Is the conflict in Syria turning into a proxy war?

[Lt_Anders]

   The root of the problem is their ethnic/religious civil war. Encouraging them to run a secular government to keep their boarders and resources intact is not some nefarious covert operation, it's common sense and necessary for the state's survival. Corruption is what has plagued the Iraqi government, it is also what became a rallying point for their enemies. This is why the US has distanced itself from the new Iraqi government leaving them to deal with their own problems.

No. If it was, we'd have left Afghanistan years ago. That place is 10X worse than Iraq. We distance ourselves cause our presdent Blundered with the troop withdrawl(to "keep" his promise). That's why he went back on his promise to remove soldiers from Afghanistan, cause if he did, it'd be a massive vacuum.

All for the sake of Politics.

[Vovka]

That place is 10X worse than Iraq.

but no Communist! success-story at its best

[Grytviken]

No. If it was, we'd have left Afghanistan years ago. That place is 10X worse than Iraq. We distance ourselves cause our presdent Blundered with the troop withdrawl(to "keep" his promise). That's why he went back on his promise to remove soldiers from Afghanistan, cause if he did, it'd be a massive vacuum.

All for the sake of Politics.

 Maliki refused to grant US  troops immunity to appease his parliament, which they regretted after the withdrawal. Different circumstances.   

[Grytviken]

but no Communist! success-story at its best

   visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Vovka]

How to make evereone happy "west edition"
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[ecorcheur_brokar]

I wouldn't call it a success just because people of this generation don't hold grudge on each other.

einstein was so great and successfull! Jews don't hold grudge on Germany anymore.

[Tibe]

Dumbass, I wrote why they are succesful, beond holding a grudge. Im not gonna quote my own posts just because you refuse to scroll up and read, before you post a reply. And the chocolate chip cookie einstein example in a post is always a sign of someone too desperate to trying to make a counter-point.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Vietnam won the war so they did as they pleased after it, so all the massacre were done for nothing, as usual when you go against the will of the majority.

Japan was an imperialist country just like Western power (10 millions killed). 29 millions indians were killed by british empire, and a complete wipe-out of native indians by British and Spanish empires.

Balkan situation is still not resolved.

Anyway, I am not saying nothing should be done to prevent genocide. My problems is with the means used to "resolve", aka massive bombing on civilians.

[Grytviken]

How to make evereone happy "west edition"

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Grytviken]

Vietnam won the war so they did as they pleased after it, so all the massacre were done for nothing, as usual when you go against the will of the majority.

Japan was an imperialist country just like Western power (10 millions killed). 29 millions indians were killed by british empire, and a complete wipe-out of native indians by British and Spanish empires.

Balkan situation is still not resolved.

Anyway, I am not saying nothing should be done to prevent genocide. My problems is with the means used to "resolve", aka massive bombing on civilians.

  Let's compare disease and biological immunizes in the 1600's and 1700's to 20th century genocide. Why don't we bring Ghengis Khan into this while we are at it lmao.

  Who is mass bombing civilians to prevent genocide?

[Tibe]

Anyway, I am not saying nothing should be done to prevent genocide. My problems is with the means used to "resolve", aka massive bombing on civilians.

Nobodys mass bombing any civilians. Thats just a load of garbage.

[Vovka]

Nobodys mass bombing any civilians. Thats just a load of garbage.

funny to hear that from a such biological waste like u 

[Oberyn]

Just pointing out again that the Al Sauds are actually the moderate, modernist faction of Saudi Arabia, as hilarious as that seems to us. This is what their main political/military opponents for control of the region were, and their legacy as military enforcers and the backbone of Saudi military forces endures to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhwan

(click to show/hide)

around 1913, the same time that Ibn Saud regained al-Hasa, there emerged in obscure circumstances a zealous movement known as the Ikhwan (Brethren). Wahhabi ulama went out to domesticate nomadic tribesmen, to convert them from idolatry to Islam and to make them soldiers for Saudi expansion. The Ikhwan became zealous religious warriors united and motivated by idealism more than allegiance to Ibn Saud. The result was a rebellion by some of the Ikhwan against their creator, who crushed them and in so doing reasserted dynastic power over the religious mission.[5]

In general the Ikhwan wished Ibn Saud to pursue strict wahhabi policies, while Ibn Saud sought more flexibility to adapt "policy to local circumstances" and maintain political stability, especially in newly conquered lands that had few wahhabi believers. Wahhabis supported forced conversion of Shia in al-Hasa, while Ibn Saud was willing to tolerate their practices.[12] After conquest of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina—which had been part of the Ottoman Empire for four centuries and developed a pluralistic religious culture—Ibn Saud sought to "reassured the Muslim world that a new wahhabi regime would not disrupt the pilgrimage",[13] while the Ikhwan "pressed for strict adherence to wahhabi norms" such as forbidding smoking tobacco and worshiping at shrines. [14]

In 1926 meeting of Ikhwan leaders at al-Artawiya, found Ibn Saud at fault for "not upholding the sharp separation of belief and infidelity". Among his misdeeds were allowing two of his sons to travel to "idolatrous lands" (Faysal to England. Saud to Egypt); allowing (what they believed to be) idolatrous nomads from Iraq and Transjordan to pasture their animals in "the abode of Islam"; leniency towards Shiites; the introduction of modern inventions (car, telephone and telegraph); and (what they considered) illegal taxation of nomadic tribes.[15] Ibn Saud attempted to mollify the Ikhwan by submitting their accusations to the religious scholars ('ulama'), who agreed on the need for more strict policies towards non-wahhabi subjects, but also affirmed that only the ruler (Ibn Saud) had the right to declare jihad.[16]

In 1927 tribesman of the Mutayr and Ajman rebelled against the ulama's judgement and the authority of Ibn Saud and engaged in cross-border raids into parts of Trans-Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait.[20] The destruction of an Iraqi police post provoked an international incident by violating the Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone between Iraq and Arabia established by Great Britain and Ibn Sa'ud (1927–28). The British bombed Najd in retaliation.[21] A congress convened by Ibn Saud in October 1928 deposed Ibn Humayd ad-Dawish, and Ibn Hithlayn, the leaders of the revolt.[21] The Ikhwanis also raided Kuwait in January 1928.

With the Ikhwan leadership defiant, Abd al Aziz took to the field to lead his army, which was now supported by four British aircraft (flown by British pilots) and a fleet of 200 military vehicles that symbolized the modernization that the Ikhwan abhorred.[22] After suffering a major defeat at the Battle of Sabilla (30 March 1929), the main body of Ikhwan surrendered to British forces on the Saudi-Kuwaiti frontier in January 1930.

Ibn Saud completed the military defeat of the Ikhwan rebels "with a deft mix of punishment and rehabilitation" to avoid antagonizing the bulk of Ikhwan who had agreed with many of the rebels' complaints but remained on the sidelines. Rebel leaders Duwish and Ibn Bujad "died in captivity in Riyadh." Their tribal followers were punished with the confiscation of "the lion's share of their camels and horses."[4] The remnants of the irregular Ikhwanis formed units in Ibn Saud's new military institution, initially known as the White Army, later called the National Guard.[4]

[Murmillus_Prime]

To summarise. We have some posters on this thread who are proponents and apologists of the Western imperialism and Western backed insurgencies that have directly and indirectly led to the destabilisation of whole regions in the world, which has been directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and destruction of their nations. Western imperialism that's propped up and aligned itself with brutal dictatorships... Apparently all because they are militarily engaging brutal dictatorships either not aligned with the West or aligned with Russia.

These posters don't seem to understand or want to acknowledge the consequences behind our governments direct and indirect actions and instead run off on emotional hypothesis' or repeat propagandised points repeated by our mainstream media to excuse their support of insurgents and brutal dictatorial regimes our governments are aligned with and assist. This is regardless of our governments poor track record and history of failure in this area and their repeated breaches of international law and the amount of national treasure and human lives wasted on these endeavours, when this money could have been better spent.

National interest and war are dirty games to be played, at least the Russian establishment is honest when discussing its motives behind its actions and at least the Russian establishment have made attempts to comply with international law when NATO states pretend it doesn't exist when they want, and then cite international law when it suits them. Like the U.S's recent criticism of the Chinese government's actions in the South China Sea for example.

The validity and legitimacy of international laws and norms are made or broken depending on the consistency on which they're applied. If the most powerful and military aggressive nation and alliance on earth are not subject to the application of these laws, (The U.S/NATO) then nations like Russia and China will not longer be subject to them either, and we can  all then return to the laws of the jungle and the U.N like the League of Nations will be consigned to history.

[Oberyn]

International laws and norms, especially when embodied in the UN, have always been laughably impotent and useless. You're the one living in a fantasy if you think we're "returning" to the "laws of the jungle", aka realpolitiks. It never, ever left. You're also retarded if you think any of the main players are "honest" in any of the high-minded, morally sanctioned bullshit they put out on a regular basis. Take the gigantic wooden plank out of your own fucking eye before calling others blind, lol Russian establishment is "honest" about it's motives, go fuck yourself you dumb prick. Poor wittle Russia trying to follow international laws out of good faith, unlike those evil NATO imperialists merely exploiting them for their own ends, god you are a hypocritical moron.

This destabilization in the middle east supposedly caused by NATO meddling won't end until all the wahhabist and salafist bleeding sores all over the muslim world are finally drained of their life giving fluids, i.e their natural resources. Best course of action is to make them obsolete through technology, as much as possible. Where you and I differ is that you think that NATO and the US specifically is the one pulling the strings, the ones who have the Gulf states as outright puppets in their grand machinations. I see them as powerful political entities in their own right, with their own goals and enemies. The world economy is dependent on a steady, continously stable world market for oil and gas for...well, everything. The whole delicate, ephemereal web of economic exchanges crumbles without it. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and indirectly OPEC through it, have disproportionate political and diplomatic power for only one reason. They have absolutely nothing at all to offer to the world except that one thing. They're the "dealers" and the rest of the developped world are the junkies. Just look at when interests of NATO and interests of these wahhabist bundle of stickss clash, who is it that gives way? Who has more to gain from the "alliance"? These backwards cunts are holding the entire world economy hostage, something that was made clear as long ago as the 70's, when this "alliance" first started gaining real traction.