and Assad is a murderous dictator clinging to power, but somehow we're expected to believe Putin is the hero in all this who never told a fib in his life?
Assad is no different from the Saudi king who shot a peaceful demonstration of Shiites. That's only about Saudi Arabia in the West shamefully keep quiet. All the fault of Assad is that he supports the Shiites, not the Sunnis. Putin is no hero, he is a pragmatist perfectly performing the assigned work.
Sony, shushy.. these guys need a pope or a new prophet so the oily guys don't use religion. Meh these are post-sadam pirates. Apart from the pirates, Puty seems the only bloke who can stop the war and moderate the "moderate" opposition
This is the most unpredictable conflict in recent times and I'm worried that we're now going to get involved without thinking about the possible outcomes.
I hope our leaders are thinking about those possibilities and making a contingency plan for each one, but... you know.
The simplest outcome is that IS gets attacked by ground and air forces and we end up with another Iraq/Afghanistan "attempt at nation-building" scenario, lasting a decade or more (and hopefully not leading to the formation of IS version 2).
It gets more complicated if the large actors disagree so much that they start to fight each other or try to (unilaterally) carve up territory as part of a solution.
If there's an escalation between Turkey and Russia, then the West has to choose which authoritarian pseudo-democracy it will back (if any), possibly causing NATO to split up.
Russia wants to keep Assad, the West wants to get rid of him. Mutually incompatible. Something has to give, so an alternative solution may have to be pursued...
What if one side decides that Sykes-Picot has had its day and decides that it will break up Syria and Iraq into ethnically-divided countries for the sake of stable(-ish) governable nations? What if the other side disagrees, violently? What if the breakup of Syria and Iraq leads to another conflict that changes Turkey's borders? What if Iran loses its Kurdish area but gains oil-rich southern Iraq? How would Kuwait feel, surrounded by Iranian-controlled lands? Would it be able to retain its independence? What if Saudi Arabia decides that the growth in Iranian power is intolerable? What if Israel decides that the growth in Iranian power is intolerable?
So you decide that you'll keep those borders right where they are. The result? Some groups under the thumb of some authoritarian leader. Maybe some kind of persecution or massacre, and another wave of refugees. A few years later, the whole thing kicks off again!
This could be the kind of conflict with no ethical compromise at the end. The kind of conflict where one group is crushed for the sake of a dirty peace.
Who do you betray? Turkey? The Kurds? The Alawites? The FSA? The Sunnis in general?
Who do you risk offending? Russia? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel?
I think we should move borders (where there is agreement) and put in place a resource-sharing agreement, under a UN mandate, to mitigate the pain. But that is likely to be wishful thinking. Either way, if we do go in, it has to be for the long haul and that will cost a lot of lives and money. Real nation-building or you just make the situation worse.
If we want to avoid this situation again, we must have zero tolerance for certain nearby regimes who move from a relatively free society to clamping down on the free press and bypassing term limits. Seriously, these are such red flags that bad things are going to happen soon. Why do our leaders put up with it? It should be a condition of trade that these things are respected. Even codify it at the ICC.
Limit trade with regimes that are already authoritarian and with poor human rights. Push them to reform and when they do - reward them. Don't be standoffish because of their ethnicity, religion or continent, even if you're worried about domestic opinion at home. Even if they ask for EU membership, don't worry, it'll take about 20-30 years and give plenty of time for their wages to improve and for Europeans to get used to the idea.
Also, include the costs of instability and conflict in the price of imported oil and gas, when making future energy plans.
Assange speaks about the true perpetrators of the bloodshed in Syria: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/11/26/actualidad/1448559408_472012.html
"Since 2006, we have statements from the US Embassy in Syria in which they said they wanted to overthrow the government sector stoking tensions between Shiites and Sunnis, creating paranoia, that is the term used in the Assad regime. All into believing that there was impending coup and give "overact" which is what he did in 2011. So that was the plan of the United States and, as a result of this, France, England, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel have been involved in this as well. The result means that no proper scrutiny and made this crazy adventure of America and its allies is the destruction of Syria. It joins other previous mad adventures in Iraq and Libya. None of that had to Happen. The consequence is that Europe is now flooded with Syrian refugees; we have the creation of Al Nusra and ISIS. Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands have died."
I visited Damascus for 5 days in 2009 and I found it to be a peaceful and very friendly environment. Different religious groups lived, shopped and worshiped side by side. I remember having a chat with a coffee shop owner about this and he did not seem to think that this was unusual or unexpected in the region.
Me and some colleagues stayed out to the early hours, playing backgammon and smoking shisha and felt no danger going home in the dark.
Assange speaks about the true perpetrators of the bloodshed
ah that well known squatter in london wasting millions of pounds of Londoners tax on , who hasn't left the building in YEARS , so what does he know? he wants to hide in a embassy here, let that country's embassy foot the bill!! same goes for the americans not paying their congestion charge, take em to court.
big money / business in war.. all the leaders of countries /, mp's have their own agenda's...
oh and a nice bit of oil .. that "somehow" the lot in syria are getting funding from selling "hmmm" to someone
I was just googling for cheap Airline tickets from Houston to London as I'm probably going in March...most were around the $1500 range...then I saw one for $699....whaaaa!!!?...I looked closer...1 stop Houston to Turkey, Turkey to London....TURKISH airlines.
Comments
JSpeccy-win32-portable
I hope our leaders are thinking about those possibilities and making a contingency plan for each one, but... you know.
The simplest outcome is that IS gets attacked by ground and air forces and we end up with another Iraq/Afghanistan "attempt at nation-building" scenario, lasting a decade or more (and hopefully not leading to the formation of IS version 2).
It gets more complicated if the large actors disagree so much that they start to fight each other or try to (unilaterally) carve up territory as part of a solution.
If there's an escalation between Turkey and Russia, then the West has to choose which authoritarian pseudo-democracy it will back (if any), possibly causing NATO to split up.
Russia wants to keep Assad, the West wants to get rid of him. Mutually incompatible. Something has to give, so an alternative solution may have to be pursued...
What if one side decides that Sykes-Picot has had its day and decides that it will break up Syria and Iraq into ethnically-divided countries for the sake of stable(-ish) governable nations? What if the other side disagrees, violently? What if the breakup of Syria and Iraq leads to another conflict that changes Turkey's borders? What if Iran loses its Kurdish area but gains oil-rich southern Iraq? How would Kuwait feel, surrounded by Iranian-controlled lands? Would it be able to retain its independence? What if Saudi Arabia decides that the growth in Iranian power is intolerable? What if Israel decides that the growth in Iranian power is intolerable?
So you decide that you'll keep those borders right where they are. The result? Some groups under the thumb of some authoritarian leader. Maybe some kind of persecution or massacre, and another wave of refugees. A few years later, the whole thing kicks off again!
This could be the kind of conflict with no ethical compromise at the end. The kind of conflict where one group is crushed for the sake of a dirty peace.
Who do you betray? Turkey? The Kurds? The Alawites? The FSA? The Sunnis in general?
Who do you risk offending? Russia? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel?
I think we should move borders (where there is agreement) and put in place a resource-sharing agreement, under a UN mandate, to mitigate the pain. But that is likely to be wishful thinking. Either way, if we do go in, it has to be for the long haul and that will cost a lot of lives and money. Real nation-building or you just make the situation worse.
If we want to avoid this situation again, we must have zero tolerance for certain nearby regimes who move from a relatively free society to clamping down on the free press and bypassing term limits. Seriously, these are such red flags that bad things are going to happen soon. Why do our leaders put up with it? It should be a condition of trade that these things are respected. Even codify it at the ICC.
Limit trade with regimes that are already authoritarian and with poor human rights. Push them to reform and when they do - reward them. Don't be standoffish because of their ethnicity, religion or continent, even if you're worried about domestic opinion at home. Even if they ask for EU membership, don't worry, it'll take about 20-30 years and give plenty of time for their wages to improve and for Europeans to get used to the idea.
Also, include the costs of instability and conflict in the price of imported oil and gas, when making future energy plans.
"Since 2006, we have statements from the US Embassy in Syria in which they said they wanted to overthrow the government sector stoking tensions between Shiites and Sunnis, creating paranoia, that is the term used in the Assad regime. All into believing that there was impending coup and give "overact" which is what he did in 2011. So that was the plan of the United States and, as a result of this, France, England, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel have been involved in this as well. The result means that no proper scrutiny and made this crazy adventure of America and its allies is the destruction of Syria. It joins other previous mad adventures in Iraq and Libya. None of that had to Happen. The consequence is that Europe is now flooded with Syrian refugees; we have the creation of Al Nusra and ISIS. Millions of people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands have died."
Me and some colleagues stayed out to the early hours, playing backgammon and smoking shisha and felt no danger going home in the dark.
ah that well known squatter in london wasting millions of pounds of Londoners tax on , who hasn't left the building in YEARS , so what does he know? he wants to hide in a embassy here, let that country's embassy foot the bill!! same goes for the americans not paying their congestion charge, take em to court.
big money / business in war.. all the leaders of countries /, mp's have their own agenda's...
oh and a nice bit of oil .. that "somehow" the lot in syria are getting funding from selling "hmmm" to someone
boozy was the movie any good ? :)
Not really a bit long and drawn out, and a lot of repeating the same thing over and over again ;)
Erm....no thanks, I'll pay the $1500.. :))
Magenta icon