Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Syrian Civil War News and Discussions

Syria Iraq Turkey Russia Saudi Arabia ISIS Kurds Assad Civil War Iran

  • Please log in to reply
632 replies to this topic

#41
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

http://english.alara...cal-Islam-.html

 

Could this potentially alienate Assad's allies in Iran?



#42
DorsaBrevia

DorsaBrevia

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • LocationToronto
Libya was not really about oil, the West was quite surprised about the uprising. Their realpolitik strategies prior to the Arab Spring already were getting them lots of oil from Libya.

 

Didn't Gaddafi threaten to kick some Western oil companies out of Libya after the uprising began and Western leaders (Obama, et cetera) began calling on him to leave office?

 

Note that that was after the war began. The West really had no incentive before this, and in fact the West had been actually growing more comfortable with Gaddhaffi thanks to his help against Al-Qaeda in North Africa following 9/11.

I'm not disputing any of what you just wrote. The West was indeed pretty friendly with Gaddafi after he renounced terrorism and gave up his WMDs and nuclear program in 2003. I am simply pointing out that after the war began, the West began turning against Gaddafi when it initially appeared that the rebels would win (in February 2011 and perhaps very early March 2011), since it probably wanted to make the Libyan rebels to have a more favorable view of them (the West). Then, when Gaddafi began winning the war against the rebels in March 2011 and threatened to kick some Western oil companies out of Libya, the West realized that it previously miscaculated by calling for Gaddafi to leave office. Thus, with the Western access to Libyan oil threatened, the West/NATO decided to intervene in Libya to help the rebels right before Gaddafi would have captured Benghazi (a huge rebel stronghold). While I do think that there were also humanitarian considerations in intervening in Libya (keep in mind that NATO also previously intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, where I don't think that the West had vital natural resource interests), I do think that oil was one of the factors in the Libyan intervention as well. Some of the national leaders of the NATO member countries (Obama, et cetera) were apparently very reluctant to intervene in Libya, so theoretically, for all we know, the oil factor might have been the thing which pushed some NATO countries "over the edge" in deciding whether or not to intervene in Libya.

 

Also, in addition to the oil, another difference between Libya and Syria is that Gaddafi dramatically weakened his army in order to reduce the risk of a coup against him, while Assad's army has never been (dramatically) weakened by the Assad regime.

 

Not just the oil, while I agree with that point, Libya was becoming a regional power in north africa. By creating much needed infrastructure, Libya achieved one of the highest HDI scores in all of Africa. This increases the spending ability of the citizens, which in turn, empowers the national economy. Gaddafi was the leader of the African Union and proposed an alternate currency for all of africa which would facilititate a centralized bank as did with the Euro. This centralized bank could potentially lower interest rates and attract foreign investors into not just Libyan oil fields, but all of Africa's oil and natural gas deposits.

 

As with Syria, it has never really provoked a regional threat to the middle east, and therefore is not of much interest to the Western World. Not to mention the disparity between rivaling rebel groups, the entire situation is a mess which few countries want to spend unraveling.



#43
ReclusiveHitman

ReclusiveHitman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

The majority will eventually get their way one day, they always do. Whether that day will be in the near or far future we'll have to see. Regimes don't last forever. 



#44
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

It is the beginning of the end, looks like we are entering the final chapter of this bloody war looks like Assad will prevail, as the rebels are beginning to splinter: http://www.huffingto...just_reloaded=1



#45
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

http://www.carbonate...rrifying-photos

 

Images of Homs.

 

http://www.powerline...n-civil-war.php



#46
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?



#47
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?

 

Unlikely.



#48
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

Another article on the deteriorating situation in Iraq caused in part by Syria.

 

http://www.thenation...yria-civil-war#


Edited by MarcZ, 30 July 2013 - 11:08 PM.


#49
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?

 

Unlikely.

Alright. What do you think the West's strategy/approach to Syria would look like if/after Assad and his supporters win the Syrian Civil War?


Edited by Futurist, 30 July 2013 - 11:20 PM.


#50
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?

 

Unlikely.

Alright. What do you think the West's strategy/approach to Syria would look like if/after Assad and his supporters win the Syrian Civil War?

 

Not 100% sure about this.

 

My instinct tells me there will be some sort of blame game in Washington with the punditry and media bemoaning this loss to Iran and Russia. Syria and Iran will obviously try to play this as a victory, Russia will be pleased with the outcome but probably won't explicitly show it. The rest of the Arab states will all curse the West like they usually do. Israel will probably be silent on the resolution but I don't think they particularly care either way, they will simply see this as an increase in Iran's influence and likely put more pressure on the U.S. to take a tough line on Iran. I think the main thing the West will see after Assad wins is a toughening of rhetoric up on Iran and other players, although I doubt again they will invade Iran now as the election of the moderate president had blunted some of the urgency the public felt toward Iran while Ahmadinejad was in power. 



#51
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?

 

Unlikely.

Alright. What do you think the West's strategy/approach to Syria would look like if/after Assad and his supporters win the Syrian Civil War?

 

Not 100% sure about this.

 

My instinct tells me there will be some sort of blame game in Washington with the punditry and media bemoaning this loss to Iran and Russia. Syria and Iran will obviously try to play this as a victory, Russia will be pleased with the outcome but probably won't explicitly show it. The rest of the Arab states will all curse the West like they usually do. Israel will probably be silent on the resolution but I don't think they particularly care either way, they will simply see this as an increase in Iran's influence and likely put more pressure on the U.S. to take a tough line on Iran. I think the main thing the West will see after Assad wins is a toughening of rhetoric up on Iran and other players, although I doubt again they will invade Iran now as the election of the moderate president had blunted some of the urgency the public felt toward Iran while Ahmadinejad was in power. 

This seems pretty realistic. Do you think that the West will continue to treat Assad as a pariah even if/after he wins, considering that some countries in the Middle East have recently become democracies and considering that the Syrian Civil War has already caused about 100,000 deaths?


Edited by Futurist, 31 July 2013 - 12:36 AM.


#52
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada
Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?

 

Unlikely.

Alright. What do you think the West's strategy/approach to Syria would look like if/after Assad and his supporters win the Syrian Civil War?

 

Not 100% sure about this.

 

My instinct tells me there will be some sort of blame game in Washington with the punditry and media bemoaning this loss to Iran and Russia. Syria and Iran will obviously try to play this as a victory, Russia will be pleased with the outcome but probably won't explicitly show it. The rest of the Arab states will all curse the West like they usually do. Israel will probably be silent on the resolution but I don't think they particularly care either way, they will simply see this as an increase in Iran's influence and likely put more pressure on the U.S. to take a tough line on Iran. I think the main thing the West will see after Assad wins is a toughening of rhetoric up on Iran and other players, although I doubt again they will invade Iran now as the election of the moderate president had blunted some of the urgency the public felt toward Iran while Ahmadinejad was in power. 

This seems pretty realistic. Do you think that the West will continue to treat Assad as a pariah even if/after he wins, considering that some countries in the Middle East have recently become democracies and considering that the Syrian Civil War has already caused about 100,000 deaths?

 

Which Middle Eastern countries have recently become democracies? I count none on the scoreboard. Except perhaps Libya(?). Assad was already considered a pariah, I assume the West will forget about Syria afterwards. Only it will be brought up in the case of future conflicts as to why we must intervene. They will contrast the results of Libya and Syria to try to influence popular opinion in future interventions, but in reality future interventions will become more unlikely as the U.S. becomes more economically squeezed.


Edited by MarcZ, 31 July 2013 - 12:40 AM.


#53
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Could the West still try to intervene in some sort of way which would still give the rebels a chance of at least holding their ground?

 

Unlikely.

Alright. What do you think the West's strategy/approach to Syria would look like if/after Assad and his supporters win the Syrian Civil War?

 

Not 100% sure about this.

 

My instinct tells me there will be some sort of blame game in Washington with the punditry and media bemoaning this loss to Iran and Russia. Syria and Iran will obviously try to play this as a victory, Russia will be pleased with the outcome but probably won't explicitly show it. The rest of the Arab states will all curse the West like they usually do. Israel will probably be silent on the resolution but I don't think they particularly care either way, they will simply see this as an increase in Iran's influence and likely put more pressure on the U.S. to take a tough line on Iran. I think the main thing the West will see after Assad wins is a toughening of rhetoric up on Iran and other players, although I doubt again they will invade Iran now as the election of the moderate president had blunted some of the urgency the public felt toward Iran while Ahmadinejad was in power. 

This seems pretty realistic. Do you think that the West will continue to treat Assad as a pariah even if/after he wins, considering that some countries in the Middle East have recently become democracies and considering that the Syrian Civil War has already caused about 100,000 deaths?

 

1. Which Middle Eastern countries have recently become democracies? I count none on the scoreboard. Except perhaps Libya(?).

 

2. Assad was already considered a pariah,

 

3. I assume the West will forget about Syria afterwards. Only it will be brought up in the case of future conflicts as to why we must intervene. They will contrast the results of Libya and Syria to try to influence popular opinion in future interventions, but in reality future interventions will become more unlikely as the U.S. becomes more economically squeezed.

1. Libya, Egypt (that coup there recently is supposed to return Egypt to democratic rule soon), Tunisia, and maybe Yemen. 2. Not quite. Obama and his administration actually did try appealing to Assad before the Arab Spring broke out (in the hopes of getting him to end his alliance with Iran and to become friendlier with the West). As you might recall, I think that then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once called Assad a "reformer."

 

3. What about having some European countries (France, the U.K., et cetera) pushing for intervention first (in the future) and then convincing the U.S. to support intervention later (such as what had occurred right before the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya)? Would this be possible? Also, I could see Syria regaining importance as Israel tries to sign a peace treaty with it in the near future, especially if Israel signs a peal treaty with the Palestinians beforehand.


Edited by Futurist, 31 July 2013 - 04:29 AM.


#54
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

Looks like the rebels got their lucky day.

 

http://www.ctvnews.c...ls-40-1.1394245



#55
MarcZ

MarcZ

    Chief Flying Car Critic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • LocationCanada

David Cameron defeated in motion to intervene: http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Obama may do this alone, or with tsome sort of American-French coalition.



#56
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,498 posts
  • LocationRussia

Obviously the whole thing turning against the rebels. That's the only real reason of why U.S. lost any patience and went to war themselves. Do you still remember Lybia: westerners just sat and waited the rebels to topple Gaddafi, yet he managed to turn the tide & this "arrogance" provoked the West to attack. The same story here, and this strange and pointless "gas attack" was just an ideal excuse for aggression: "Did you see that? Bloody tyrant keep killing his own people, we must act as soon as posible!"



#57
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

no reason to intervene. it's their country for god's sake! Just leave them the hell alone!


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#58
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

http://www.businessi...al-qaeda-2013-9

This shows how paranoid people are over rebel support.



#59
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

http://www.thetimes....icle3898764.ece

 

Another good reason why Assad should go. Try do determine whether or not this could be propaganda.



#60
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,498 posts
  • LocationRussia

http://www.thetimes....icle3898764.ece

 

Another good reason why Assad should go. Try do determine whether or not this could be propaganda.

 

Good example of western propaganda. Another dumb and heartbreaking story about "mad tyrant killing his own people". Just ask yourself: QUI PRODEST? What the point for Assad or Syrian snipers to kill pregnat women & unborn babies (perhaps, their own wives and children)? And not just kill them, but do it with no real reason, just for "target practice"?

You decide to believe it or not, but personally for me everything is clear.


Edited by PhoenixRu, 20 October 2013 - 07:28 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Kurds, Assad, Civil War, Iran

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users