Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

The Syrian situation in a rather large nutshell

Chas

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
17,472
Garage
Country Flag
england
President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin (who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm.might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
So, now you fully understand everything, all your questions should be answered!

Disclaimer

I don't necessarily agree with any of this so don't have a go at me.
 
I think that goes some way to explain how messed up the whole thing is.

Maybe if America stopped meddling in everyone else's affairs the whole thing would have resolved itself. The USA doesn't exactly have a high success rate when it comes to arming rebels for their own agenda.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 
Would have expected Saudi in the mix?
 
I saw that (or a very very similar summary) elsewhere and if it wasn't so close to the truth, would be very funny.
 
I saw that (or a very very similar summary) elsewhere and if it wasn't so close to the truth, would be very funny.

I copied it from Facebook.
 
In a nutshell my family are a bit like that and every now and then one of them will cross the line and one of the others will beat the crap out of him regardless of what all the rest think and that's it sorted until next time .
 
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
In a nutshell my family are a bit like that and every now and then one of them will cross the line and one of the others will beat the crap out of him regardless of what all the rest think and that's it sorted until next time .
That's a good system Shayne fortunately it doesn't have the potential of starting World War 3 unlike the current situation.
 
Its a crap system Chas but when all but one can be brought to the table to discuss things decisive action gives peace a chance .
 
Bombing is no good, that will just annoy them more. ISIS like us as due to our war in Iraq they were able to spring into existence.
 
I agree Frank, I have a bad feeling about us getting involved again fighting somebody else's war. I'm no liker of Corbyn, but I have to admit he is asking some very pertinent questions at the moment.
 
Well I've got to say I'm not overly pleased that it's been voted for us to bomb ISIS in Syria.

I believe something needs to be done but bombing them with no boots on the ground will lead to civilian casualties which only helps their cause.

Why can't we start off by telling Turkey to stop buying their oil, stop Saudi Arabia from throwing them money, cut off their supply chains. Heavy weaponry doesn't just appear out of thin air and they aren't manufacturing it themselves.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 
does anyone think there will be a market for exporting landcruisers to syria????
 
Well I've got to say I'm not overly pleased that it's been voted for us to bomb ISIS in Syria.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and I think that meddling in the Middle-Eastern Tribal Conflicts is a bad idea. however in this instance I think its the least we can do.

Its not a new 'war', we are currently bombing ISIS in Iraq and it makes sense to spread that campaign all over their 'Caliphate' - whatever national boundaries the rest of the world recognise.

We have not changed our approach to Assad's forces, The Syrian Rebels, The Kurds, Turkey or even Russia - that's still down to diplomacy, which is something that the Brits can do.

We only have nine Phantoms in Cyprus, so I doubt we'll be 'stepping up' the bombing campaigns much, we now have less far to fly to the new targets !

The big reason for extending the bombing is to show solidarity with the others who are doing far more than we are to combat ISIS. We won't have much of a voice at the negotiations if we are not showing commitment - however small compared to the Americans & French (and maybe Germany, soon).

We are not going to defeat ISIS from the air, but its all about International Politics.

Its a complicated old world.

Bob.
 
Well I pity America. If they start having home grown terrorists over there with such easy access to guns there is going to be a "Paris" every week.

It's a bit like a police chase and them saying they have to stop the driver as he is driving too fast LOL. Bombing ISIS will provoke more terror.

I don't think there is an answer but it's a dangerous situation with Russia slightly on the opposite side to us.
 
any armchair general will tell you that bombing alone is pointless , so this begs the question about ground forces.Even then one look at Afghanistan & Iraq will tell you that no amount of troops or hardware will guarantee success against a insurgent type force that dosent care about civilian deaths.cutting off the finance & weapon supply is a no-brainer but powerful people want war - its big business , just google "cost of the war on terror" meanwhile the UK continues to send aid to Yemen & supply arms to suadi arabia , who have cut off more heads than isis... BTW Bob we dont have any phantoms in Cypress only Buccaneers !
 
Its a complicated and dangerous situation , there are so many factions each with a different agenda and until all those opposed to ISIL consolidate their forces in a united campaign to eradicate this scourge on mankind , then its just a token effort . Bombing alone can't succeed , troops on the ground IMO can be successful but it would be a long , costly and bitter war and the West would need a strong stomach the " collateral " damage would be immense .
At the height of the Vietnam War 1968 the US had 550,000 troops in country and still could not defeat a 3rd world country , this new enemy is far more dangerous and fanatical only total defeat ( annihilation ) will succeed , I just hope it can be achieved then the whole world will be a safer place .. cheers Mick
 
Isis thrives on the threat of WW3 .

Diplomacy has failed and talking can only make things worse what we need now is a bullheaded blinkered bully to who has no interest in negotiation to dominate the situation by brute force . Isn't that what America is historically renowned for ?

In the aftermath USA and Russia will circle each other like strutting peacocks , newspapers will probably discuss nuclear war for a year , but they won't fight because in reality they are terrified of each other so it all ends up back at the table . Almost as a side effect of the peacock feathers on display the entire world will be reminded of the utter devastation a third world war would bring which would give peace a chance .
 
At the height of the Vietnam War 1968 the US had 550,000 troops in country and still could not defeat a 3rd world country , .. cheers Mick

We were taught in officers course that an army generally worked on a ratio of 4:1 support to frontline troops (not sure what it is now, this was more than 30yrs ago), although even applying that to the above figure it is very significant. And I agree, total annihilation is the only option! But...these movements, just like religions, are never completely eradicated, they always manage to reinvent themselves in some other guise. But continued vigilance via a heavy hand going forward would drive the Libs to apoplexy!
 
Back
Top