Is the conflict in Syria turning into a proxy war?

[Vovka]

wtf is dat?

[Tibe]

He's not simply bombing his own people. He's bombing traitors who turned on his government, not because of his brutality but because of their adherence to a strict form of Islam which discriminates against other Islamic sects such as the Alawi sect he belongs to. He's also bombing tens of thousands of non Syrian citizens who were allowed to flood into his country through its vast and porous borders by regional actors with a vendetta against his government. Tens of thousands of fighters who have been armed to the teeth by some of the most powerful and richest nations on this planet, and even some who've been directly trained and funded by the CIA. Under such circumstances he's done bloody well and the Syrian people's support for him steadfast.

Ahh this brings back memories. Like the Ukrainian thread during its golden age. ".....directly trained and funded by the CIA". Those words are always beautiful.

[Grytviken]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfvwsR7qGys

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/russia-offers-free-syrian-army-air-strikes-isil-151024122412307.html

[Xant]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfvwsR7qGys

"Russia Insider", Murmillus' sources keep getting better. 

[Christo]

Untergang 'parodies' are still a thing?

Wow.

[Tibe]

No they are not. Murmillus just lives in a cave with his potato pc thats hooked up to one of those really old crt monitors that has stripes on it and turns your eyes red from just 1 hour of viewing. 

[Grytviken]

http://www.dw.com/en/survey-leaves-no-doubt-syrians-are-fleeing-assad/a-18775789

[Murmillus_Prime]

Those Downfall videos will never die.

On another note, if anyone is reading this with an attention span longer than 5 minutes have a watch of this debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLKQGwVkczg

A debate between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway about the Iraq war. Christopher Hitchens, like many of you smug fucks I take it, supported the Wests actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically in regards to Iraq believed removing Saddam was the best thing for the Iraqi people and something that was worth doing. However during Hitchens opening statement about Iraq and the removal of Saddam he admits that regional interferences were kept at bay largely by our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. He mentioned interfering actors such as Iran, the Wahhabists in Saudi-Arabia and others would that would vie for power and influence in Iraq now that Saddam was removed.

Christopher wasn't a stupid man, he was quite intelligent right? Yet he failed to see the irony in his statement that it was now the coalition that kept regional interference at bay, essentially replacing the job Saddam was doing all along. Now that the coalition are gone, (there's no way someone as "intelligent" as Christopher could not foresee our eventual departure) sectarian conflict has blown up and spiralled out of control. Iraqi's continue to be killed, and to kill. Iraqi territory has been taken by the Saudi proxies IS and major cities like Mosul lost. The Iraqi's now caught in cities like Mosul live under an oppression incomparable to the iron fist of a secular dictator. The Kurds are still being gassed, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3281610/ISIS-butchers-probably-used-MUSTARD-GAS-against-Iraqi-Kurds-emerges-terror-group-begins-conscripting-boys-aged-14.html. And what's worse, this chaos and sectarianism fuelled terrorism has not been contained in Iraq it's spread across the region and across the continents.

Was the Iraqi invasion worth it? Was removing a horrible brutal human being and his depraved regime really worth it? Was doing the wrong thing for the right reasons by using lies really something which improved peoples lives and made the world a better place? I don't think it was worth it. I don't think the trillions wasted, hundreds of thousands killed, millions scattered was worth overthrowing a Middle-Eastern dictator. Yet it seems many of you in this thread alone would do it all over again. You should all smack your heads against a concrete wall and snap out of your fairy tales.

Repeating Iraq, repeating Libya, in Syria is a mistake and a fools errand. If Christopher was alive today I'd like to know what he'd say about our invasions and interventions now, was it really such a good idea? It's easy for an intelligent man to make a mistake and be wrong, as it's as even easier for the bunch of smarmy fools in this thread who's investment doesn't go much further than mocking people they don't agree with to make a mistake. The longer you keep supporting your flawed ideas and opinions in regards to Syria, Iraq and the region at large the more stupid you make yourselves look, even if you collectively disagree you've still been and will be proven wrong and can live in denial for as long as you want.

[Xant]

Was the Iraqi invasion worth it? Was removing a horrible brutal human being and his depraved regime really worth it? Was doing the wrong thing for the right reasons by using lies really something which improved peoples lives and made the world a better place? I don't think it was worth it. I don't think the trillions wasted, hundreds of thousands killed, millions scattered was worth overthrowing a Middle-Eastern dictator. Yet it seems many of you in this thread alone would do it all over again. You should all smack your heads against a concrete wall and snap out of your fairy tales.

Hahahahahh 

[Tibe]

Was the Iraqi invasion worth it? Was removing a horrible brutal human being and his depraved regime really worth it? Was doing the wrong thing for the right reasons by using lies really something which improved peoples lives and made the world a better place? I don't think it was worth it. I don't think the trillions wasted, hundreds of thousands killed, millions scattered was worth overthrowing a Middle-Eastern dictator. Yet it seems many of you in this thread alone would do it all over again. You should all smack your heads against a concrete wall and snap out of your fairy tales.

I think what you dont seem to grasp is that it should be vital to kick dictators out of offices. Yeah, we know that kicking Saddam out didnt exactly make things bettter. But we know that now. Did we know that before? No we did not. Lets not also forget that Saddam invaded another country. Like he took Kuwait and the entire Arab League just watched with thumbs on their asses and did nothing while their "honorary member" was being pillaged and annexed. Exactly kicking a dictator out does not always automatically make a rich successful country. It does not work that way at all. With those dictators those countries will never improve and quite often their neibhours get bombed too. What you are claiming is that if the successrate is not 100% there is no point. Let all those dictators stay and rape their own people. "Currently those people are better off that way, they shouldnt resist and we should just watch". #Murmilluslogic

[Paul]

But many people knew that before. I remember interviews from German near east experts back in the day that predicted that removing one asshole will destabilise a region full of assholes. The very same logic was used to answer the question why "we" are not removing dictator X from a random African state when it was convenient. 

[Tibe]

Well thats because an entire region is destabilized when we consider Africa. There really is no point to remove a warlord there, theres noone there who would be decent enough to replace him with. In the case with Middle-East half of it is stable and half of it isnt. Now thanks to isis more of it isnt really. There was a possibility for improvement. There are normal intellectuals to replace a dictator with. Atleast thats what I think. Thats why a lot of foreign powers have always been in the Middle-East playing "replace the government", because there has always been a chance to secure a strong stable foothold. Why do you think nobody really plays that game in Africa?

[Paul]

That game will be played in Africa.

Iraq was and is an ethnical powder keg because of it's demographic reality. People knew that before. German experts I wrote about knew this. The American experts knew this even better. They probably even warned their government to not try anything stupid. They still started a war for a number of reasons one can only speculate about. Making "the world a better place" maybe was on the list too, but I'm pretty sure you'd expect it to be on a way higher spot than I do.

[Murmillus_Prime]

I think what you dont seem to grasp is that it should be vital to kick dictators out of offices. Yeah, we know that kicking Saddam out didnt exactly make things bettter. But we know that now. Did we know that before? No we did not. Lets not also forget that Saddam invaded another country. Like he took Kuwait and the entire Arab League just watched with thumbs on their asses and did nothing while their "honorary member" was being pillaged and annexed. Exactly kicking a dictator out does not always automatically make a rich successful country. It does not work that way at all. With those dictators those countries will never improve and quite often their neibhours get bombed too. What you are claiming is that if the successrate is not 100% there is no point. Let all those dictators stay and rape their own people. "Currently those people are better off that way, they shouldnt resist and we should just watch". #Murmilluslogic

Our success rate is 0%, I think that speaks for itself. There are many dictatorships around that world that oppress their people to varying degrees. Some of these dictatorships are doing well economically, Saudi-Arabia to name an example, yet regardless its people are oppressed and suffer. But many people in Saudi-Arabia aren't suffering, aren't oppressed because they are actually proponents of the dictatorship that presides over them just as there was support for Saddam by Iraqi's in Iraq and for Gaddafi by Libyans in Libya. Essentially these nations were being run by their own people and in hindsight one can say for their own people. Now regional actors are moving in to have their slice of the pie and national unity in these nations is being torn apart while these regional actors and interferers attempt to do the same in Syria.

What we have to understand is that one, our own models of governance are not something to be looked up to have many flaws and far to go before they become something that other nations should emulate. Two that in many cases our form of governance is not suitable with the various ethnicities, cultures and politics around the globe. Three our governments almost always have a vested interest in the decisions they take, whether it be cheap political point scoring to securing resources multi-national corporations the lives of people is not likely to be high on our governments list of priorities.

[Murmillus_Prime]

But many people knew that before. I remember interviews from German near east experts back in the day that predicted that removing one asshole will destabilise a region full of assholes. The very same logic was used to answer the question why "we" are not removing dictator X from a random African state when it was convenient.

It only seems to be convenient to remove dictators if, A they don't play ball with us and B they are in fairly close proximity to Israel and C they have vast and easy to access energy reserves.