Talk:Syria

"Unguided" bombs

I don't think you can fairly compare using "unguided" bombs 60+ years ago to doing so today. --Read-Write (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's silly and adds nothing. It's like saying "It's wrong to call ISIS barbarians for executing prisoners with swords, when white Europeans killed tens of thousands with swords during The War of the Roses."Petey Plane (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sixty years ago guided bombs did not exist. Today they do and the Syrian government could obtain them had they ever so chosen. Furthermore, "war crimes" only ever work in a tit for tat way... Nazi Germany carpet bombed Gernika before the Brits or the Americans started air attacks against Germany 107.178.104.52 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Today, the Syrian Air Force largely does not have guided bombs. Today, that air force only has rockets and a few guided bombs. Hence why they have called on Russia to use laser and GPS-guided bombs, since they are more accurate. It is also extremely hard for Syria to get any kind of guided bombs due to the international sanctions. It's not like the Syrian Air Force has stocks of guided bombs they aren't using, and they're just choosing to bomb with gravity bombs. They have little choice: either drop bombs on civilian areas or lose the country. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I despise Assad with every fiber of my being, but this is the Mid-East; nice guys do NOT accomplish jack shit. So yeah, I hate him, but after all these years I'm not convinced there's a less evil faction than the Syrian government. well, maybe the Kurds, but let's be honest; an independent Kurdistand will result in a regional war of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq all uniting to exterminate the Kurds, and sure, we could arm them to the teeth so the Kurds would win, but the result would be a state that makes Israel look like the Peace Corps. CorruptUser (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"this is the Mid-East; nice guys do NOT accomplish jack shit" And why is that so? Well, turns out if you throw a bunch of weapons in all factions' laps, what you get is not a happy place of freedom, rainbows and sunshine. Seriously, Syria is about the best argument there is against Second Amendment fundamentalism. Because it turns out if you give everyone a gun, the bad guys will use them more indiscriminately than the good guys. And if good guys use them indiscriminately? Whoops, they just slipped into bad guy territory. Catch 22 anyone? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Or for 2nd amendment fundamentalism, since the government there is a blood-thirsty dictator.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the complaint about the comparison to WWII: even during Vietnam, a war fought in the 60s and 70s, unguided bombs were continuously dropped on villages in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia with the exact same purpose as the Syrian government's bombardment: to kill the enemy and their supporters. My point was the criticism of the Syrian government's methods of conducting war, although merited, fails to account for identical behavior by America and Britain in Germany, Japan, and Vietnam. And the last case, Vietnam, is particularly egregious. Radio-guided bombs were already widely available during the war, but were not widely used because dumb bombs were cheaper to make and the US wanted to drain its supply to make way for more precise weapons. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the moral issue involves intent/goal. Carpet bombing to liberate people is more moral than carpet bombing to enslave them. Slightly. CorruptUser (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like Whataboutism to me. Anyway, someone deleted the whole section on War Crimes. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. --Read-Write (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"fails to account for" Except there's little motivation for critics to bring up the bombings of German cities, because the latter is history, while Syria is news. I personally agree though; the Allies bombing German cities 'just for the heck of it' very much constituted a war crime. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They didn't bomb them "just for the heck of it".--Kugelschreiber (talk)

Sheesh...

Absolutely no criticism of any editors who have labored so far to put this article together so far, but this page is gonna be a nightmare to ever make any coherent sense of. nobs^{Hillary 2016 -"Mommy, what's a blow job?"} 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Be brave and edit.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected to mod level on April 11 ("I need some sleep") - still protected... ħuman 23:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I understood it pretty well, depressing as it is (doesn't seem like any solution to the civil war any time soon). I really appreciate whoever worked on it. Pere Ubu (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's going to change pretty quickly. On the Iraqi side of the former border, news reports would have us believe the Turks & Kurds are working arm-in-arm to retake Mosul. Meanwhile Baghdad govt wants the Turks out of Iraq....nobs 00:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I am quite surprised by how welcoming Barzani, the leader of Iraqi Kurdistan and descendant of Mustafa Barzani, has been to the Turks. I think "Greater Kurdistan" is becoming a hopeless ideal.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

He's basically a Turkish puppet. He wants economic cooperation with neighbors, so he's allowed Turkey to do what it wants. Also, Robsmith, you're right. Mosul op has started. PB (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In the coming months, and probably kess than 2 years, the Syria/Iraq border will have to be redrawn. Assume Daesh gets eradicated, in principle, I don't see them redrawing the border to what ISIS claims it should be. By the same token, Assad won't be awarded his own territory back either, and the West can't remove him (barring WWIII). My guess, Turkey may have a role here, and despite strained relations with the US, this is why the US is encouraging Turkish involvement in Northern Syria & Iraq.nobs 01:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Such a partitioning will likely lead to more ethnic cleansing and possible genocide but this seems to be the strategy the US will push for. The Kurdish independence referendum is supposed to happen this year; the Turks will recognize it in order to gain economically, the Israelis will recognize it in order to gain a ME ally, the US will follow the Turks, and the Russians will recognize it in order to legitimize the Crimea referendum. I have serious doubts that the Syrian, Iranian, or Turkish Kurds will be supported by the Iraqi Kurds if this happens since this will threaten them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody wants to return in a year or two to retake Mosul, Alleppo, or Raqqa. In the interests of longterm stability, do you support the small group (Kurds) on ideological principles, or the larger group (Turks) cause they have the muscle to act as policeman in the neighborhood? While the US talks a good game about self-rule, democracy, and human rights, historically its only concern is peace and stability.nobs 03:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Human rights aren't worth the paper they are guaranteed with if you don't have peace and stability.

2) Turkey hasn't been reliable as a policeman

3) Can't oppose the Turks though. I'd support the Kurds on ideological grounds, but where they are it's, well, the Middle East, they are kind of screwed. Get something the Turks and Kurds can grudgingly tolerate, then hooray. CorruptUser (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It could work, but....we probably have to respect the Russian-Iranian input on what they would tolerate as a longterm solution in their neighborhood (which means respecting their Syrian/Alawite, Chinese, and North Korean allies views, too, which then threatens and weakens the Nato alliance with Turkey and the Gulf States - the GCC with Saudi Arabia).

An independent Kurdistan would have to live with Assad. That means asking permission from a guy the US just tried to destroy.nobs 03:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@RobS Good analysis. I am not a big a fan of national liberation myself (just look at the Balkans) but the Kurds have some good, longstanding reasons for secession; due to economic problems, it doesn't appear that they will pursue this end. Though Turkey has unfortunately become more fascistic, I would probably prefer the Turks having a sphere of influence over the Sunnis than the Saudis. I would say that the Turks are already moving closer to Russia, and by proxy Iran, since they are now pursuing a policy of detente; Turkey has also embraced relations with Israel.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of a Turkish/Nato - Saudi/GCC barrier against the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah Shiite Axis' encroachment on the Mediterranean coast.nobs 05:35, 16 October 2016 b(UTC)

I tend to believe that the "Axis of Resistance" (Axis, what a useful newspeak) was a natural response to American hegemony in the region and was exacerbated by our invasion of Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I also doubt the this "Axis" is as well organized as it is claimed to be sine the Iranians were willing to sell out Hezbollah and Hamas for some uranium.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's true, less a political/military alliance and more of propaganda effort to sway public opinion or recruiting tool for young jihadis. You're either with the bloody Caliph or you're with the Axis of the future Superpower.nobs 07:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here it is: Turkey bombs Kurds fighting ISIS.nobs 00:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's foreign policy

Here it is. Dumping the FSA and cozying up to Russia ( and strengthening Iran's hand). Bitch slapping Saudi Arabis & Turkey (a NATO ally). Shouldn't be to big a problem... Trump can always do like Hillary & Obama and flip-flop all over the map a restore the confusion & chaos which is their legacy. nobs 05:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering that at this point the FSA is an Al Qaeda front, I don't know why you seem to think Russia would be worse. I mean sure, we could arm the Kurds to the teeth and cover our ears "lalala can't hear you" while the genocides occur, but that's even more of a bitch slap to Turkey than cozying up to the Kremlin. StickySock (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That post was made when Flynn was in charge of foreign policy. When the idea was a detente and driving a wedge between Russia and Iran. But now looks like Syria will be divided up into occupation zones, with a joint occupation zone from Raqqa down a corridor along the Euphrates to the Iraqi border, which includes Syria's oil wells, thus depriving Assad of the oil. It looks like Washington's Deep State operatives are back in control, only this time with a Commander in Chief willing to rubber stamp action. nobs 04:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Being that the Deep State nixed Trump/Flynn's plan for detente, US now can't allow Assad/Putin a free hand in Syria once Daesh is removed. The Progressive/Obama/Resistance/coup plotters, having dealt Trump this setback, now have committed the neocon/military industrial complex to longterm occupation of parts of Syria. Way to go, Peaceniks! nobs 04:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't let Putin & Assad have those oil wells. Their bad guys, remember? ya bunch of stupid fucks. Now the US is committed to occupation.nobs 04:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Rand Corp proposal for slicing up Syria

Here's the plan. nobs 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Civil War"

The Syrian war has not been a civil war. It was engineered from outside, principally Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey from the start. It continues only because of outside funding and foreign jihadis. The motives of outside powers seeking regime change were to limit Iranian influence, primarily Hezbollah's long term sanctuary in Lebanon and Syria.

I propose we eleminate references to "civil war" outside of few references to "civil protests" in March and April of 2011. nobs 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

American imperialism

I'd like to point out that from a scientific point of view, the reason that there was loads of dissent, that eventually became an armed rebellion in Syria was down to a combination of oil, and the USA wanting to be able to buy it cheaply. As Assad won't give them a discount, that is why the USA provided loads of support to Armed opposition groups, which is why there is a civil war going on. Assad did well in choosing to clamp down on this in my opinion, and if I were the President of Syria, I would've done the same thing, and told the USA to get out of my country. The USA also want Hezbollah to engage in the war, therefore allowing them to aid the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) in fighting against them as an act of "self defence", which is something that actually aids the opposition fighters, which is an example of the USA indirectly aiding them. Any chance that this can be mentioned in the article instead of what appears to be something that more closely resembles a so called "Neutral Point of View" please? Kiko4564 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If you provide quality sources for me to use, sure. I have never done country articles in a neutral POV. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I recommend reading this opinion piece from Loubna Mrie (a Syrian activist) which addresses and disputes Kiko4564's points. I would also add it's a common misconception that Syria is an oil-rich nation. CowHouse (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)