Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[dexters]

Why legitimate government of the country should back down, facing peaceful or not peaceful protests, supported by foreign powers? Why civil war is Russia's fault any more than it is fault of Western countries, Turkey and Saudi Arabia who are trying to overthrow the leader which they don't like, supporting the opposition and terrorists diplomatically and financially?.

Well 'legitimate' is questionable as Syria has been a family run affair for generations, but that's reality, I can accept as it is real politik. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation as this is clearly a case of a Russian/Western proxy war yet, a commentary here for certain posters on the 'left' omits Russian involvement and or downplays it.

I believe, and this is only a belief of course, that Assad would have left peacefully had it not been for the fact Russia & China backstopped his survival and guaranteed UNSC would not get involved, allowing him to 'crackdown' on the protests and starting a civil war. Russia did so because they saw it as part of a large geopolitical struggle that stretched from the caucuses to the ME. Russia of course had only recently (at the time of the Syrian protests) invaded and humbled the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which it saw as slipping into the western sphere.

Let's also remember, this was part of a wave of protests in the region, not as an armed insurrection. But people can be forgiven for forgetting because Russia has had their hands in this thing for 3 years. It's been that long.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Still no response to your allegations of supposed "intellectual dishonesty"?

And how about providing some facts to substantiate that "this is clearly a case of a Russian/Western proxy war"? I'm sure you can come up with at least one reputable source given that is is so "clear".

 

[dexters]

Still no response to your allegations of "intellectual dishonesty" of others?

And how about providing some facts to substantiate that "this is clearly a case of a Russian/Western proxy war"? I'm sure you can come up with at least one reputable source given that is is so "clear".

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12739950&postcount=238

and it's not up to me to prove it's not a proxy war, these things are by nature long running and hard to prove. It's not like you'll find a trading card with the sides clearly marked out.

The obstruction and head butting in the UN has been a long running source of entertainment for me as a follower of such things and is a pretty clear indication of the world powers not agreeing on how to handle their puppet states, and I'm certainly invoking occam's razor here. The onus should be on you to prove it's NOT a proxy war because an elaborate conspiracy is at play instead and that Russia cannot possibly exert any influence outside of its own borders.

Can you prove that?

 

[Dachs]

The extent to which something is or is not a proxy war is often overblown. Involvement of foreign parties on both sides of a given conflict doesn't mean that those foreign parties are in any real way directing the action. By those standards, the Congo wars would've been a clash between the Anglosphere and France (a viewpoint still sustained by some on the French Right, but which is held to be absurd by almost literally everybody else), and the brief Comoros crisis in 2008 would've been a proxy war between France and itself.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12739950&postcount=238

and it's not up to me to prove it's not a proxy war, these things are by nature long running and hard to prove. It's not like you'll find a trading card with the sides clearly marked out.

The obstruction and head butting in the UN has been a long running source of entertainment for me as a follower of such things and is a pretty clear indication of the world powers not agreeing on how to handle their puppet states. The onus should be on you to prove it's NOT a proxy war because an elaborate conspiracy is at play instead and that Russia cannot possibly exert any influence outside of its own borders.

Can you prove that?

I missed your mention of my post in another response, and your apparent backhanded apology.

Can I "prove" that this wacky conspiracy theory is some other wacky conspiracy theory instead? Why would I even want to try to do so?

 

[red_elk]

Well 'legitimate' is questionable as Syria has been a family run affair for generations, but that's reality, I can accept as it is real politik. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation as this is clearly a case of a Russian/Western proxy war yet, a commentary here for certain posters on the 'left' omits Russian involvement and or downplays it.

To me it looks more like a war between Shia and Sunni local elites, supported by Iran/Russia/Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia/Western world/Al Quaeda. For Russia and the West it's kind of struggle for geopolitical and financial reasons, but I don't think it can be qualified as a proxy war.

Russia of course had only recently (at the time of the Syrian protests) invaded and humbled the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which it saw as slipping into the western sphere.

Georgian war was in 2008.

 

[dexters]

I missed your mention of my post in another response, and your apparent backhanded apology.

I wasn't apologizing though, I was commenting how easily he dismisses contrary information and clarifying that both data points were indeed correct, five years apart.

If you truly care about intellectual honesty, you should be on the other person's case for dismissing contrary evidence on sight.

I can't shake off the feeling that your're just running interference and 'helping' him out in this case.

Can I "prove" that your wacky conspiracy theory is some other wacky conspiracy theory instead? Why would I even want to try to do so?

So proxy wars is a conspiracy theory now?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

What would be strategically worse is Obama drawing a red-line about Chemical weapons and not doing anything about it.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or stating more. Either way, you said what I was getting at.

 

[dexters]

To me it looks more like a war between Shia and Sunni local elites, supported by Iran/Russia/Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia/Western world/Al Quaeda. For Russia and the West it's kind of struggle for geopolitical and financial reasons, but I don't think it can be qualified as a proxy war.

No doubt there are 'real' hostilities on the ground, it doesn't preclude outside forces from coming in to support one side or another.

That is how proxy wars are fought. You don't usually manufacture sides, you pick one.

Though in this case, its very clearly Russia through their proxy actions created and fueled the civil war.

Georgian war was in 2008.

I hate semantic arguments like these as it leads nowhere and is often used by people who have nothing else to add; but let me do this just this once

Russia of course had only recently (at the time of the Syrian protests)

Russia of course had only recently

recently (at the time of the Syrian protests)

 

[Formaldehyde]

I wasn't apologizing though, I was commenting how easily he dismisses contrary information and clarifying that both data points were indeed correct, five years apart.

If you truly care about intellectual honesty, you should be on the other person's case for dismissing contrary evidence on sight.

I would rather discuss the topic instead of the supposed motivation and failings of others. This is particularly true when a simple google search resulted in an article that basically supported his statements. That the US now provides vastly more arms to foreign countries than Russia does. YMMV.

So proxy wars is a conspiracy theory now?

As Dachs already pointed out, they don't occur nearly as frequently as you would think based on the use of that term.

You see, the Cold War has been over for decades now. The Soviet Union is no more. There is only one superpower. Countries like Russia and China blocking the US government from even more incessant meddling in the affairs of other countries by using the UNSC to further their own agenda is hardly "proof" that such "proxy wars" continue to occur. Nor is Russia continuing to provide arms to Syria, as it has been doing for many decades now.

Now if you have any sort of proof at all that Russia had been providing arms to the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban, as the Reagan administration did in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 80s, that would be an entirely different matter. Do you?

 

[Rashiminos]

But that's neither here nor there. You made an unsubstantiated claim about America ' illegal world police' /sigh 'wring hands' ; and I counted by explaining the geopolitical situation that shows America in this case has far less blood on its hands than several other parties involved.

I find that hypocritical and hard to beleive considering your position in this conflict.

So what is that position (of ReindeerThistle)?

EDIT: I suggest not arguing about who used the chemical weapons. By the time that information could be discovered, it would likely be too late. And nobody can wait for too late. So better to hit the Syrians now.

It's almost like a tacit admission that who chemically attacked who isn't relevant to the US's interests in the situation.

And also letting Russia get away with their 'nation building' in Syria.

As the US "got away" with nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[dexters]

I would rather discuss the topic instead of the supposed motivation and failings of others. This is particularly true when a simple google search resulted in an article that basically supported his statements. That the US now provides vastly more arms to foreign countries than Russia does. YMMV.

I would too, but your jumped in in that and brought it up then demand I explain myself. You sound a little hypocritical backing away from it now and saying were spending too much time on it. Article supporting his statements is kind of besides the point if you look the context of why I brought it up, which is he simply dismissed contrary evidence, which was correct too. It's not like we had 2 different figures for 2011.

As Dachs already pointed out, they don't occur nearly as frequently as you would think based on the use of that term.

You see, the Cold War has been over for decades now. The Soviet Union is no more. There is only one superpower. Countries like Russia and China blocking the US government from even more incessant meddling in the affairs of other countries by using the UNSC to further their own agenda is hardly "proof" that such "proxy wars" continue to occur.

What's Dachs rationale? proxy wars are not vietnam level conflicts though. They are the extension of spheres of influence and you see this cropping up in ASEAN summits where US/China compete for influence and favours. There Vietnam is now ironically one of America's greatest geopolitical support.

Spheres of influence don't disappear just because the cold war is over. That's a rather binary logic going on there.

Now if you have any sort of proof at all that Russia had been providing arms to the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban, as the Reagan administration did in Afghanistan in the 80s, that would be an entirely different matter. Do you?

No it's in Russia's interest to kill the terrorists, I don't believe I made a claim they were involved in killing Americans in that theatre (though IRAN likely is)

Let's keep this discussion on Syria and in Syria Russia has sold its arms to Assad and has many contracts to continue selling them arms even at the height of the civil war. That is not even in dispute.

 

[timtofly]

Are we upset because Russia did not take out Assad, like the US took out Saddam? If the insurgents went back home, perhaps the locals would get back to living under a ruthless dictator. I am not saying that is the best solution, but can another nation really do a great job at choosing great leaders. Even Egypt cannot get a smooth state, but if other nations got involved all that would mean is more blood shed, not less.

The only answer would be to abort before a nation is born and leave an empty barren land. No one would be killing each other then. At least that is what I have been told.

 

[Rashiminos]

Are we upset because Russia did not take out Assad, like the US took out Saddam?

For me, it's the likelihood that the US is trying to unseat a legitimate government (again) for its own purposes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Legitimate government? Methinks they lost that legitimacy when they put down the last uprising in the 80's at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.

 

[dexters]

For me, it's the likelihood that the US is trying to unseat a legitimate government (again) for its own purposes.

Legitimate in this case is relative; I suppose Hitler would be legitimate as well by your standards (Godwin's law invoked)

As for useating Assad, I doubt it. It may be the long term goal, but the risks are too high. Military action now will be to make a point as Obama's red line was crossed and Russia continues to 'support' Assad while thousands die from Russian made arms. The West probably wouldn't mind if some of Russia's brand new military hardware sent to Syria is destroyed in the bombing.

 

[bhsup]

Legitimate government? Methinks they lost that legitimacy when they put down the last uprising in the 80's at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.

I never took you for a supporter of the Confederacy!!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I never took you for a supporter of the Confederacy!!

Lincoln didn't start the shooting war, Assad Sr. did. Also, Assad's political opponents weren't dirty slavers.

 

[Rashiminos]

Lincoln didn't start the shooting war, Assad Sr. did. Also, Assad's political opponents weren't dirty slavers.

Assad Sr. did?

As for useating Assad, I doubt it. It may be the long term goal, but the risks are too high. Military action now will be to make a point as Obama's red line was crossed and Russia continues to 'support' Assad while thousands die from Russian made arms. The West probably wouldn't mind if some of Russia's brand new military hardware sent to Syria is destroyed in the bombing.

For the person talking about puppet states a few posts ago, this seems like a turnabout in some ways.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would too, but your jumped in in that and brought it up then demand I explain myself. You sound a little hypocritical backing away from it now and saying were spending too much time on it. Article supporting his statements is kind of besides the point if you look the context of why I brought it up, which is he simply dismissed contrary evidence, which was correct too. It's not like we had 2 different figures for 2011.

So now you are going to personally attack me.

What's Dachs rationale? proxy wars are not vietnam level conflicts though. They are the extension of spheres of influence and you see this cropping up in ASEAN summits where US/China compete for influence and favours. There Vietnam is now ironically one of America's greatest geopolitical support.

Spheres of influence don't disappear just because the cold war is over. That's a rather binary logic going on there.

Spheres of influence are hardly proxy wars. Don't you think "that's a rather binary logic going on there".

No it's in Russia's interest to kill the terrorists, I don't believe I made a claim they were involved in killing Americans in that theatre (though IRAN likely is)

Of course they are. Because the Bush administration said so.

You do realize that Iran are predominately Shiites, not Sunni? That the Sunnis were actually the insurgents who supported Hussein, not the other way around? That Iran did provide arms to Shiites in the country, but it was to defend themselves from the Sunni insurgents who were killing them?

Let's keep this discussion on Syria and in Syria Russia has sold its arms to Assad and has many contracts to continue selling them arms even at the height of the civil war. That is not even in dispute.

The "discussion" is whether or not this a "proxy war" between the US and Russia. There have indeed been many proxy wars in the not-so-distant past which I think should make it quite clear that this is not one, at least between them. If you really want to further than line of thought, you should discuss the real "proxy war" here. This is yet another conflict between the Shiites and the Sunni. Those who are Shiites are supporting Assad. Those who are Sunni are supporting the rebels and the assorted Sunni terrorists.