• The "Capital of the Revolution", Homs, Syria, has fallen to Assad; +/-700 rebels evacuate under ceas
    63 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgddOqfB53U[/media] Good on Assad, now to just wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth
Assad is still scum. Let's not forget that.
[QUOTE=McTbone;49304023] Good on Assad, now to just wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth[/QUOTE] Aw yeah, let's just praise the guy who started a majority of this mess by firing into crowds of unarmed protesters! And [B]gassed his own civilians[/B]
[QUOTE=OvB;49304064]Assad is still scum. Let's not forget that.[/QUOTE] Ultimately, we can concern ourselves with what to do about the government when there is a stable environment in which to do it. We're not going to make a heroic transition to democracy like President Obama wants in the middle of a country wide civil war thay has killed hundreds of thousands, flattened entire cities, and distributed syria among some 250 opposing factions. Bashar alassad is the only realistic choice when you look at actually ending the conflict. Giving moderate (non existent or tactically irrelevant/marginal) rebels training and equipment does not serve to end the conflict, it prolongs the conflict because these rebels have no chance of winning and they will never, ever stand a chance at winning, be it against the SAA or IS. Once the conflict is over, the world is going to be in a position to negotiate. Syria needs to be rebuilt and it won't happen by itself. It'll need international financial support and input in order to make a timely recovery. This input may or may not involve removing Assad from power, and that would be the time to do it
[QUOTE=OvB;49304064]Assad is still scum. Let's not forget that.[/QUOTE] But ISIS bad! And Assad is against ISIS, which means he must be good! Everyone knows good guys fight bad guys!
Let him rebuild Syria and then throw him in jail for his war crimes, then. I see any scenario where his crimes are forgiven as an injustice to humanity.
[QUOTE=McTbone;49304023][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgddOqfB53U[/media] Good on Assad, now to just wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth[/QUOTE] Your sick. Perhaps, unfortunately, Assad gaining in the log run will shorten the fight against ISIS and bring stability, but fuck. Some of you guys hear the word secular and go blind. Your cheering on a mass murderer. [editline]12th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Milkdairy;49304209]Ultimately, we can concern ourselves with what to do about the government when there is a stable environment in which to do it. We're not going to make a heroic transition to democracy like President Obama wants in the middle of a country wide civil war thay has killed hundreds of thousands, flattened entire cities, and distributed syria among some 250 opposing factions. Bashar alassad is the only realistic choice when you look at actually ending the conflict. Giving moderate (non existent or tactically irrelevant/marginal) rebels training and equipment does not serve to end the conflict, it prolongs the conflict because these rebels have no chance of winning and they will never, ever stand a chance at winning, be it against the SAA or IS. Once the conflict is over, the world is going to be in a position to negotiate. Syria needs to be rebuilt and it won't happen by itself. It'll need international financial support and input in order to make a timely recovery. This input may or may not involve removing Assad from power, and that would be the time to do it[/QUOTE] The main point of disgust in the thread is the fact there is often people who seem to be cheering on Assad. "Good job Assad! Keep up the good work" . Its wildly inappropriate considering his actions of bombing civilians essentially started this conflict.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. However you also have to admit that Bashar al-Assad is a brave man and we should be helping him"
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49304209]Ultimately, we can concern ourselves with what to do about the government when there is a stable environment in which to do it. We're not going to make a heroic transition to democracy like President Obama wants in the middle of a country wide civil war thay has killed hundreds of thousands, flattened entire cities, and distributed syria among some 250 opposing factions. Bashar alassad is the only realistic choice when you look at actually ending the conflict. Giving moderate (non existent or tactically irrelevant/marginal) rebels training and equipment does not serve to end the conflict, it prolongs the conflict because these rebels have no chance of winning and they will never, ever stand a chance at winning, be it against the SAA or IS. Once the conflict is over, the world is going to be in a position to negotiate. Syria needs to be rebuilt and it won't happen by itself. It'll need international financial support and input in order to make a timely recovery. This input may or may not involve removing Assad from power, and that would be the time to do it[/QUOTE] Do realize Germany and Japan were put under a dictatorship before transitioning to a republic. Under US army control no less.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;49304336] The main point of disgust in the thread is the fact there is often people who seem to be cheering on Assad. "Good job Assad! Keep up the good work" . Its wildly inappropriate considering his actions of bombing civilians essentially started this conflict.[/QUOTE] On that point I wholly agree. Some Facepunchers seem to lack a grasp of moral grey when looking a highly complicated conflict. Many opinions here seem to fluctuate in a binary fashion between 1. destroying the stabilizing force in syria at all cost (the cost of continuing the war for many years to come) so that assad can be deposed because wow he's a bad guy and contributes nothing to this conflict 2. Assad is a really great guy because the state government he is the head of happens to be the remaining stabilizing force in the region and his long record of crimes can be forgiven because he's a paladin vanguard leading syria back into stability against isis He's both a terrible person and the only guy who can keep Syria together at this moment. You don't go deconstructing the head of your government during a literal life or death conflict for your country Let's face it though Many Facepunchers dont want Western boots on the ground, they want local forces to fight the good fight, yet they aren't willing to count in the only local entity that is effectively doing just that. Isn't that a double standard? Who's gonna actually win this war if not us? The Kurds? Arab states? Neither of them are interested in participating in the greater conflict sans their clandestine agendas. [editline]13th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49304453]Do realize Germany and Japan were put under a dictatorship before transitioning to a republic. Under US army control no less.[/QUOTE] Each problem has its own solutions. Unfortunately the situation in Syria doesn't quite compare to Japan or Germany. It is politically and culturally distinct from those two, not to mention those political and cultural climates are alwo built upon past blunders of Western involvement. An effective occupation by Western interventionists might be an ideal solution but its's not one that will ever actually happen
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49304488] Each problem has its own solutions. Unfortunately the situation in Syria doesn't quite compare to Japan or Germany. It is politically and culturally distinct from those two, not to mention those political and cultural climates are alwo built upon past blunders of Western involvement. An effective occupation by Western interventionists might be an ideal solution but its's not one that will ever actually happen[/QUOTE] I understand that all too well. I mentioned it to support the idea to install a democracy, a dictatorship is still needed to make it happen. So Western nations would have to be as bad as Assad (or worse) till things go in the desired direction. I like your idea of influencing Assad through finance to rebuild the place.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49304560][B]I understand that all too well. I mentioned it to support the idea to install a democracy, a dictatorship is still needed to make it happen.[/B] So Western nations would have to be as bad as Assad (or worse) till things go in the desired direction. I like your idea of influencing Assad through finance to rebuild the place.[/QUOTE] Sorry about that :v: I try my best to interpret posts, don't always do it perfectly unfortunately But I think Assad in terms of postwar events needs to be removed for far more than just his use of chemical weapons. If the straight Western angle is to believed (there are many accounts of what actually happened at the start of the war, ranging from reasonable conspiracies to baseless claims) then Assad is not really leadership material. He has real military qualifications, which lends to his ability to keep the security situation in check, but the impression his father left on him means that he basically runs the country like a military dictatorship. The way he ran things pre war didn't really impede on normal peoples' ability to live their lives, but living in Syria was bad news if you were politically active or held any political/religious beliefs that were 'radical'. What makes him a bad leader is he somehow made the absolutely disastrous calculation that the use of full military force would not provoke a reaction from the Sunni populace. It's understandable why he thought the way he did because a previous massacre committed by his father went unchallenged. Unfortunately, times have changed since 1970 and his attempt at routine repression escalated exponentially into a full scale conflict. While he himself did not singlehandedly cause the Syrian Civil War, he essentially served as the catalyst to start the chain reaction.
[QUOTE]Sorry about that I try my best to interpret posts, don't always do it perfectly unfortunately[/QUOTE] No problem. [QUOTE] But I think Assad in terms of postwar events needs to be removed for far more than just his use of chemical weapons. If the straight Western angle is to believed (there are many accounts of what actually happened at the start of the war, ranging from reasonable conspiracies to baseless claims) then Assad is not really leadership material. He has real military qualifications, which lends to his ability to keep the security situation in check, but the impression his father left on him means that he basically runs the country like a military dictatorship. The way he ran things pre war didn't really impede on normal peoples' ability to live their lives, but living in Syria was bad news if you were politically active or held any political/religious beliefs that were 'radical'. What makes him a bad leader is he somehow made the absolutely disastrous calculation that the use of full military force would not provoke a reaction from the Sunni populace. It's understandable why he thought the way he did because a previous massacre committed by his father went unchallenged. Unfortunately, times have changed since 1970 and his attempt at routine repression escalated exponentially into a full scale conflict. While he himself did not singlehandedly cause the Syrian Civil War, he essentially served as the catalyst to start the chain reaction.[/QUOTE] I do think Assad needs to be removed from power due to chemical weapons. I agree with all this. I do not think The Western Nations can intervene. US and other nations are in a state of decline and disintegration. Due to a changing world, America no longer has the power it thinks it has, nor does it uphold the values it used to stand for. It has become a mockery of it own self. How can the US spread democracy if it is no longer a democracy itself? Not to mention American and the other western allies have their own problems. A sick man cannot operate on another sick man. As for Assad? I do not think he is capable of independent thought. I read a little a bit of how his father dealt with uprisings. I believe Assad is copying the reactions his father would have done, without understanding the reasons why his father would have chose said actions.
[QUOTE=OvB;49304064]Assad is still scum. Let's not forget that.[/QUOTE] He was a murderous psychopath when people were protesting his reign. I can't wait for the blood bath when he retakes control. Everyone jerks themselves off thinking, "oh he's such a bad guy but at least he brings stability!" Bullshit. Syria's in this position because of Assad.
I'm afraid of Assad gaining too much ground. It might stall Putin from coming to the table to talk about a future without Assad. If Russia sees that it's winning the fight against Syrian rebels (including FSA), then it's likely to just keep fueling the Civil war (which would only give ISIS more ideological ammo against the west)
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;49304729]He was a murderous psychopath when people were protesting his reign. I can't wait for the blood bath when he retakes control. Everyone jerks themselves off thinking, "oh he's such a bad guy but at least he brings stability!" Bullshit. Syria's in this position because of Assad.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by a blood-bath? Do you suppose he'll order the massacre of the populations in cities that rebelled?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49301405]You think that's bad, just wait for the people to come in the thread and explain how this is a good thing for Syria.[/QUOTE] the sooner the war ends, the better. there is no way the fsa is going to win, especially now that russia is involved
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49304846]I'm afraid of Assad gaining too much ground. It might stall Putin from coming to the table to talk about a future without Assad. If Russia sees that it's winning the fight against Syrian rebels (including FSA), then it's likely to just keep fueling the Civil war (which would only give ISIS more ideological ammo against the west)[/QUOTE] I really doubt Russia wants to continue the civil war for shits and giggles, more than likely they know Assad's eventually going to win, and the sooner they help him win the war the sooner they can gain some serious political influence in the Middle East. It's certainly better than prolonging the war by shooting the occasional ISIS stronghold and arming totally irrelevant rebels that will never amount to anything.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49303667]Syria was secular before the civil war. Only democracy is really what was needed.[/QUOTE] Mind you, the secular part was maintained by the dictatorship to an extent.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49304918]I really doubt Russia wants to continue the civil war for shits and giggles, more than likely they know Assad's eventually going to win, and the sooner they help him win the war the sooner they can gain some serious political influence in the Middle East. It's certainly better than prolonging the war by shooting the occasional ISIS stronghold and arming totally irrelevant rebels that will never amount to anything.[/QUOTE] That is if the Russians actually see purpose in the entity of Syria. An intervention force is fine, but they'd be fine with Satan running the region if they'd get to keep Latakia. Same with every other faction; Everyone has a vested interest about what's [I]inside[/I] Syria rather than what Syria [I]is[/I]​, and those which do not are not interested into intervening whatsoever.
[QUOTE=OvB;49304273]Let him rebuild Syria and then throw him in jail for his war crimes, then. I see any scenario where his crimes are forgiven as an injustice to humanity.[/QUOTE] I don't think he would go down so easily, trying to throw him in jail would start another civil war or at least have him bring his country down with him. He's employed chemical weapons and slaughtered almost as much as ISIS to stay in power, no doubt he'd destroy everything to spite the world. I won't forget the news articles about his forces destroying populations, when he used chemical weapons after President Obama threatened to intervene if he crossed that line and nothing happened.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49303667]Syria was secular before the civil war. Only democracy is really what was needed.[/QUOTE] Democracy in the middle east has never ever failed due to it's exceptional compatibility with that form of government.
Well allying with Stalin and Chiang made sense during ww2
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49301965]That's how reality works. Sometimes we have to go with something we don't really like in order to clean up the bigger mess at hand here. I'll take Assad over ISIS if it means this whole thing can eventually get cleaned up and maybe the Middle East can go back to some state of normalcy.[/QUOTE] If we have to clean up assads mess, then who is to say this wont happen again
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49310954]Well allying with Stalin and Chiang made sense during ww2[/QUOTE] We didn't exactly have much of a choice in that.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49308733]I don't think he would go down so easily, trying to throw him in jail would start another civil war or at least have him bring his country down with him. He's employed chemical weapons and slaughtered almost as much as ISIS to stay in power, no doubt he'd destroy everything to spite the world. I won't forget the news articles about his forces destroying populations, when he used chemical weapons after President Obama threatened to intervene if he crossed that line and nothing happened.[/QUOTE] While the Assad regime was brutal, I'd like to point out, that it was actually cooperating with non syrian powers on destroying chemical weapons lest they fall into rebel hands. The US had a navy ship where this was done. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons[/url] On top of that, no one has ever proven that the regime did in fact use chemical weapons.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49311785]We didn't exactly have much of a choice in that.[/QUOTE] ...And we don't have much choice in this either, unless, of course, we decide to do our own ground invasion. But we won't.
I would much rather Assad be in power than any of the rebel groups or ISIS or Al-Nusra etc. You need to pick the lesser of the evils in these types of situations. I used to be pro-rebel, but ever since about 2014 I am now pro-government, the revolution has turned into a Jihad. I hope Assad crushes the extremist rebels.
[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;49312337]I would much rather Assad be in power than any of the rebel groups or ISIS or Al-Nusra etc. You need to pick the lesser of the evils in these types of situations. I used to be pro-rebel, but ever since about 2014 I am now pro-government, the revolution has turned into a Jihad. I hope Assad crushes the extremist rebels.[/QUOTE] This is severely misguided, you shouldn't be pro-anyone just because one side is fighting extremism outright. Once the war is over Assad needs to go, and the government of Syria needs to be heavily modified to prevent another Hafez al-Assad from happening ever again. He is a bad thing for Syria, and he would have been better off as a military general.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49312395]This is severely misguided, you shouldn't be pro-anyone just because one side is fighting extremism outright. Once the war is over Assad needs to go, and the government of Syria needs to be heavily modified to prevent another Hafez al-Assad from happening ever again. He is a bad thing for Syria, and he would have been better off as a military general.[/QUOTE] He seems to be the only person that kept Syria together. Kinda like Saddam Hussein, ever since these dictators are taken out(as bad as people they are) they did keep the peace, now we have ISIS and multitudes of other extremist groups chopping peoples heads off and committing genocide.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.