What should be done about Assad and Syria?

by Charlatan Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:58 am

The arab league has tepidly dealt with the syria problem. It is a big problem and a human rights violation at least, as well as terrorism! The army terrorises the people. If Obama wanted to get some votes back he would get stuck in there. There will be very little over turning of the state when they are removed from power, like the first month of the iraq war, then pull out. Let the people build it up again. Of course this might not become reality, what with the us and syria, so the people need a plan.

In such a corrupt world, they would need little encouragement to find illegal arms. With these arms they could fight a civil war. If the arab leauge is serious about the terrorism they could avoid, they could either intervene, or sell weapons to the civilians or defectors. Of course nurturing terrorism is not 'cool', so they would need to do something to thwart it.

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:26 am

There are simply too many Arab Leaders who, conscious of the fate of Ghadaffi, are sitting tight while thinking, "There, but for the Grace of Allah ..."

by Charlatan Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:59 am

Syria is a great example of terrible leadership. The elections are coming, but they will most likely be rigged. Anyone willing to kill people to cling to power will rig votes to keep power.

The people need to stay inside. They need to simply not work, raid convenience stores for food, and the insurance will pay for that - shift the cost onto assad or something - find a way.

This will bring in no taxes, no income. The country will come to a standstill, and the people will be nourished and safe.

If the people want to get rid of him, this is the bloodless way to do it. They can even collect unemployment for six months I suppose.

What this situation comes down to is who the soldiers listen to. They have been paid to listen to the president, but it is by virtue that they listen to the other citizens. They are not monsters set about to quell the rebellion, a rebellion that should be off the streets. Sometimes the worst thing you can do for your country is not show up, at all!

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:29 am

While we all agree that assad should go, we should not forget his cabinet too - they are in this with him. Maybe if they called for the resignation of the top general then the policies towards protesters would change?

Assad could not possibly want to see all these people killed with everybody watching. If he were to get rid of his secretary of defence, then that would see policies towards killing protesters change. This would ease pressure on him, and rational thoughts may then take place.

Why is he holding onto power? Is it addictive? He surely has enough money at the moment... what is so fantastic about being president?

Maybe the people will be happier with another person from his cabinet taking over? The cabinet or the party could do well in replacing him. Et tu brute?

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:43 am

Maybe the people could take hostages of the families of the cabinet, or distant family. Then they could demand that they are removed from power...

by Stox 16 Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:59 am

Charlatan wrote:Maybe the people could take hostages of the families of the cabinet, or distant family. Then they could demand that they are removed from power...

For me its how Gen. Fahd Jasem Al-Farij the head of the Syrian Army sees this going. and what Turkey does? both are key issues for any Syrian out come. if the officer core within the Army split then it could well end quite fast. or if Turkey get hacked off with cross border attacks on her land as Syria seeks The Free Syrian Army, as the main HQ of FSA is in Hatay Turkey. as Colonel Riad al-Asaad, announced that the FSA would work with demonstrators to bring down the system and declared that all security forces attacking civilians are justified targets. In December, the Free Syrian Army reported a total of 20,000 men in its ranks, and 40,000 by the middle of January 2012.

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:38 am

Stox 16 wrote:
Charlatan wrote:Maybe the people could take hostages of the families of the cabinet, or distant family. Then they could demand that they are removed from power...

For me its how Gen. Fahd Jasem Al-Farij the head of the Syrian Army sees this going. and what Turkey does? both are key issues for any Syrian out come. if the officer core within the Army split then it could well end quite fast. or if Turkey get hacked off with cross border attacks on her land as Syria seeks The Free Syrian Army, as the main HQ of FSA is in Hatay Turkey. as Colonel Riad al-Asaad, announced that the FSA would work with demonstrators to bring down the system and declared that all security forces attacking civilians are justified targets. In December, the Free Syrian Army reported a total of 20,000 men in its ranks, and 40,000 by the middle of January 2012.

This is great stuff.

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:48 am

Charlatan wrote:
Stox 16 wrote:
Charlatan wrote:Maybe the people could take hostages of the families of the cabinet, or distant family. Then they could demand that they are removed from power...

For me its how Gen. Fahd Jasem Al-Farij the head of the Syrian Army sees this going. and what Turkey does? both are key issues for any Syrian out come. if the officer core within the Army split then it could well end quite fast. or if Turkey get hacked off with cross border attacks on her land as Syria seeks The Free Syrian Army, as the main HQ of FSA is in Hatay Turkey. as Colonel Riad al-Asaad, announced that the FSA would work with demonstrators to bring down the system and declared that all security forces attacking civilians are justified targets. In December, the Free Syrian Army reported a total of 20,000 men in its ranks, and 40,000 by the middle of January 2012.

This is great stuff.

Charlatan
this will take time. as they only have small arms to fight with. yet this could change if there is an attack on Turkey.

by oftenwrong Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:42 am

At least while the Syrians are falling out with each other, they're unlikely to re-occupy the Lebanon.

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:14 am

oftenwrong wrote:At least while the Syrians are falling out with each other, they're unlikely to re-occupy the Lebanon.

how very true. saw quite a bit of the Syrian Army in the Lebanon. when out there with the UN Peace keeping. did not think a great deal of there Army. very poor training for most of the Army. Syrian Special forces are they best. but no real match for any Western trained Army.

by Stox 16 Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:04 am

Thought this was very interesting? what do others think?

in Lebanon, after a year of turmoil that was the worst in a decade, it is Hezbollah — with the backing of Iran and Syria — that expects to prosper, leaving the whole of the Middle East even more unstable.

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2012/01/lebanon-hezbollah-syria-march

by ROB Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:47 pm

BBC NEWS MIDDLE EAST

2 April 2012 Last updated at 14:09 ET
Syria 'agrees' to peace plan deadline, Annan tells UN

Syria has agreed to a 10 April deadline to begin implementing a six-point peace plan, UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan has said, according to diplomats.

The plan calls for a UN-supervised ceasefire by all parties, withdrawal of soldiers and heavy weapons from cities, and delivery of humanitarian aid.

Mr Annan was briefing the UN Security Council in closed session.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17587438

by ROB Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:47 pm

I respect Kofi Annan, but he toils for a toothless tiger.

North Korea was put in its place by UN troops during the Korean War, sixty years ago. That’s the last time the UN Security Council authorized troops to take effective action to reign in a dictator. I don’t trust the 21st Century UN to revisit its backbone, last seen on the Korean Peninsula somewhere in MiG Alley during our parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

The only way megalomaniac egotist tyrants can ever see reason (Kofi Annan’s request) is if they simultaneously see tethered, growling-at-the-bit airpower (NATO strike fighters) directly over reason’s shoulder.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:30 am

NATO and "The West" would probably do better to mind their own business, after poking their collective noses into first Iraq and then Afghanistan to nobody's discernible advantage.

by witchfinder Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:51 am

It was announced a few days ago that the UK government was increasing its so called "aid" to Syrian opposition groups by £500,000, this is not for medical supplies, food, agricultural equipment or tents, its purely for political purposes.

The British taxpayer at a time of economic difficulty is funding a politicaly motivated opposition campaign in a foreign country.

The opposition to president Assad is splintered, at odds with each other and fragmented, yet we feel it right and correct to give this rabble half a million pounds of our money - for what. ?

This is a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country, there are civil wars going on in the occupied territories, there is oppresion in Zimbabwe, attrocities been committed in Somalia and Sudan and in many other places.

This all part of wider power struggle between Iran and Israel, and we should keep out of it.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:55 pm

When foreigners try to donate money to the Tory Party, the Newspaper Headlines are almost too large to fit the page.

But the reverse is apparently OK.

I seem to have missed something.

by trevorw2539 Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:11 pm

How many more bloody noses before we learn our lesson.

Besides. We have our own problems. Rumour has it that the Scots 'Army' is gathering at the borders:) . And we all know what happened 'UP THE KHYBER'. Not a pretty sight:oops:

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:05 pm

I do hope that the Caledonian Stormtroopers leave a small gateway for those of us who are hoping for a pleasant trip North of the Border in the near future. I don't want to have to tell Mr Salmond that I shall be forced to take my business elsewhere ( thereby ruining the Scottish economy in one fell swoop) if they decline to stand aside...

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:23 pm

Beware of Pictish tricks. Compromise with a stay at Berwick-on-Tweed, which has allegedly not signed the Peace Treaty ending WW2.

by ROB Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:46 pm

BBC NEWS MIDDLE EAST

3 April 2012 Last updated at 12:12 ET

Syria unrest: Turkey says UN 'supports' repression
Mr Erdogan says Turkey will not turn its back on the Syrian people

Turkey PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accused the United Nations Security Council of indirectly supporting the oppression of the Syrian people by failing to unite on Syria.

Mr Erdogan said the Security Council was standing by with its "hands and arms tied" while the Syrian people were dying every day.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17602136

by ROB Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:51 pm

witchfinder wrote:
This is a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country…

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:32 pm

"So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't seem to apply to Palestinians on the West Bank either. Things are tough all over.

by ROB Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:37 am

oftenwrong wrote:
"So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't seem to apply to Palestinians on the West Bank either. Things are tough all over.

I’ve not asked about __________ (insert anyone else); I’ve asked about Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad. Once again, so the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?

by **astradt1** Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:45 am

I’ve not asked about __________ (insert anyone else);

Herein lies the problem........Some posters have their very own agenda and are unwill/unable to look at the wider issues and other places where similar events and actions are taking place....

How often has the actions of Saudi forces in the defence of the Bahraini Government been criticised?

Some posters only believe that 'unalienable' rights are only for those people who oppose those governments they, the posters, disagree with.......

Shouldn't all groups who use armed action against their own government be call terrorist and dealt with accordingly?

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:56 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:
"So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't seem to apply to Palestinians on the West Bank either. Things are tough all over.

I’ve not asked about __________ (insert anyone else); I’ve asked about Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad. Once again, so the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?

TRANSLATION: If you're gonna hit me with logic I don't want to play any more.

by ROB Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:38 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
I’ve not asked about __________ (insert anyone else); I’ve asked about Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad. Once again, so the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?
TRANSLATION: If you're gonna hit me with logic I don't want to play any more.

I’ve not mentioned __________ (insert anything else); I’ve mentioned Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad. Once again, so the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Is there an echo in here?

by **astradt1** Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:26 pm

OT, remember echo's only occur in empty spaces.............

by ROB Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:16 pm

BBC TODAY
Page last updated at 09:16 GMT, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:16 UK

Assad's uncle: 'Regime can't survive'

Rifaat al-Assad [exiled uncle of President Assad of Syria]… told Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen that "it will be very difficult for him [President Assad] to stay in power... but he should stay so he can co-operate with the new government and offer the experience that he has."

Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9710000/9710679.stm

by witchfinder Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:11 pm

Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to Palestinians, to Zimbabweans, Somalis or to Tibetans or to oppressed groups in Saudi Arabia.

Some nations simply buy too many arms from the UK - US - France for us to be too bothered about human rights, whilst other nations are just too big and powerful for us to get involved.

And some nations like Zimbabwe for example play no part in the big chess game that is been played out between the west and Israel with Iran, its all a political power struggle, a game.

Syria matters - other places in the world dont matter

by ROB Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:23 am

witchfinder wrote:
Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to [persons other than Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad]..

My question, still unanswered, is this: Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to Syrians being murdered by Bashar al-Assad?

Since you’ve seen my question more than once, I believe that it is safe for me to assume that you do not intend to answer my question; accordingly, I will not pose this question of you again.

by witchfinder Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:19 am

The United Nations Decleration of Human Rights does apply to Syrians, but it dosent matter and no one realy cares, just the same as no one realy cares about the human rights of Palestinians.

Just the same as it did not matter when thousands were slaughtered in Rwanda, or when Israel "accidentily" killed hundreds of civillians - women and children in either the occupied territories or in Lebanon.

Some people matter and others are irelevant - thats how it is

by ROB Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:46 am

witchfinder wrote:
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights does apply to Syrians…

Thank you for a definitive answer. Now we at least have common ground from which to proceed.

witchfinder wrote:
… but it dosent matter and no one realy cares…

Apparently, the United nations cares enough to send in Kofi Annan, not exactly a lightweight, to at least attempt to allow some portions of UDHR-identified unalienable rights to filter through to those now at risk of being murdered by Assad.

Two more questions to you, and anyone else who believes that UDHR applies to Syrian common folks, are these: Will the United Nations Security Council’s efforts, even spearheaded by ex-SECGEN Annan, have any real and/or lasting effect? Would NATO, with its teeth aka its airpower, be a more effective actor in aiding Syrian common folks achieve unalienable human rights as identified by UDHR?

witchfinder wrote:
Just the same as it did not matter when thousands were slaughtered in Rwanda…

I believe it was hundreds of thousands of precious human souls that were mercilessly slaughtered in Rwanda. That debacle relates to this UN effort, since the UN was the only outside military presence on-scene. It is my understanding that those troops, including Canadian Forces, were handcuffed by lack of commitment by UN higher-ups, and that perhaps if NATO had instead been on-scene, air strikes might have changed things for the better.

That observation about Rwanda brings things back to the thread topic. Is NATO or the UN more likely to effect a positive change in UDHR-identified unalienable human rights available to Syrian common folks?

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:45 am

Successes involving United Nations Peace-keeping Forces are not easy to recall. The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations was created in 1992 to support increased demand for such missions.

By and large, the new operations were successful. In El Salvador and Mozambique, for example, peacekeeping provided ways to achieve self-sustaining peace. Some efforts failed, perhaps as the result of an overly optimistic assessment of what UN peacekeeping could accomplish. While complex missions in Cambodia and Mozambique were ongoing, the Security Council dispatched peacekeepers to conflict zones like Somalia, where neither ceasefires nor the consent of all the parties in conflict had been secured. These operations did not have the manpower, nor were they supported by the required political will, to implement their mandates. The failures — most notably the 1994 Rwandan Genocide and the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica and Bosnia and Herzegovina — led to a period of retrenchment and self-examination in UN peacekeeping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Peace-Keeping_Forces

by ROB Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:42 am

How successful was NATO in ex-Yugoslavia? I remember one failure, the downing of an F-117 by Serbians, which seems to indicate that there were shortcuts taken in that operation.

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:03 pm

Google the activities of a UN contingent from the Netherlands. It didn't go well for the Muslims they were supposed to be "protecting" in Srebrenica.

by Shirina Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:50 pm

I remember one failure, the downing of an F-117 by Serbians, which seems to indicate that there were shortcuts taken in that operation.

It was a lucky shot, the proverbial "golden BB." In fact, the SA-N-2 "Goa" missile (which was obsolete even then) didn't actually hit the F-117, it simply exploded close enough to the aircraft that the pilot had to eject. Remember that the F-117 was an extremely unstable airframe, especially at low speed. Another problem with the F-117 was the still-classified coating that the aircraft used to remain stealthy. This is why F-117s were kept in special hangars and kept clean at all times. Unfortunately, the F-117 had a tendency to lose its stealth when it became wet since the water would counteract the radar-reflecting coating, and this is what happened in Serbia.

Essentially there were four factors that brought down the F-117. First, the aircraft was wet. Second, it momentarily lost its stealth when the bomb bay doors opened. Third, the SAM radar operators happened to be scanning using a longer wave band than normal. Fourth, pure and simple luck. All four of these things occurred simultaneously which didn't work out well for the F-117.

To make matters worse, the Serbians had spies at the Italian airbase where the F-117s operated from, and they let all of the SAM operators know when F-117s were taking off.

No one has since been able to duplicate this feat which shows that it was a fluke. Plus, the F-117s are now retired; the B-2, F-22, and F/A-35 no longer use a radar-reflecting coating and the bomb bay doors no longer contribute to losing stealth for more than a second or two.

Amusingly enough, the Serbian colonel has been prancing around bragging about how good he was by bringing down an F-117, but whenever he's pressed to answer technical questions, he doesn't have an answer. He got lucky, and he knows it. But he's trying to say, "I meant to do that!"

by ROB Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:14 pm

Shirina,

Exceptionally informative and interesting post. A position in the military history department of some university smart enough to hire you on the spot awaits you.

A program on the Smithsonian Channel entitled “Stealth: Flying Invisibly” kind of implied that the Serb you mention had figured out how to do it and just wasn’t telling the secret. But as you point out, he had no back-up for his claim, so I’ve come around to your conclusion that he’ spouting hot air.

More plausible is the scenario you’ve presented. NATO wasn’t taking care of business like business should have been taken care of. If I know that an invisible aircraft is going to be (1) at a certain place, (2) at a certain time, (3) on a certain heading, and (4) coming from a certain direction, I can shoot blind and still have a fair to middling chance of hitting what I can’t see. And as you pointed out, F-117s aren’t known for their maneuverability. Raptors and Lightning IIs can turn at what, nine plus gees? Knocks the aviator out, but he’s still alive after he comes to (back to consciousness). F-117s are “doing good” just to stay aloft.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Today's news from the Syrian border with Turkey is that Assad's troops are laying minefields to stop the hemorrhage of ordinary Syrian families fleeing the Country.

In the UK we suspect that the Conservative Government doesn't much like the working-class. but at least they're not trying to kill us. Yet.

by Shirina Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:51 pm

A position in the military history department of some university smart enough to hire you on the spot awaits you.

LOL! I'd have to get my doctorate first ... a dream at this point.

NATO wasn’t taking care of business like business should have been taken care of.

The only real mistake NATO made was to not vary their flight paths, probably because no one believed those ancient SAM sites the Serbians were using could actually detect, much less destroy, an F-117. Of course, if they had known about the spies, that would have helped, too.

Obviously if the Serbian Colonel had developed some special technique to detect and bring down stealth aircraft, we would have lost more than one F-117. It would also be very likely that Iraq would have gotten wind of it and we would have lost stealth aircraft there, too. Instead, he's keeping it a secret. Sure, buddy ... like I believe that.

I've seen the listing for that Smithsonian show you mentioned but I haven't gotten around to watching it. I'll probably DVR it at some point.

Take care.

by Sponsored content