Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Bashar al-assad and the Syrian conflict Watch

    Offline

    4
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    Aye, and our reason for supporting the rebels? to overthrow an oppressive dictator? So we will be allying ourselves with Saudi Arabia and Qatar (Both well known extremely democractic countries.......not) to overthrow the only dictator in the middle east, the evil Bashar Al Assad.

    It would be double standards, we are allying ourselves to one oppressive regime to overthrow another oppressive regime, with the excuse that oppressive regimes should stop. Doesnt make sense to me.

    Adding to this, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are all surrounding countries with vested interests. Iran is majorly Shia, the other 2 are Sunni. Because those countries got involved, doesnt mean we should.

    If there was a revolution in France (again) we would certainly have more of a claim to intervene as its right on our doorstep. But not somewhere like Syria.

    Then you have to factor in the cost of it, the amount of british soldiers who will need to die, resources needing use etc..
    We won’t be allying and coalescing with Saudi Arabia because we’d be supporting the moderates. Did you read my post?

    Syria is a strategically influential intersection of the major political powers. Presently, Iran, Hezbollah and al-Assad and the Russians are winning in Syria. They’re winning because of the general chauvinist parochialism (“British soldiers shouldn’t fight for anyone else”) or insouciant indifference (“who cares about foreigners from distant lands”) among populace ... among other reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Ok then! I go for the better evil pretty sure you would
    I would, but it takes a lot of deliberation and collation of evidence to understand who's more in the wrong out of the two factions :rolleyes:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    The US is officially supplying weapons now

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ons-us-confirm
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The US is officially supplying weapons now

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ons-us-confirm
    I've just read that Russian President's Assistant Yuri Ushakov stressed that the US's decision to supply the Syrian opposition with arms hinders the efforts to hold the international conference on Syria.

    I take it the Russian weapons to Assad's regime do not hinder the efforts to hold the upcoming Geneva II Conference :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think Washington and everyone needs to accept, that Assad has won the war, he is a hero, and arming terrorists isn't going to help the people of Syria. mmmmmkaay?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ornlu)
    I would, but it takes a lot of deliberation and collation of evidence to understand who's more in the wrong out of the two factions :rolleyes:
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=19e_1371299655

    Yes cuzzy! Assad's not saying/meaning that is he? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrian Guy)
    I've just read that Russian President's Assistant Yuri Ushakov stressed that the US's decision to supply the Syrian opposition with arms hinders the efforts to hold the international conference on Syria.

    I take it the Russian weapons to Assad's regime do not hinder the efforts to hold the upcoming Geneva II Conference :rolleyes:
    Son, both sides were both being armed anyway! :rolleyes:
    No wonder you see NATO issued guns + armour (and stingers!) on the rebel side and fancy Russian equipment on the SAA's side.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Son, both sides were both being armed anyway! :rolleyes:
    No wonder you see NATO issued guns + armour (and stingers!) on the rebel side and fancy Russian equipment on the SAA's side.
    On it's own that hardly proves the US is arming the rebels. They are the biggest arms dealer in the world. Any state they have sold arms to could be the ones arming the rebels
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    On it's own that hardly proves the US is arming the rebels. They are the biggest arms dealer in the world. Any state they have sold arms to could be the ones arming the rebels
    Same argument with Russia arming Syria? Iran could have done it? Even a random state like Venezuela? :rolleyes:

    And if so it was a different country what's with the fuss with America now officially arming?

    America and Russia were always arming/replenishing only recently they have officially declared of doing it.

    I've just had enough of the American hypocrisy and the fact that it's really going to blowback to them! Plus Assad's winning so who gives a ****?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Same argument with Russia arming Syria? Iran could have done it? Even a random state like Venezuela? :rolleyes:

    And if so it was a different country what's with the fuss with America now officially arming?

    America and Russia were always arming/replenishing only recently they have officially declared of doing it.

    I've just had enough of the American hypocrisy and the fact that it's really going to blowback to them! Plus Assad's winning so who gives a ****?
    No since Russia came out into the open and said so. Stupid comparison really. We don't say Russia is arming the Taliban because they have RPG's and AK47's.

    There is no difference now that America is doing it offically but you were claiming America has always been arming the rebels in Syria, your evidence is the presence of American made weapons which on it's own proves utterly nothing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=_wNfnF4Ec7s#!


    Click on the link above it shows you some clips about syria and why it all started as some until this day dont know why there is a revolution.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No since Russia came out into the open and said so. Stupid comparison really. We don't say Russia is arming the Taliban because they have RPG's and AK47's.

    There is no difference now that America is doing it offically but you were claiming America has always been arming the rebels in Syria, your evidence is the presence of American made weapons which on it's own proves utterly nothing.
    What i dont know is, what if they supply the rebels, then the rebels just continually get destroyed?

    Is this just the placeholder for further intervention? Theyre basically saying, we give them guns, if they still lose, we give no fly zone, wait for one of our planes to get shot down, then we ground invade.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    What i dont know is, what if they supply the rebels, then the rebels just continually get destroyed?

    Is this just the placeholder for further intervention? Theyre basically saying, we give them guns, if they still lose, we give no fly zone, wait for one of our planes to get shot down, then we ground invade.
    Doubt it. Obama is so cautious and slow moving (which is both good and bad) by the time he got around to wanting a no fly zone we will be on to the next rebellion against Assad.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I just don't understand the mindset of people who want us to intervene in Syria. It's like the last 10 years never happened, and as if we never went to Iraq and turned that country into a bloody mess.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No since Russia came out into the open and said so. Stupid comparison really. We don't say Russia is arming the Taliban because they have RPG's and AK47's.

    There is no difference now that America is doing it offically but you were claiming America has always been arming the rebels in Syria, your evidence is the presence of American made weapons which on it's own proves utterly nothing.
    Didn't get my point anyway?! So who was arming all these rebels all along? UN? NATO?


    If they so were, why do we only care now that America is officially arming? The arming was still going on! Anyway I'm not here to talk about this. It's just Assad's winning and America really doesn't like that and wants to change the tide - I think he's too late.

    The opportunity of a peaceful resolution has long gone through the window so there'll be killing until the arming stops so please America you're doing it all wrong!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    I just don't understand the mindset of people who want us to intervene in Syria. It's like the last 10 years never happened, and as if we never went to Iraq and turned that country into a bloody mess.
    That's liberalists for you!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Didn't get my point anyway?! So who was arming all these rebels all along? UN? NATO?


    If they so were, why do we only care now that America is officially arming? The arming was still going on! Anyway I'm not here to talk about this. It's just Assad's winning and America really doesn't like that and wants to change the tide - I think he's too late.

    The opportunity of a peaceful resolution has long gone through the window so there'll be killing until the arming stops so please America you're doing it all wrong!
    The Gulf States perhaps? Saudi Arabia? Anyone who wants to have influence in Syria but does not currently?

    Why are you so anti America arming the rebels, Iran and Russia are just as guilty of causing this to go on longer than it should have. Perhaps without Russian arms, Iranian weapons and Iranian troops Assad would have had to of compromised far far earlier rather than just gaining a solution through killing everyone, which will merely sweep the tensions that caused this civil war to die down for a decade or two before another war starts in Syria.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The Gulf States perhaps? Saudi Arabia? Anyone who wants to have influence in Syria but does not currently?

    Why are you so anti America arming the rebels, Iran and Russia are just as guilty of causing this to go on longer than it should have. Perhaps without Russian arms, Iranian weapons and Iranian troops Assad would have had to of compromised far far earlier rather than just gaining a solution through killing everyone, which will merely sweep the tensions that caused this civil war to die down for a decade or two before another war starts in Syria.

    :rolleyes: If that's what you so believe. I've had enough of this conversation.
    Iran was helping because Syria itself is their ally and a sovereign country - Assad isn't a tyrant that murders everyone: most of the killings are collateral damage (what you get when foreign Mujies run into a civilian apartments FIBUA).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-8656301.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=19e_1371299655

    Yes cuzzy! Assad's not saying/meaning that is he? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    This is regularly censored by the so-called "free" western media.

    But yeah, we all know that Assad violates freedom of speech.:rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.