Roads To Peace: If or how will peace come to Syria? Watch

HokeyWolf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
A lot of threads about Syria here on TSR but few address possible solutions to the conflict. How does TSR see the situation panning out? edited
0
reply
Delboy1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
It won't

even after Asad is dead, it will just get worse.
0
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
There is no such thing as peace. It is a theory, it will never be a reality.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Either the government will crush the rebels and be safe for another couple of decades until the next rebellion kicks off or the government will collapse leaving a Somalia/Afghanistan situation
0
reply
gagaslilmonsteruk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
It's not a question of 'if'. Each conflict is resolved eventually ... even if it does take decades.
0
reply
techno-thriller
Badges: 14
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
بسم الله in the name of allah

The only way would be for the FSA to take control and abide by the laws of allah and enforce them in the land.
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
After everyone kills each other or there is an intervention and Syria is divided along ethnic lines.
0
reply
Badshah
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Peace will never come to Syria unfortunately.
0
reply
HokeyWolf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
While I am a supporter or the rebels to an extent, I personally can not support the Islamist factions that have *******ised the honorable cause of freedom and democracy with their islamo fascist ideology. This will result in more bloodletting, more sectarian division and not peace. Support for the rebels should be focused only on groups that are willing to hold talks with Assad - Ie the groups involved in possible Geneva talks in January. While I have little hope that talks will end the conflict, does TSR not agree that a ceasefire, at least between the Assad regime and the rebels (as supposed to Al Nusra et al), would go someway to aiding the civilian population and at least give a period of stability possibly allowing for future developments?

Also, what does TSR think about the idea of 'justice' for Assad? An interesting BBC World Service documentary a few months back suggested that ideals of international justice should be forsaken with a view to Assad being allowed to seek asylum in Russia, immune from prosecution?

Further, it has been suggested that Syria could be split into a number of states each independent of each other? http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...egions/100572/ along with other sources such as Foreign Policy magazine have documented this trend. What does TSR think of such a proposal?
0
reply
Ggmu!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
I think every Islamist soldier will end up increasing the bloodshed and lengthen this conflict. That's all they're good for.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
HokeyWolf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
Interesting article in todays independent newspaper. 'Rebel Fighters may join regime forces in fighting Al Qaeda.' A second civil war healing the wounds of the first? A new brotherhood of Syrians fighting Islamist forces? What does TSR think about this?
0
reply
Umar1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
It will end up like somalia I think. The rebellion to take down the president there took 12 years, with numerous rebel groups across the country. The actions the president took to try and crush them and the response from the rebels has stopped somalis from one part of the country trusting one from another. You can already see this happening in Syria.

I fully support the rebels in their struggle to take down assad, but life in Syria won't exactly become a fairy tale after that.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by HokeyWolf)
A lot of threads about Syria here on TSR but few address possible solutions to the conflict. How does TSR see the situation panning out?
Assad is slaughtering the rebels at a rate exceeding ~50,000 per year, he will be victorious almost entirely due to the fact that the west allowed Russia and Iran a strategic victory and our own domestic population was too blind and fanciful to see the injustice of allowing a genocidal tyrant to remain in power based on some ridiculous notion that they'd all agree to a peace deal (tantamount to the rebels surrendering).

Foreign policy is one of the only areas i say this but dam Russia and dam the pacifist left in this country, there's only one way to deal with a tyrant and that's to bomb him into submission.
0
reply
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
There is no peaceful solution because there is no solution where somebody doesn't lose. There isn't even a situation where everyone can get a bit of what they want and compromise.

The best outcome in my opinion is the fighting ceases, Assad remains in power while there is a transition to a new government avoiding a failed state, subsequently handing over power and is allowed to move to Russia for exile, Russia keeps their s****y naval base and sells a ton of new stuff to the new Government, Iran keeps their Shia proxy, the Syrian rebels get what they wanted initially, we in Europe get peace and governed space, the US can continue their pivot. The only losers are the Gulf States, but seeing as they are funding Al-Qaeda linked groups, I don't particularly want them to see a favourable outcome. Big problem being there is a compromise in principles as Assad will be needed and won't play ball if he knows he's off to the Hague right afterwards.
0
reply
HokeyWolf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Rakas21)
Assad is slaughtering the rebels at a rate exceeding ~50,000 per year, he will be victorious almost entirely due to the fact that the west allowed Russia and Iran a strategic victory and our own domestic population was too blind and fanciful to see the injustice of allowing a genocidal tyrant to remain in power based on some ridiculous notion that they'd all agree to a peace deal (tantamount to the rebels surrendering).

Foreign policy is one of the only areas i say this but dam Russia and dam the pacifist left in this country, there's only one way to deal with a tyrant and that's to bomb him into submission.
I would agree that Assad at the moment has the upper hand due to Russian, Iranian and general support from the reminants of the non-aligned movement, but I disagree with your blaming of the 'pacifist left'. The left in this country was as divided as the right when assessing the possibility of bombing Syria.

Personally I believe that now, intervention will only intensify the bloodletting. We should have intervened at the beginning like we did in Lybia, enabling a swift end to Assad and preventing the conflict developing into the monster it is today.

Can I just ask, why do you blame the left for non-intervention? Its not as if the conservatives were sold on the idea?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by HokeyWolf)
I would agree that Assad at the moment has the upper hand due to Russian, Iranian and general support from the reminants of the non-aligned movement, but I disagree with your blaming of the 'pacifist left'. The left in this country was as divided as the right when assessing the possibility of bombing Syria.

Personally I believe that now, intervention will only intensify the bloodletting. We should have intervened at the beginning like we did in Lybia, enabling a swift end to Assad and preventing the conflict developing into the monster it is today.

Can I just ask, why do you blame the left for non-intervention? Its not as if the conservatives were sold on the idea?
In parliament i can't really blame Labour because parliament is about scoring the political goal (though there not that left anyway) but certainly among the wider electorate most commentators and polls seem to be against the idea largely because of a pacifist belief that negotiations are the answer (the only answer they allow is one in which Assad is not on trial for crimes against humanity).

While i agree with you i don't believe its too late even now so long as we don't have a ground invasion. I'd have NATO launch air support for the rebels and have Turkey and Israel capture the Dar'a and Al Hasakha provinces primarily for use as refugee zones. From there like Libya i'd support the rebels with intelligence and air support.
0
reply
HokeyWolf
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
In parliament i can't really blame Labour because parliament is about scoring the political goal (though there not that left anyway) but certainly among the wider electorate most commentators and polls seem to be against the idea largely because of a pacifist belief that negotiations are the answer (the only answer they allow is one in which Assad is not on trial for crimes against humanity).

While i agree with you i don't believe its too late even now so long as we don't have a ground invasion. I'd have NATO launch air support for the rebels and have Turkey and Israel capture the Dar'a and Al Hasakha provinces primarily for use as refugee zones. From there like Libya i'd support the rebels with intelligence and air support.
That is a very valid option. The creation of safe and no fly zones over border areas would relieve the situation for civilians. However, Israel entering the equation would certainly escalate the conflict into a wider middle eastern war, not only jeopardizing the tense peace between the two nations, but also the continuing efforts to bring Iran to heel. As I mentioned before in this thread, there is the idea to negotiate an end to the war by allowing Assad to receive diplomatic immunity in Russia. While this will mean he is unable to be prosecuted for his crimes, it could also bring about an end to the war? do you not think this is an acceptable sacrifice?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by HokeyWolf)
That is a very valid option. The creation of safe and no fly zones over border areas would relieve the situation for civilians. However, Israel entering the equation would certainly escalate the conflict into a wider middle eastern war, not only jeopardizing the tense peace between the two nations, but also the continuing efforts to bring Iran to heel. As I mentioned before in this thread, there is the idea to negotiate an end to the war by allowing Assad to receive diplomatic immunity in Russia. While this will mean he is unable to be prosecuted for his crimes, it could also bring about an end to the war? do you not think this is an acceptable sacrifice?
The no fly zone would really be over the entire country like Libya but the safe zones would of course receive extra support. I disagree, both Israel and Turkey have already fired on Syria in retaliation and neither Jordan, Iraq or Lebanon are capable of coping with Israel militarily. As much as i want access to Iran with its huge oil and gas supplies along with large population we hold the cards, we can impose deeper sanctions which are already extremely damaging, we should certainly not placate them through our wider foreign policy. That would be acceptable but there's no incentive for him to accept it since he's under no threat of being crushed by the west or the rebels.
0
reply
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
Tbh, looking at the state of Libya I'd hardly use it as a model from which to work.
0
reply
Al-Mudaari
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
There will be no peace until the Khalifah is established

(Original post by the mezzil)
There is no such thing as peace. It is a theory, it will never be a reality.
I'd say there's a thing as temporary peace, but not lasting peace.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (160)
21.89%
Before I was 12 (256)
35.02%
13 (120)
16.42%
14 (90)
12.31%
15 (49)
6.7%
16 (26)
3.56%
17 (9)
1.23%
18 (7)
0.96%
Between the ages of 19 - 25 (12)
1.64%
Over 25 (2)
0.27%

Watched Threads

View All