British should have known better, given their history of internal ethnic conflict.


Iraq was created because after the overthrow of the Ottomans there had to be a replacement power that was capable of resisting Iran militarily and politically in Mesopotamia.

The logic that governed that decision has not changed.

If Iraq is split up into smaller pieces then it will hand Iran the entire region and we can already see that the Iraqi rump state has a heavy Iranian influence.

It is up to the US and any Sunni Arab allies to decide whether or not they want that to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:
Titus wrote:
Quote:
Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq merge, with Assad holding onto the other parts of Syria, the Kurds taking control of Kurdish Iraq and Syria, Shia Iraq merging with Iran, or being independent but under the influence of Iran.


I agree. Basically you're arguing that the region should break into sectarian quasi ethno states. I completely agree.

The British etc who carved up that area did so without respect to the ethnic groups who were already there. The British should have known better, given their history of internal ethnic conflict.


Iraq was created because after the overthrow of the Ottomans there had to be a replacement power that was capable of resisting Iran militarily and politically in Mesopotamia.

The logic that governed that decision has not changed.

If Iraq is split up into smaller pieces then it will hand Iran the entire region and we can already see that the Iraqi rump state has a heavy Iranian influence.

It is up to the US and any Sunni Arab allies to decide whether or not they want that to happen.


You make that sound like it would be a bad thing. All things considered, I prefer it over to the alternative you're wanting.

And do you have any evidene that's what led the UK to create Iraq? The UK "owed" two Hashemite princes kingdoms for their assistance in WW I, hence the creation of Jordan and Iraq, not because of Iran, which was quite weak at that point and heavily controlled by the Brits anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bucheon bum wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:
Titus wrote:
Quote:
Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq merge, with Assad holding onto the other parts of Syria, the Kurds taking control of Kurdish Iraq and Syria, Shia Iraq merging with Iran, or being independent but under the influence of Iran.


I agree. Basically you're arguing that the region should break into sectarian quasi ethno states. I completely agree.

The British etc who carved up that area did so without respect to the ethnic groups who were already there. The British should have known better, given their history of internal ethnic conflict.


Iraq was created because after the overthrow of the Ottomans there had to be a replacement power that was capable of resisting Iran militarily and politically in Mesopotamia.

The logic that governed that decision has not changed.

If Iraq is split up into smaller pieces then it will hand Iran the entire region and we can already see that the Iraqi rump state has a heavy Iranian influence.

It is up to the US and any Sunni Arab allies to decide whether or not they want that to happen.


You make that sound like it would be a bad thing. All things considered, I prefer it over to the alternative you're wanting.

And do you have any evidene that's what led the UK to create Iraq? The UK "owed" two Hashemite princes kingdoms for their assistance in WW I, hence the creation of Jordan and Iraq, not because of Iran, which was quite weak at that point and heavily controlled by the Brits anyway.


Gertrude Bell was a very influential advisor to the British government and she along with other government officials argued the case for Iraq. The inclusion of the northern part of Iraq was also to do with denying the French any access to resources in that region.

Prince Feisal was indeed given Iraq, but only after having been kicked out of Syria by the French. The decision to put him on the throne in Iraq was taken after the creation of the country as he was seen as a better candidate.

What I or you want is irrelevant, but I think the reintegration of Iraq would be a good start and useful in checking the Iranians. There are of course only bad options in Syria.

Why are you so firmly in favour of expanded Iranian influence which can only lead to a greater conflict down the road from their Sunni Arab allies? Keep Iran in their corner which they have been since 1514 and let the ME breathe without their meddling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 23 of 25

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International