Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
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 ... , 27, 28, 29  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

Involved is very different than hijacked. There is very little in the way of an indigenous independent force left in Syria that is an actual power broker, at least as far as I can tell. The Kurds could probably count, but they receive support from the west/from Kurds outside of Syria. ISIS is a foreign phenomenon, I suspect Al Nursra is as well but do not know enough to say definitively. As far as the other rebel groups, they have power in localized areas, but do not seem to have much beyond that. Assad's war is being fought most effectively by Iranians and Iranian proxies with Russia as an airforce.


I agree that this is a difference; not in quality, such that a comparison would be erroneous, but in quantity - in intensity. The American people were much more vigorous in their participation in their Civil War. From my perspective, though, this diminishes your case rather than enhances it: it implies that the average Syrian took less issue with Assad than the denizens of the South took with Lincoln, and had outside forces not pushed this as far as it has been pushed, it probably would never have been anywhere near as much of an issue. How you can leap from that to, "A unified Syria under Assad is impossible, he must be defeated and driven out," is beyond me. Until, that is, the calculations of psychopathic-by-design organizations are taken into account, at which point it's just a game of chess, in which throwing Syria into chaos in order to drive out Assad is no worse than killing some pawns and bishops to take a king. Why is a unified Syria under Assad impossible? Because the people producing your foreign policy positions will refuse to stop playing chess until they win. That is far more relevant to the situation than concerns about "organic states" or what have you.

Leon wrote:
I sincerely think there is a difference between an organic state and an inorganic one. The United States is an organic, multi-ethnic/cultural state that evolved overtime so that it had a set of ideas/myths/whatever that allowed for people to have a common identity. I think many states in the middle east have that to a much lesser extent, due to various facts of history and from the way that they were created. Iran is an organic state, and even as it goes through different iterations Iran/Persia will persevere, but I doubt the same could be said for Iraq/Syria/etc. I don't think that is inconsistent.


The United States:

1) Was formed in response to political concerns vis a vis Europe.
2) Experienced cultural tensions from its very formation, some of which are implied even in its founding document.
3) Had a gigantic civil war in which half the country sincerely wanted to break away.
4) Spend centuries persecuting a certain demographic of its populace, a demographic which currently holds citizenship.
5) Even today has tensions regarding its minorities, and regarding demographic shift towards different cultures and languages.

And this is the "organic state" with which you contrast Middle Eastern countries? It's funny how you bring up this "organic state" term anytime any of your views are challenged. Want to support multiculturalism while simultaneously blaming African or Middle-Eastern dysfunction on multiculturalism. "They aren't organic states." Want to cast down a leader and throw a country into chaos? "It's not an organic state." Want to support foreign actors tearing a state apart? "It's not an organic state." I believe that you see this as consistent, but as a relatively neutral third party with no real ideological or professional stake in the matter beyond some degree of concern for human well being, that is not how it seems to me.

Leon wrote:
It's funny, because I very strongly believe the same thing, except that you chose to say the west. I truly do not get the idea that Russian/Saudi/Turkish/Iranian/Qatari etc. et al meddling is any better than American/British/French etc.


In general, I'd agree: I have stated my position on such organizations, and I have no favoritism in my heart for the likes of Russia, Iran, or so forth. But with regards to this specific case, these organizations are acting to counter the policy pushed by the West, so of course it makes sense to tolerate them restoring some measure of balance to the region. If, after balance and peace has been restored, the Syrian people, of their own volition, choose to pursue governmental change through mechanisms internal to the country, that is their concern. But for the United States and its allies to help push Syria into chaos and call for an end to outside involvement only once outsiders have begun to effectively assist the sitting government is far too obvious in its intent -- intent which is strategic in character, not benevolent.

Leon wrote:
The idea that the biggest killer, who only survives as long as Iran and Russia find him useful, would be acceptable to Syrians after all that has occurred seems like wishful thinking.


Of course it does, because you've already staked out your position against the man. You can't believe the people of Syria could live peacefully under him, because you won't believe it. Believing it would mean you were unambiguously incorrect.

Leon wrote:
I think the Kurds have zero reason to submit to Assad ...


The Kurds have "zero reason" to submit to anyone so long as they are fueled by Kurdish nationalism. There's Kurdish nationalism in Turkey as well, does that mean Erdogan needs to go? Or is it acceptable for the Kurdish people to live in differing states as a minority group? If you're going to use the attitudes of the Kurdish people as some sort of litmus test on the legitimacy of a ruler, you must apply the litmus test evenly. Yet the Kurds are less than 10% of Syria's population according to CIA data. You're lending them inordinate weight. Again and again and again we hear about the Kurds. Why? The same reason we hear about homosexual grooming laws in Russia: to produce a justifying effect. The people producing your foreign policy opinions for you cultivate the image of the Kurdish people into something generically positive, and then try to use them to push their positions.

Leon wrote:
I don't think it is at all. Pre-civil war Lincoln, or other US Presidents, did not massacre civilians or depend upon a secret police (I think, right?). The Assad family did. Also, the American Civil War was a largely domestic affair between two distinct sides, but the Syrian Civil War is the opposite of that.


So you arbitrarily select one criteria (the presence of "secret police") and use it to attempt to contrue the situation as vastly different? That's not honest. Antebellum America had slave patrols with the purpose of keeping order, must we use that to make some sort of emotive rhetorical point as well? I don't see any reason for it. A general comparison does not rely upon every specific detail being identical. Hundreds of thousands of citizens died in America's Civil War, and it was the election of Lincoln that triggered that event. Yes, the particular qualities which made Lincoln objectionable to American southerners differ from the particular qualities that make Assad objectionable to some sector of the Syrian citizenry, but what's more important is that both are or were to some extent objectionable enough to evidently warrant action in the minds of those citizens. You evidently refuse to take the lesson and see how countries can be unified under controversial figures even after catastrophic events, simply because you're already firmly in the "Assad must go!" camp, and reconsideration would require you to admit the possibility that you were wrong. You asked someone else here not too long ago if he had considered the possibility he was wrong. Perhaps you should be open to pondering that question for yourself.

I for one am perfectly open to the possibility that I could be wrong about Assad's possibility to keep the country together, which is why, as I said, the most reasonable course of action is to reunify the country under him and then leave the Syrian people to their devices. Having been returned to more or less the status quo before serious foreign meddling, if the people of the country then choose to continue pursuing his removal through their own means, then that would be just. Further, it would be much easier to demand the Russians stay out of it if the Americans and their allies were demonstrably not involved themselves. Finally, it would lend the entire matter and its final outcome a greater sense of legitimacy; something the Syrian people attended to themselves. In short, even if Assad isn't the man to hold the country together, letting Russia restore the peace and bringing back some semblance of order still makes the most sense, not because Russia is some sort of benevolent, conscience-driven actor, but simply because their current goal in the region is compatible with the best achievable outcome, while the West's is not.

I think my position is about as clearly and fully expressed as can be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox, your position involves far more foreign interference and meddling than mine, which is surprising. I don't think foreign powers should try to get rid of Assad, nor should they prop him up. Same goes for the various factions. Beyond purely humanitarian actions, I think this should be worked out locally. Yet you keep talking as if I support US foreign policy in the Middle East when I actively abhor it, and have consistently. Again, I'm not saying that Assad must go, but rather that in my view I do not see a way he could reunify Syria. Also, you keep referring to the west as if they were the biggest player in this, but they are not, compared to local powers/money the west is second rate in Syria.

Also, you assume Russia can reunify and pacify the country, but they cannot and will not. And why say Russia when in actuality it is Iran and various groups doing the actual ground fighting. If the vastly superior us army could not pacify iraq/Afghanistan in a decade, what chance is there in Syria, even the USSR got knocked down in Afghanistan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Fox, your position involves far more foreign interference and meddling than mine, which is surprising.


More perhaps in some meaningless quantitative sense, but less in terms of overall net effect. Your proposal is as if one had stabbed a man in the chest, and then recanted, but insisted that any sort of medical aid was unacceptable. "No, no, let natural processes take their course," your hypothetical man says, as his victim lies bleeding on the ground. But if one wishes the man to regain his health, obviously medical aid is in order, and if one wishes Syria to shift back towards any modicum of peace and stability, the military equivalent of "medical aid" will obviously be required.

Leon wrote:
Beyond purely humanitarian actions, I think this should be worked out locally.


Yes, this is the line: "Oh no, Assad's supporters seem to be getting some results, so now suddenly everything simply must to be worked out locally." And of course the "humanitarian" action will be cover for continuing to arm and fund rebels and Islamists. Subtle.

Leon wrote:
Yet you keep talking as if I support US foreign policy in the Middle East when I actively abhor it, and have consistently. Again, I'm not saying that Assad must go ...


You've spent the last few posts vigorously engaged both in attacks against Mr. Assad and insistence that a unified Syria beneath him is completely impossible, so yes, you are saying, "Assad must go." Don't you at least have the decency to own the logical conclusions of your own rhetoric?

Leon wrote:
Also, you assume Russia can reunify and pacify the country, but they cannot and will not.


Of course not. Assad cannot reunify the country which was already unified under his rule before outside interference, it is impossible. Russia (and Iran, since obviously labeling merely one member of a cooperative group is insufficiently exact for you) cannot help Mr. Assad restore stability, it is impossible. The only solution, oh-so-coincidentally, is the exact solution the United States of America and its local allies demand. What a total, unexpected shock.

I recommended that you take your own advice and consider the possibility that you were wrong. Instead, you've chosen to aggressively double-down on your original position. So be it. Have a nice day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stilicho25



Joined: 05 Apr 2010

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon, I would argue the recent Russian record with counter insurgencies is pretty good. They train and use paramilitaries like Cossacks and Chechens very effectively. Out guys just run away, and then we go shopping. The Kurds we back are sorta commie-ish and the Shiite religious militias are the ones holding the ground in Iraq. The Syrian army Isn't all that bad compared to our client, the Iraqi army.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
Fox, your position involves far more foreign interference and meddling than mine, which is surprising.


More perhaps in some meaningless quantitative sense, but less in terms of overall net effect. Your proposal is as if one had stabbed a man in the chest, and then recanted, but insisted that any sort of medical aid was unacceptable. "No, no, let natural processes take their course," your hypothetical man says, as his victim lies bleeding on the ground. But if one wishes the man to regain his health, obviously medical aid is in order, and if one wishes Syria to shift back towards any modicum of peace and stability, the military equivalent of "medical aid" will obviously be required.

Leon wrote:
Beyond purely humanitarian actions, I think this should be worked out locally.


Yes, this is the line: "Oh no, Assad's supporters seem to be getting some results, so now suddenly everything simply must to be worked out locally." And of course the "humanitarian" action will be cover for continuing to arm and fund rebels and Islamists. Subtle.

Leon wrote:
Yet you keep talking as if I support US foreign policy in the Middle East when I actively abhor it, and have consistently. Again, I'm not saying that Assad must go ...


You've spent the last few posts vigorously engaged both in attacks against Mr. Assad and insistence that a unified Syria beneath him is completely impossible, so yes, you are saying, "Assad must go." Don't you at least have the decency to own the logical conclusions of your own rhetoric?

Leon wrote:
Also, you assume Russia can reunify and pacify the country, but they cannot and will not.


Of course not. Assad cannot reunify the country which was already unified under his rule before outside interference, it is impossible. Russia (and Iran, since obviously labeling merely one member of a cooperative group is insufficiently exact for you) cannot help Mr. Assad restore stability, it is impossible. The only solution, oh-so-coincidentally, is the exact solution the United States of America and its local allies demand. What a total, unexpected shock.

I recommended that you take your own advice and consider the possibility that you were wrong. Instead, you've chosen to aggressively double-down on your original position. So be it. Have a nice day.


It wasn't unified under his control before outside interference, it was internal domestic protests against Assad that kick started this thing. It was domestic events that led Mr. Assads father to massacre people in Hama in the 1980s. This seems to be the point that you are missing. It's not that Assad is brutal, it is that the assads are not competent to hold Syria together, and the strategy of mass killings has lost its effectiveness, and it seems like Assad doesn't have many other tools, other than relying on outside support.

What I'm proposing, btw, is actually distinctly different than what the US and local allies want, or in effect doing. It has been my position since the beginning of this, and extends to practically any conflict in the region. When I say leave it to local forces, that means not just Russia gets out, but the US and the saudis and Hezbollah and radical Sunnis and so on. I could be wrong, and it might be better if I was, but we will not find out because my proposal will not happen, nor will yours.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stilicho25 wrote:
Leon, I would argue the recent Russian record with counter insurgencies is pretty good. They train and use paramilitaries like Cossacks and Chechens very effectively. Out guys just run away, and then we go shopping. The Kurds we back are sorta commie-ish and the Shiite religious militias are the ones holding the ground in Iraq. The Syrian army Isn't all that bad compared to our client, the Iraqi army.



The most relevant recent Russian experience is the Afghan war. Chechnya is in Russia, and far less complex. I see no incentive for Russia to be involved on the ground in Syria, or to care whether Assad retakes all of Syria as opposed to maintaining control over the coastal areas where Russia has a base.

One other point that has been missed is this international network of Sunni jihadists was created in response to Russia in Afghanistan, so if there is one thing that will help recruitment, it is the chance to kill Russians in a Muslim country again. ISIS has already downed 1 Russian plane, things can get much worse within Russia itself very quickly. Not to mention the Russian economy sucks, they have to deal with Ukraine, and they have less military resources overall than the US.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

It wasn't unified under his control before outside interference, it was internal domestic protests against Assad that kick started this thing.


A country experiencing domestic protests is not the same thing as a country's government not being in control of the country in question. Hell, there are protests in Germany right now, does that mean the Germany isn't unifited under the control of the German government any longer? Does Merkel have to go because some citizens protest her governance? Does "Black Lives Matter" mean the American government is no longer in control of America? No? Because were America a much weaker country from an international standpoint, "Black Lives Matter" is exactly the kind of thing which, through outside meddling, could be raised up into internal chaos. African Americans are a larger percentage of America than Kurds are of Syria, they have a distinct culture, they frequently have a sense of oppression and relatively unsuccessful economically, and America has a history of suppressing or meddling in their political movements. And then bizarro Leon could click his tongue and say, "You know, Obama was never really competent to hold the country together. America needs to be broken up. It's not an organic country, you realize, so it's continued unity was always an impossibility. It's science - social science."

Leon wrote:
... it is that the assads are not competent to hold Syria together ...


You say this again and again, yet even you acknowledge that what's going on there right now is largely driven by outside actors. No leader is "competent" to hold a country together when both regional and international actors are endlessly fueling their opposition, Leon. Could Assad keep the country together absent such external meddling? As I've admitted, I'm not certain. But if he cannot, if it truly is impossible, then the country will fragment even after the chaos induced by outside forces has been neutralized by other outside forces. But let's get real, this isn't really about whether or not he can hold the country together. Indeed, it's precisely the worry that he could keep it together which prompts the involvment of the West and its regional allies.

Leon wrote:
What I'm proposing, btw, is actually distinctly different than what the US and local allies want, or in effect doing.


Marginally different in means, exactly the same in both result and intention.

Leon wrote:
When I say leave it to local forces, that means not just Russia gets out, but the US and the saudis and Hezbollah and radical Sunnis and so on.


Yes, except "the Saudis, Hezbollah, radical Sunnis, and so on" are all denizens of the region who will not end their involvement simply because America and Russia do, and you've also kept open the door to "humanitarian aid," which is actually keeping the door open to Americans continuing to assist those regional parties. If you have some sort of magic want that can make "radical Sunnis" say, "Oh, you know what, I'll stop participating in combat in Syria and go back to being a farmer, carpenter, unemployed layabout, or whatever it was I did before getting into militancy," you go ahead and use it. Absent that, such radical militants are unlikely to stop fighting until they're forcibly pacified, which is exactly what Russia and it's regional allies are doing, and exactly to what you are objecting. After they've been pacified, then a purely internal approach might be coherent and legitimate, especially if that approach could unfold slowly over decades. But that means America stepping aside and letting Russia (and Iran, Leon, and Iran) pacify the groups you yourself insist ought not to be there, because America won't do it, and they won't stop on their own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

It wasn't unified under his control before outside interference, it was internal domestic protests against Assad that kick started this thing.


A country experiencing domestic protests is not the same thing as a country's government not being in control of the country in question. Hell, there are protests in Germany right now, does that mean the Germany isn't unifited under the control of the German government any longer? Does Merkel have to go because some citizens protest her governance? Does "Black Lives Matter" mean the American government is no longer in control of America? No? Because were America a much weaker country from an international standpoint, "Black Lives Matter" is exactly the kind of thing which, through outside meddling, could be raised up into internal chaos. African Americans are a larger percentage of America than Kurds are of Syria, they have a distinct culture, they frequently have a sense of oppression and relatively unsuccessful economically, and America has a history of suppressing or meddling in their political movements. And then bizarro Leon could click his tongue and say, "You know, Obama was never really competent to hold the country together. America needs to be broken up. It's not an organic country, you realize, so it's continued unity was always an impossibility. It's science - social science."


You seem to miss the obvious rebuttal, which is that Germany and the USA and other places do not fall apart in the aftermath of domestic protests, nor do they slaughter civilians. But even in this case, the first point is stronger than the second. Tienanmen was put down brutally, but Deng is far more competent than Assad could ever be. China was put under intense outside pressure, and yet stayed strong and coherent. Iran had protests, same thing, Russia, same thing. What outside meddling could turn black lives matter into chaos, or occupy wall street, or whatever?

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
... it is that the assads are not competent to hold Syria together ...


You say this again and again, yet even you acknowledge that what's going on there right now is largely driven by outside actors. No leader is "competent" to hold a country together when both regional and international actors are endlessly fueling their opposition, Leon. Could Assad keep the country together absent such external meddling? As I've admitted, I'm not certain. But if he cannot, if it truly is impossible, then the country will fragment even after the chaos induced by outside forces has been neutralized by other outside forces. But let's get real, this isn't really about whether or not he can hold the country together. Indeed, it's precisely the worry that he could keep it together which prompts the involvment of the West and its regional allies.


The fact that it was taken over so easily by outside actors on all sides, and that Assad exists almost solely because Iran wishes it too is a good indicator that Assad is not competent, I think. Assad's weakness created the space for this to happen. As to your last sentence, I think that is an incorrect assessment, at least as far as the US goes. I think the US has mixed feelings about Assad, but if the US actually really wanted to get rid of Assad, it could have happened a long time ago. Getting rid of Assad is easier than getting rid of ISIS, i.e. look at how long Saddam lasted vs. AQI, and look at how AQI turned into ISIS. You are probably right about the US allies, but I think it would be a mistake to think that these allies are working together rather than maintaining separate proxies and agendas.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
What I'm proposing, btw, is actually distinctly different than what the US and local allies want, or in effect doing.


Marginally different in means, exactly the same in both result and intention.


I propose that all outside actors stop interfering inside Syria as opposed to everyone interfering all the time within Syria. I fail to see see how that is at all similar to in either result or intention. Without outside support the ability to continue fighting, for anyone in this space, is severely limited. ISIS is starting to run out of money, Assad is starting to run out of money, the other rebels are bankrolled by outside actors.

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:
When I say leave it to local forces, that means not just Russia gets out, but the US and the saudis and Hezbollah and radical Sunnis and so on.


Yes, except "the Saudis, Hezbollah, radical Sunnis, and so on" are all denizens of the region who will not end their involvement simply because America and Russia do, and you've also kept open the door to "humanitarian aid," which is actually keeping the door open to Americans continuing to assist those regional parties. If you have some sort of magic want that can make "radical Sunnis" say, "Oh, you know what, I'll stop participating in combat in Syria and go back to being a farmer, carpenter, unemployed layabout, or whatever it was I did before getting into militancy," you go ahead and use it. Absent that, such radical militants are unlikely to stop fighting until they're forcibly pacified, which is exactly what Russia and it's regional allies are doing, and exactly to what you are objecting. After they've been pacified, then a purely internal approach might be coherent and legitimate, especially if that approach could unfold slowly over decades. But that means America stepping aside and letting Russia (and Iran, Leon, and Iran) pacify the groups you yourself insist ought not to be there, because America won't do it, and they won't stop on their own.


Do you know how this international radical Sunni networks were created? It started in the 1980s in Afghanistan fighting Russians. Russia tried what you proposed, and it turned into their Vietnam. America tried this in Iraq. I simply cannot understand how you do not understand this. This is what the French tried in Algeria. It is very hard to find a case where an outside force did this successfully, but if you can think of one, do let me know. I will suggest that Russia has no interest in doing what you are proposing because the costs would be more than it could bear, in terms of lives and economics. Iran has been trying to do this, but is already paying a very large cost, and is extended into Iraq as well. In addition the Saudis and Qataris and the Turks and everyone else scared of Iran in the region will not passively allow Russia and Iran to carry out your plan. Turkey has already shot down a Russian plane, Saudi bombing Yemen is not unrelated to Saudi perceptions of Iranian actions in Syria, and Saudi and others are talking about sending ground troops into Syria as opposed to the millions of dollars and weapons they currently send. Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are a world war in miniature, but I fear that what you propose would expand it.

I understand the logical appeal and coherence of what you say, but I think for a variety of reasons it is misguided. Maybe I am wrong, and that would be nice, but this is how I see what is happening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:

You seem to miss the obvious rebuttal, which is that Germany and the USA and other places do not fall apart in the aftermath of domestic protests, nor do they slaughter civilians. But even in this case, the first point is stronger than the second. Tienanmen was put down brutally, but Deng is far more competent than Assad could ever be. China was put under intense outside pressure, and yet stayed strong and coherent. Iran had protests, same thing, Russia, same thing.


And you evidently miss the obvious counter-rebuttal: these countries are all substantially stronger than Syria, and thus had the wherewithal to resist outside pressure which could otherwise have resulted in internal chaos. Was the leader of China genuinely more "competent" than Mr. Assad in his brutality, or did he simply have more resources at his disposal in order to ensure outsiders could not adequately capitalize upon the internal conflict in order to send his country spiralling out of control? Indeed, based upon your analysis of Mr. Assad, Chinese leaders are not competent: they have "secret police" in China, and they bring brutality to bear when it suits them. The difference lies primarily in affluence and potency. Likewise with America: it's far too strong a country for any other to meddle sufficiently to engineer internal chaos in such a fashion, which is why my hypothetical was predicated upon America existing alongside greater powers. And while you insist, "The fact that it was taken over so easily by outside actors on all sides, and that Assad exists almost solely because Iran wishes it too is a good indicator that Assad is not competent," this is more an assessment of Syria's relative power and affluency in comparison to the parties which would see it fragmented than anything. That's the pattern: weak countries being thrown into disorder by strong countries who are evidently proponents of that idea that, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must," at leaset implicitly.

Leon wrote:
I think the US has mixed feelings about Assad, but if the US actually really wanted to get rid of Assad, it could have happened a long time ago. Getting rid of Assad is easier than getting rid of ISIS ...


Not without starting World War III it's not, which is probably the only reason it has not happened yet.

Leon wrote:
Do you know how this international radical Sunni networks were created? It started in the 1980s in Afghanistan fighting Russians.


Funded by whom? Trained by whom? Supported by whom? The answer:

Quote:
Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of aid, military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[8] paid for primarily by the United States and Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf.[2][3][4][8][34][35][36][37]

...

In the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt,[9] the People's Republic of China and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani intelligence services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[101]


What a coincidence, largely the same people who want to tear Syria apart. Strange that you didn't think it worth mentioning while you were giving me a history lesson the topic, especially given you already alluded to it earlier in the thread, but I suppose such trivial details tend to slip the mind. It's amazing how hard it is to bring peace and stability to a region when global superpowers are funding and assisting the people causing the chaos, isn't it? You simply cannot understand how I do not understand this? You simply can't understand why I do not accept your attempt to use a symptom of Western meddling in the region to insist that Russia cannot achieve anything in the region absent continued Western meddling? It's amazing how hard it is to understand simple things when one has a perceived stake in not understanding them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox, the Afghan rebels were sponsored by isi, the us and the Saudis, but the foreign fighters were sponsored by wealthy individuals like bin laden, and existed independent of the west largely. Just like ISIS and al nursra are independent of the west. It's clear that we have largely different views on this, and to me it seems that you are basing yours on a dislike of us foreign policy. That is a reasonable instinct. Its just that it has led you to a bizarre conclusion that Russia and Iran can kill enough people in Syria that Assad can resume power, as if the past 5 years had not happened, as if families do not have memories, as if other powers will not react, as if Iran, Russia and Syria had the resources to rebuild the whole country despite each have sever financial restraints, as if the Russians and Iranians would allow their leaders to make the epic sacrifices that your plan would require, and as if they had the capacity to do what the us couldn't in a decade, as if Sykes picot was anything but a flawed colonial idea, as if the Syrian people were not already fleeing the country now, but under Russia's expanded rules of engagement would stay?

Local grievances created this, grievances that have grown independent of outside influence, and would grow as outside influence increases, both towards Assad and the outside power.

I simply cannot accept your viewpoint, for various reasons, but thanks for sharing and challenging mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

You seem to miss the obvious rebuttal, which is that Germany and the USA and other places do not fall apart in the aftermath of domestic protests, nor do they slaughter civilians. But even in this case, the first point is stronger than the second. Tienanmen was put down brutally, but Deng is far more competent than Assad could ever be. China was put under intense outside pressure, and yet stayed strong and coherent. Iran had protests, same thing, Russia, same thing.


And you evidently miss the obvious counter-rebuttal: these countries are all substantially stronger than Syria, and thus had the wherewithal to resist outside pressure which could otherwise have resulted in internal chaos. Was the leader of China genuinely more "competent" than Mr. Assad in his brutality, or did he simply have more resources at his disposal in order to ensure outsiders could not adequately capitalize upon the internal conflict in order to send his country spiralling out of control? Indeed, based upon your analysis of Mr. Assad, Chinese leaders are not competent: they have "secret police" in China, and they bring brutality to bear when it suits them. The difference lies primarily in affluence and potency. Likewise with America: it's far too strong a country for any other to meddle sufficiently to engineer internal chaos in such a fashion, which is why my hypothetical was predicated upon America existing alongside greater powers. And while you insist, "The fact that it was taken over so easily by outside actors on all sides, and that Assad exists almost solely because Iran wishes it too is a good indicator that Assad is not competent," this is more an assessment of Syria's relative power and affluency in comparison to the parties which would see it fragmented than anything. That's the pattern: weak countries being thrown into disorder by strong countries who are evidently proponents of that idea that, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must," at leaset implicitly.

Leon wrote:
I think the US has mixed feelings about Assad, but if the US actually really wanted to get rid of Assad, it could have happened a long time ago. Getting rid of Assad is easier than getting rid of ISIS ...


Not without starting World War III it's not, which is probably the only reason it has not happened yet.

Leon wrote:
Do you know how this international radical Sunni networks were created? It started in the 1980s in Afghanistan fighting Russians.


Funded by whom? Trained by whom? Supported by whom? The answer:

Quote:
Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of aid, military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[8] paid for primarily by the United States and Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf.[2][3][4][8][34][35][36][37]

...

In the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt,[9] the People's Republic of China and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani intelligence services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[101]


What a coincidence, largely the same people who want to tear Syria apart. Strange that you didn't think it worth mentioning while you were giving me a history lesson the topic, especially given you already alluded to it earlier in the thread, but I suppose such trivial details tend to slip the mind. It's amazing how hard it is to bring peace and stability to a region when global superpowers are funding and assisting the people causing the chaos, isn't it? You simply cannot understand how I do not understand this? You simply can't understand why I do not accept your attempt to use a symptom of Western meddling in the region to insist that Russia cannot achieve anything in the region absent continued Western meddling? It's amazing how hard it is to understand simple things when one has a perceived stake in not understanding them.


I am just wondering: has there ever been a country that underwent a civil war with a dictator at the beginning of that war, and resolved that civil war with that same dictator in place and that country in the same geographic form?

I can't think of any examples. My question is sincere. The closest I could think of was Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and those weren't really civil wars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bucheon bum wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

You seem to miss the obvious rebuttal, which is that Germany and the USA and other places do not fall apart in the aftermath of domestic protests, nor do they slaughter civilians. But even in this case, the first point is stronger than the second. Tienanmen was put down brutally, but Deng is far more competent than Assad could ever be. China was put under intense outside pressure, and yet stayed strong and coherent. Iran had protests, same thing, Russia, same thing.


And you evidently miss the obvious counter-rebuttal: these countries are all substantially stronger than Syria, and thus had the wherewithal to resist outside pressure which could otherwise have resulted in internal chaos. Was the leader of China genuinely more "competent" than Mr. Assad in his brutality, or did he simply have more resources at his disposal in order to ensure outsiders could not adequately capitalize upon the internal conflict in order to send his country spiralling out of control? Indeed, based upon your analysis of Mr. Assad, Chinese leaders are not competent: they have "secret police" in China, and they bring brutality to bear when it suits them. The difference lies primarily in affluence and potency. Likewise with America: it's far too strong a country for any other to meddle sufficiently to engineer internal chaos in such a fashion, which is why my hypothetical was predicated upon America existing alongside greater powers. And while you insist, "The fact that it was taken over so easily by outside actors on all sides, and that Assad exists almost solely because Iran wishes it too is a good indicator that Assad is not competent," this is more an assessment of Syria's relative power and affluency in comparison to the parties which would see it fragmented than anything. That's the pattern: weak countries being thrown into disorder by strong countries who are evidently proponents of that idea that, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must," at leaset implicitly.

Leon wrote:
I think the US has mixed feelings about Assad, but if the US actually really wanted to get rid of Assad, it could have happened a long time ago. Getting rid of Assad is easier than getting rid of ISIS ...


Not without starting World War III it's not, which is probably the only reason it has not happened yet.

Leon wrote:
Do you know how this international radical Sunni networks were created? It started in the 1980s in Afghanistan fighting Russians.


Funded by whom? Trained by whom? Supported by whom? The answer:

Quote:
Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of aid, military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[8] paid for primarily by the United States and Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf.[2][3][4][8][34][35][36][37]

...

In the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt,[9] the People's Republic of China and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani intelligence services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[101]


What a coincidence, largely the same people who want to tear Syria apart. Strange that you didn't think it worth mentioning while you were giving me a history lesson the topic, especially given you already alluded to it earlier in the thread, but I suppose such trivial details tend to slip the mind. It's amazing how hard it is to bring peace and stability to a region when global superpowers are funding and assisting the people causing the chaos, isn't it? You simply cannot understand how I do not understand this? You simply can't understand why I do not accept your attempt to use a symptom of Western meddling in the region to insist that Russia cannot achieve anything in the region absent continued Western meddling? It's amazing how hard it is to understand simple things when one has a perceived stake in not understanding them.


I am just wondering: has there ever been a country that underwent a civil war with a dictator at the beginning of that war, and resolved that civil war with that same dictator in place and that country in the same geographic form?

I can't think of any examples. My question is sincere. The closest I could think of was Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and those weren't really civil wars.


Depends on how narrowly you define war, I can think of dictators who put down opposition and survived, but have a hard time thinking of any that meet your criteria for prolonged conflicts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
bucheon bum wrote:
Fox wrote:
Leon wrote:

You seem to miss the obvious rebuttal, which is that Germany and the USA and other places do not fall apart in the aftermath of domestic protests, nor do they slaughter civilians. But even in this case, the first point is stronger than the second. Tienanmen was put down brutally, but Deng is far more competent than Assad could ever be. China was put under intense outside pressure, and yet stayed strong and coherent. Iran had protests, same thing, Russia, same thing.


And you evidently miss the obvious counter-rebuttal: these countries are all substantially stronger than Syria, and thus had the wherewithal to resist outside pressure which could otherwise have resulted in internal chaos. Was the leader of China genuinely more "competent" than Mr. Assad in his brutality, or did he simply have more resources at his disposal in order to ensure outsiders could not adequately capitalize upon the internal conflict in order to send his country spiralling out of control? Indeed, based upon your analysis of Mr. Assad, Chinese leaders are not competent: they have "secret police" in China, and they bring brutality to bear when it suits them. The difference lies primarily in affluence and potency. Likewise with America: it's far too strong a country for any other to meddle sufficiently to engineer internal chaos in such a fashion, which is why my hypothetical was predicated upon America existing alongside greater powers. And while you insist, "The fact that it was taken over so easily by outside actors on all sides, and that Assad exists almost solely because Iran wishes it too is a good indicator that Assad is not competent," this is more an assessment of Syria's relative power and affluency in comparison to the parties which would see it fragmented than anything. That's the pattern: weak countries being thrown into disorder by strong countries who are evidently proponents of that idea that, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must," at leaset implicitly.

Leon wrote:
I think the US has mixed feelings about Assad, but if the US actually really wanted to get rid of Assad, it could have happened a long time ago. Getting rid of Assad is easier than getting rid of ISIS ...


Not without starting World War III it's not, which is probably the only reason it has not happened yet.

Leon wrote:
Do you know how this international radical Sunni networks were created? It started in the 1980s in Afghanistan fighting Russians.


Funded by whom? Trained by whom? Supported by whom? The answer:

Quote:
Afghan insurgents began to receive massive amounts of aid, military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[8] paid for primarily by the United States and Arab monarchies in the Persian Gulf.[2][3][4][8][34][35][36][37]

...

In the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt,[9] the People's Republic of China and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The U.S. viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani intelligence services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[101]


What a coincidence, largely the same people who want to tear Syria apart. Strange that you didn't think it worth mentioning while you were giving me a history lesson the topic, especially given you already alluded to it earlier in the thread, but I suppose such trivial details tend to slip the mind. It's amazing how hard it is to bring peace and stability to a region when global superpowers are funding and assisting the people causing the chaos, isn't it? You simply cannot understand how I do not understand this? You simply can't understand why I do not accept your attempt to use a symptom of Western meddling in the region to insist that Russia cannot achieve anything in the region absent continued Western meddling? It's amazing how hard it is to understand simple things when one has a perceived stake in not understanding them.


I am just wondering: has there ever been a country that underwent a civil war with a dictator at the beginning of that war, and resolved that civil war with that same dictator in place and that country in the same geographic form?

I can't think of any examples. My question is sincere. The closest I could think of was Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and those weren't really civil wars.


Depends on how narrowly you define war, I can think of dictators who put down opposition and survived, but have a hard time thinking of any that meet your criteria for prolonged conflicts.


Right. Burma is another example that popped into my head yesterday. All those were no more than a month long though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bucheon bum wrote:

I am just wondering: has there ever been a country that underwent a civil war with a dictator at the beginning of that war, and resolved that civil war with that same dictator in place and that country in the same geographic form?

I can't think of any examples. My question is sincere. The closest I could think of was Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and those weren't really civil wars.


It's an interesting question. I am assuming by "dictator" you've got in mind the more modern kind of autocratic leader rather than any sort of historic king, especially since if we go back too far in history, the examples we find would not necessarily be relevant to the modern era, coming from a very different time both from a technological and geopolitical standpoint.

-If you count the First Brazilian Republic as a dictatorship, then it won The War of Canudos, but I don't think that's very informative here.

-The Second Iraqi-Kurdish Wars seem to have some relevancy here, but with a mixed message. Did the government "win" because it was able to remain in power, or "lose" because it was never able to fully suppress Kurdish militancy, something that came with long-term consequences?

There aren't a huge number of examples, honestly, and even the examples that do exist are largely tarred by geopolitics, ending up proxy battles between bigger powers, which comes back to my point about the relative power of a country being a decisive factor in how such revolts turn out. In fact, looking over examples in response to your question, the single biggest pattern is that revolts and rebellions very rarely escalate into civil wars at all in the modern era unless outside funding, provisioning, and support is occurring. If a small government is overthrown by a rebellion backed by a global superpower, is the lesson, "Dictators can never put down civil wars," or is the lesson, "Superpowers can cause more or less any government to be overturned and more or less any country to be thrown into chaos unless they are checked by other superpowers."?

Personally, and I know you disagree, I still think the American example is apt here. No, Lincoln was not a dictator (as much as some of his modern detractors like to use the term), but the fact remains that a sizeable portion of the country did not vote for him, revolted in response to the proposition of being governed by him, was defeated in civil war and forcibly readmitted into the country under his governance, and that readmission has stood the test of time. Would the same thing have happened if a country as powerful in comparison to America as America is in comparison to Syria had decided to aggressively fund and support the Confederacy? Probably not, and even the thread of the British supporting the Confederacy was worrying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I finally got around to reading Leon's "Give War A Chance" article. I liked it. The portion on refugees and how they are handled was especially insightful. But, it seemed to be focused mostly on the obvious and overt aspects of international involvement while not paying enough attention to the more destructive, covert aspects. If we are to "give war a chance," then restricting the covert elements of international involvement is if anything more important than how we go about handling the overt elements.
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 ... , 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 28 of 29

 
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 © 2018 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