Syria war: UK minister says Russia risks 'pariah' status

[caervek]

What are you talking about. USA and UK have already invaded Syria

Basically, the way time works is that what is currently happening now is called the "present", what has yet to happen is called the "future" and what has already happened is called the "past".

Now, USA and UK are conducting airstrikes in Syria in the "present" because they began doing so in the "past". However before then, further back in the past they were not doing so, and Obama wanted to but had to change his mind because the UK refused to take part and Russia managed to outmaneuver him politically.

[Ulmita]

Basically, the way time works is that what is currently happening now is called the "present", what has yet to happen is called the "future" and what has already happened is called the "past".

Now, USA and UK are conducting airstrikes in Syria in the "present" because they began doing so in the "past". However before then, further back in the past they were not doing so, and Obama wanted to but had to change his mind because the UK refused to take part and Russia managed to outmaneuver him politically.

So the poster you quoted means: UK stopped USA from invading Syria (which btw USA has been arming FSA since the beginning of the conflict thus having special forces on ground since basically '11, maybe early '12 which is considered an invasion just not a full scale) once but shortly after they both invaded.

[rogueMatthias]

I wouldn't say that, it's more a case of the UK refusing to participate in intervention caused Obama to rethink it.

Well Syria was mostly Clintons idea so I dread to think what will happen when she' in power. Her foreign policy in the middle east is frightening, ISIS is practically her bastard child. I love that people just use the word "hawkish" as it sounds more fun than "warmongering despot".

[Slant]

Well Syria was mostly Clintons idea so I dread to think what will happen when she' in power. Her foreign policy in the middle east is frightening, ISIS is practically her bastard child. I love that people just use the word "hawkish" as it sounds more fun than "warmongering despot".

I like how people blame other people for literally everything. Is there anything the Shedevil didn't do? She spied for Russia, she is responsible for terrorists attacking Benghazi, she's responsible for Syria... I bet she has an affair with the head of ISIS as well, while we're at it, just to get back to Bill.

Please, don't mention that it was Bush who fubar'd Iraq and set the conditions for ISIS to form and later invade Syria. That it was Obama as president under which Syria fell into a civil war. That Putin kept backing Assad into thinking he could hold on with more than half the country against him. But please, go ahead... you were blaming Clinton? Tell us more...

[Crispin]

lol, you don't even read references, that actually tell the quite opposite to what is said in that Wiki.



reference [32], is Ukranian official Police website. What it says about this incident?



My translation from Ukranian:


so, who is brainwashed here - me, who question things and actually cares to read sources, or you, who can't read them and just swallows what's being fed to you.

So, as I said. Firing started at 18 Feb. Both rioters and police got shot. Then police abandoned their wall-off tactic (cause, otherwise, they'd be a standing targets for armed protesters) and proceed to counter-sniper tactics, as can be seen from one of the videos I posted. Since this moment an armed conflict started - from both sides. The vast majority of killings happened exactly on 20 Feb, mainly by sniper fire, featuring shooting in the back of the protesters, as can be clearly seen from the video - open your eyes.

1st of all, you provided the links, why provide them if you think they're wrong? read them first, 2nd of all, do you know what consider means? I suggest you look it up before your conspiracy fed brain goes into a spin, sorry but you're either inbred or stupid and I think my time is better spent not feeding that messed up brain of yours, clearly school didnt do you any good.

[Ulmita]

I like how people blame other people for literally everything. Is there anything the Shedevil didn't do? She spied for Russia, she is responsible for terrorists attacking Benghazi, she's responsible for Syria... I bet she has an affair with the head of ISIS as well, while we're at it, just to get back to Bill.

Please, don't mention that it was Bush who fubar'd Iraq and set the conditions for ISIS to form and later invade Syria. That it was Obama as president under which Syria fell into a civil war. That Putin kept backing Assad into thinking he could hold on with more than half the country against him. But please, go ahead... you were blaming Clinton? Tell us more...

We know she is the one responsible for Libya, we also know that she is calling for a no fly zone in Syria.

[rogueMatthias]

We know she is the one responsible for Libya, we also know that she is calling for a no fly zone in Syria.

Which basically serves no purpose apart from protecting Al Nusra there from the Russian and Syrian forces.

It'd be quite hilarious if USA ends up in a war with Russia over them trying to protect Al-Quada

[Keeponrage]

1st of all, you provided the links, why provide them if you think they're wrong? read them first, 2nd of all, do you know what consider means?

That is actually how you work with sources - you verify them line by line, reference by reference. If I generally agree with a source - it doesn't mean that I agree with every line of it. The opposite is also true - if I generally disagree with a source, it doesn't mean that I disagree with every line.

I suggest you look it up before your conspiracy fed brain goes into a spin, sorry but you're either inbred or stupid and I think my time is better spent not feeding that messed up brain of yours, clearly school didnt do you any good.

your surrender accepted. Thank you very much for discussion.

[caervek]

We know she is the one responsible for Libya, we also know that she is calling for a no fly zone in Syria.

Which basically serves no purpose apart from protecting Al Nusra there from the Russian and Syrian forces.

You must have missed the coalition intervention in Libya, the UN agreed on a no fly zone then instead of implementing one the USA/UK/France flew in, shot down all the Libyan planes and then set about acting as the rebels air force. Not only did we completely change the course of the civil war but we even managed to win it conclusively my bombing all resistance while the rebels drove on behind our planes planting flags.

That's the reason people in the UK are still massively opposed to any action in Syria, and the reason our government voted not to get involved back in 2013 (when there was an election coming up and nobody wanted to lose their job).

- - - Updated - - -

That Putin kept backing Assad into thinking he could hold on with more than half the country against him.

That type of misinformation is best left to FOX news.

Even if you combine ISIS and the "rebel" extremists into one big group it's still less than half the country. At no point have the loyalists ever been outnumbered. This is why both Assad and his party were able to win the most recent elections (in which refugees located in other countries were able to vote via their local embassy).

[rogueMatthias]

Even if you combine ISIS and the "rebel" extremists into one big group it's still less than half the country. At no point have the loyalists ever been outnumbered. This is why both Assad and his party were able to win the most recent elections (in which refugees located in other countries were able to vote via their local embassy).

The cynic in me has been wondering if this is the reason for the EUs current "open doors" refugee policy. 4 million men of conscription age being able to leave the country so freely has got to have seriously hurt Assads military capabilities.

[Skroe]

The cynic in me has been wondering if this is the reason for the EUs current "open doors" refugee policy. 4 million men of conscription age being able to leave the country so freely has got to have seriously hurt Assads military capabilities.

Well..... Assad current has a major manpower shortage. The thinking is the Russian/Syrian end game is that the regime controls the 5 major cities and leaves the hinterlands to whoever, because Assad does not have remotely enough men to hold the entirety of the country. Rebuilding a military force that big could take decades for a country as ravaged as Syria.

That said, the refugees would not be those people. They're largely Sunni Muslim and Assad's forces are predominantly Shiite, assisted by Iranian Quuds forces. The man power shortage comes from the sheer number of regime forces killed in the war, and the fact that they were a minority in the country to begin with.

[Deleted]

The cynic in me has been wondering if this is the reason for the EUs current "open doors" refugee policy. 4 million men of conscription age being able to leave the country so freely has got to have seriously hurt Assads military capabilities.

Those people would more likely be opposing Assad.
There is some truth to people saying that accepting refugees perpetuates and worsens the civil war (because the people who flee are not the crazies).

[Ulmita]

Well..... Assad current has a major manpower shortage.

They are gucci:

SYRIAN WAR REPORT – OCTOBER 6, 2016: UP TO 60,000 IRANIAN-BACKED FIGHTERS OPERATE IN SYRIA


https://southfront.org/syrian-war-re...rate-in-syria/

[caervek]

Assad's forces are predominantly Shiite, assisted by Iranian Quuds forces. The man power shortage comes from the sheer number of regime forces killed in the war, and the fact that they were a minority in the country to begin with.

This is nonsense rhetoric.

The "moderate" rebels have ~40-50,000 guys, the extremist rebels have 80-110,000 guys, ISIS have 30-100,000 guys.

The Syrian army alone has 178,000 guys, and the militias have 90,000. The loyalist forces have a manpower advantage before you even add the 20,000 from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

As for losses the loyalists have lost 60-95,000 from the army and 41-55,000 from the militias. The rebels have lost 104-130,000 and ISIS have lost around 27,000.

[Flarelaine]

Well..... Assad current has a major manpower shortage. The thinking is the Russian/Syrian end game is that the regime controls the 5 major cities and leaves the hinterlands to whoever, because Assad does not have remotely enough men to hold the entirety of the country. Rebuilding a military force that big could take decades for a country as ravaged as Syria.

That said, the refugees would not be those people. They're largely Sunni Muslim and Assad's forces are predominantly Shiite, assisted by Iranian Quuds forces. The man power shortage comes from the sheer number of regime forces killed in the war, and the fact that they were a minority in the country to begin with.

This is nonsense rhetoric.

The "moderate" rebels have ~40-50,000 guys, the extremist rebels have 80-110,000 guys, ISIS have 30-100,000 guys.

The Syrian army alone has 178,000 guys, and the militias have 90,000. The loyalist forces have a manpower advantage before you even add the 20,000 from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

As for losses the loyalists have lost 60-95,000 from the army and 41-55,000 from the militias. The rebels have lost 104-130,000 and ISIS have lost around 27,000.

Would either of you mind linking sources?

[caervek]

Would either of you mind linking sources?

I just copied the figures from Wiki, hence the numbers being ranges because they are taken form multiple sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

[Skroe]

This is nonsense rhetoric.

The "moderate" rebels have ~40-50,000 guys, the extremist rebels have 80-110,000 guys, ISIS have 30-100,000 guys.

The Syrian army alone has 178,000 guys, and the militias have 90,000. The loyalist forces have a manpower advantage before you even add the 20,000 from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

As for losses the loyalists have lost 60-95,000 from the army and 41-55,000 from the militias. The rebels have lost 104-130,000 and ISIS have lost around 27,000.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...-idUSKCN12513W

But the backers of the rebellion -- ranging from the United States to Turkey and the Gulf -- have been wary of being sucked into a Levantine quagmire and unnerved by concerns that Islamic State will fill the vacuum if Assad's rule implodes.

Yet, despite the ferocity of the bombardment of eastern Aleppo, it may be too soon to count the rebels out.

Assad loyalist forces encircled the opposition enclave in July. But with manpower shortages, the Syrian army could not keep step on the ground with the Russian aerial assault. In August, rebels broke through government lines southwest of Aleppo, opening a corridor and briefly lifting the siege.

As a harbinger of the future, the rebel counter-offensive was led by Nusra Front, the jihadi force that had just split from Al Qaeda and rebranded itself as the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, or Front for the (Islamic) Conquest of the Levant.

Even while negotiating the terms of a short-lived ceasefire with Washington, Russia kept bombing the corridor south of Aleppo. When the brief break in hostilities ended, the intensity of the bombing increased.

The Russian and Syrian forces have been using much more powerful "bunker-buster" bombs, which residents of opposition-held areas say have the force to bring down entire buildings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b07d22cc39c4eb

The first lesson is that dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position is fundamentally weak. After five years of exploiting the minority Alawite sect, then importing Shiite foreign fighters to quell a popular uprising, Assad forces have begun recruiting prisoners and teachers to relieve a growing manpower shortage. Reports from the rebel offensive showed regime recruits refusing to fight or fleeing en masse from their positions.

Following the offensive, thousands of Iraqi and Lebanese Shiite reinforcements arrived in Aleppo to fight for the regime; Russian bombers initiated intensive air raids, and Iran allowed these bombers to take off from its territory in a decision unprecedented since World War Two; and the pro-regime side still failed to advance. The recent offensive made clear that Syria will never again be stable with Assad in power.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sy...ortage-n398651

In his first public address in a year, embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad vowed Sunday to win his country's long-running civil war while acknowledging his troops had lost territory to rebel forces and were running short on manpower.

Assad's speech, while confident, came in the fifth year of a conflict pitting his forces against rebels, Islamist insurgents and the extremist ISIS group. Turkey, which has long backed the rebels, has begun striking the IS group and Kurdish fighters battling the extremists, adding a new layer of complexity to a brutal war with no end in sight.

Assad's televised speech Sunday morning, given to local dignitaries in the Syrian capital, Damascus, was his first public address since he was sworn in for a third, seven-year term in July last year. Assad has given interviews to several Arab and international media outlets in the meantime.

Assad's government announced a general amnesty for army deserters and draft dodgers Saturday. There are thousands of army deserters in and outside Syria, many of whom have gone on to fight with rebels. Many young men have fled the country to avoid compulsory military conscription.

Assad acknowledged that his generals have had to move forces from one front to another in order to protect areas that are militarily, politically or economically more important. He added that the loss of some areas to insurgents has led to "frustration" among Syrians.

Manpower Shortages, period.

[AeneasBK]

This is all so dumb.

Assad is a terrible person and a ruler, but there's no way the rebels can beat him now unless Euorope and USA start directly funding and arming Al Nusra/Al-Quaeda. Does anyone really think that Syria will become some model democracy after this if he's eliminated? I feel nobody learnt anything from Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan.

This is all running on the assumption that that is the objectives of the players in the arena.