Syria: the second Cold War?

The conflict has raged for 2 years. Both China nad Russia has publicly stated that they would frown upon international intervention in what is essentially a civil war (i.e. arming 'rebels').

The latest news is that the West are not renewing the arms embargo to the rebels, and are actively looking to arm 'moderate' groups (bear in mind that their are a lot of extreme factions trying to get a share of the pie should the Assad Regime fall, some of which are more destestable than the present rulers).

Now Russia is arming the Assad regime (after previous reports of selling antiship missiles to them) to 'stabilise' the conflict.

What i can see from this conflict is that the 'East' (Russia/China) have a big stake in Syria (and/or the Assad Regime), policitically or economically, and do not want to see the situation get resolved.

The West as being pressured to resolve the situation mainly for political/geographical reasons (on the doorstep of Israel, a totalitarian Muslim Nation, etc.), and on the surface of it due to pressures to resolve the humanitarian disaster. The western powers tell their public that 'they want to help' but in the same breath say they wont intervene directly, hoping for another Libya (internal struggle that 'resolves itself'

The humanitarian considerations are completely a secondary. Where was NATO for the last two years? tens of thousands of civialians killed, millions displaced, this is totally a secondary consideration to the western world and not even a consideration to the East.

Unfortunately this conflict is a reflection of world politics today. People are more interested in their poll ratings and arms sales figures than the poor b*****ds dying in the street.

Obviously feel quite strongly about this, apologies if it's too strong for this forum.
 
Last edited:
They have to have somewhere to sells guns/ammo/rockets/etc otherwise the rich wouldn't get richer.
 
Phosgene1974 said:
The conflict has raged for 2 years. Both China nad Russia has publicly stated that they would frown upon international intervention in what is essentially a civil war (i.e. arming 'rebels').

The latest news is that the West are not renewing the arms embargo to the rebels, and are actively looking to arm 'moderate' groups (bear in mind that their are a lot of extreme factions trying to get a share of the pie should the Assad Regime fall, some of which are more destestable than the present rulers).

Now Russia is arming the Assad regime (after previous reports of selling antiship missiles to them) to 'stabilise' the conflict.

What i can see from this conflict is that the 'East' (Russia/China) have a big stake in Syria (and/or the Assad Regime), policitically or economically, and do not want to see the situation get resolved.

The West as being pressured to resolve the situation mainly for political/geographical reasons (on the doorstep of Israel, a totalitarian Muslim Nation, etc.), and on the surface of it due to pressures to resolve the humanitarian disaster. The western powers tell their public that 'they want to help' but in the same breath say they wont intervene directly, hoping for another Libya (internal struggle that 'resolves itself'

The humanitarian considerations are completely a secondary. Where was NATO for the last two years? tens of thousands of civialians killed, millions displaced, this is totally a secondary consideration to the western world and not even a consideration to the East.

Unfortunately this conflict is a reflection of world politics today. People are more interested in their poll ratings and arms sales figures than the poor b*****ds dying in the street.

Obviously feel quite strongly about this, apologies if it's too strong for this forum.
Click to expand...
Business as usual sadly.
 
The thing is, I dont think neither "east" nor "west" wants the war to end... Because at the moment everyone is winning apart from people of Syria.... Both sides are making lots money from arms sales... If Russia and China was so serious about Syria they could`ve followed scenario of Libya but instead joining the government forces.

Some people say that on government level those arms sales are so tiny they are unaccountable, however you should not forget that we live in era of Private companies and those money fall into small number of individuals pockets

Great opportunity for the rich to get even richer...
 
Phosgene1974 said:
The West as being pressured to resolve the situation mainly for political/geographical reasons (on the doorstep of Israel, a totalitarian Muslim Nation, etc.), and on the surface of it due to pressures to resolve the humanitarian disaster. The western powers tell their public that 'they want to help' but in the same breath say they wont intervene directly, hoping for another Libya (internal struggle that 'resolves itself'
Click to expand...

Being close to Israel and the humanitarian aspects are both worrying and are motives for the West to intervene- I don't think the totalitarian Mulsim nation is as worrying as the type of Muslims (Shia) running the place and who their buddies are (namely Iran and Hezbollah).

There are two totalitarian Islamic states backing the rebels already both of whom are strong allies of the UK/USA.

Libya didn't exactly resolve itself... without western intervention it could well have been a different outcome.
 
We shouldn't get involved. TBH I hope the government forces win, at least we know who we are dealing with.

Why arm rebels when it is very likely to end up in terrorists hands?
 
What i can see from this conflict is that the 'East' (Russia/China) have a big stake in Syria (and/or the Assad Regime), policitically or economically, and do not want to see the situation get resolved.
Click to expand...

The BRICS nations along with countries such as Syria/Iran (basically ones not already under western influence) are attempting to ditch the US dollar and trade in other currencies which would hurt the US economically.

Other countries who attempted to ditch trading in the USD are Iraq & Libya shortly before their 'interventions'.

 
Ricochet J said:
Okay, that is a sensationalist title I do admit.

However just have a look at what's happening; the west is battling with Russia through a proxy war: Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22688894

This is very reminiscent of the proxy wars during the Cold War.

I feel sorry for the civilians of Syria who are caught up in this bloody conflict.
Click to expand...

I think there are some in the US and Russia that think it is another proxy war. It is not however that cut and dried no matter how the superpowers wish it was. It is also a Sunni/Shia conflict bringing in Iran and elements from around the mid-East against support from some of the Govts of the Gulf.

That is why Britain should keep well out but they will not, as usual, and do whatever America tells them.
 
I suppose the Arab league is umm snoozing this one out?

Ultimately, the government etc make the right noises about wanting to end it quickly.

Except their actions show that they don't want to end it quickly.

The only 2 real ways this can be resolved is either, A, we side with the rebels and crush Assad, B, we side with Assad and crush the rebels.

There is no option C, neither side will relent to the other. So if we do truly want to do whats best for the Syrians stuck in the middle we must make a choice.

Simply donating a few guns here and there isn't enough. It's all out air strikes, feet on the ground, remove president like we helped to do in Iraq and Libya.

Actually providing more withering arms to the rebels is prolonging the fight that they are destined to lose, causing a longer war.

And as I've mentioned before, if we do send more arms and it doesn't work, then what? By playing the wait and see game, Assad will have his new missiles prepped and readied to cause us massive costs if we try the air strike strategy once the new Russian AA missiles are ready.
 
Last edited:
Iran and Iraq. America Russia
Israel and Arab league.
1970/80 Afghanistan. America Russia
North and South Korea America Russia China.
Bosnia and surrounding area.

Just to name a few. Both sides needs weapons and all super powers cannot be on the same side. Its been going on long before the cold war and will go on for along time to come. What happened during the cold war is both sides developed nukes and both sides got ****ed when the other side tried to give them to some one else. So now they go back to backing who ever has the most minerals and economic gains to be made and choosing sides for there own gain. Leaving the nukes out of it. Unless one of the smaller sides makes there own.

Simply put missing allot of detail but in a short sentence. The cold war never stopped.
 
Not long after a friend called from Damascus to tell him one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam had been damaged by Syrian rebels, Baghdad student Ammar Sadiq was on the move.
Click to expand...

"It was like a thunderbolt hit me," said Sadiq. "My friend was telling me that wahhabis from Saudi and Afghanis were trying to destroy the [Shia] shrine of Sayyida Zeinab. I did not wait even to tell my parents. All I was thinking of is to go to Syria and protect the shrine, though I have not used a weapon in my life."
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/04/syria-islamic-sunni-shia-shrines-volunteers

This isn't about Assad, its another religious uprising.
 
Ironically now the rebels are losing the UK circulatesore propaganda regarding chemical warfare to try and get more support for action.

Although we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty and the UK can't attribute guilt they are heavily suggesting that the regime did it..with no proof..
 
Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact so this thing is probably a segway in to the West bombing Iran, which Israel/America have have a major hard-on for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom