Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think either side will win now. I expect Syria to be another Lebanon, where the civil war went on for over a decade and ground down to an exhausted stalemate. Assad's father put an end to the Lebanese fighting when he finally moved troops in that became de facto armed peacekeepers.
Assad will keep control of the country, but he has lost too much support from his people to ever be an effective ruler again. The rebels are too disorganized to ever be able to put an effective government together if Assad leaves, and the country will factionalize along religious lines like Lebanon, with barricaded neighborhoods and lines that are never crossed.
It was a bit more complicated than that - the Lebanese Civil War (second one) actually lasted from 1975 - 1990. 15 Long and Bloody years - Daddy Assad moved his troops into Lebanon by 1977. The Taif Accord brought an end to the Civil War (supposedly) in 1990 with the US kiss of approval. The USA also gave the Kiss of Approval to Daddy Assad to move into Lebanon to 'help' Stabilize it. The Arab League with USA help, brokered the Taif Accord and installed Rafik Hariri as the Prime Minister in 1990. The Syrians under Daddy and then Sonny Assad continued to "rule" Lebanon until 2005 when Bush and the French forced them out.
Lebanon was all about "stability" and that IS exactly the case with Syria and Assad today. The USA will go with anyone who can promise the always desired "stability" …… I think Obama is leaning toward Assad, the Butcher of Damascus. He has killed well over twice the number his Daddy murdered.
I tend to take the long view - Assad is a vital link for Iran. Iran has massive problems if they can't hold on to Syria …. yes it will be unstable with the Islamists in charge, but we could have stopped that in the beginning and didn't. In the long run - Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will be better off with anyone other than Assad. The variety of Sunni groups can fight it out to see who comes out of top - I'm betting that the Gulf States, KSA and Jordan will be supporting the less radical of the bunch.
Anything and Anyone, is better for the Mid-East and the world than Bashir al-Assad - the vital link that gives power to both Hezbollah and the radicals in Iran. As for the USA - there is nothing we can OR should do ….. that ship sailed several years ago.
"...
I tend to take the long view - Assad is a vital link for Iran. Iran has massive problems if they can't hold on to Syria …. yes it will be unstable with the Islamists in charge, but we could have stopped that in the beginning and didn't. In the long run - Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will be better off with anyone other than Assad. The variety of Sunni groups can fight it out to see who comes out of top - I'm betting that the Gulf States, KSA and Jordan will be supporting the less radical of the bunch.
Anything and Anyone, is better for the Mid-East and the world than Bashir al-Assad - the vital link that gives power to both Hezbollah and the radicals in Iran. As for the USA - there is nothing we can OR should do ….. that ship sailed several years ago.
That is only if Iran continues the course it has taken for 30 years.
After the debacle of President Ahmadinijad, President Rouhani was carefully selected by the Ayatollahs as a much more moderate leader. Iran wants to recover it's long frozen assets in foreign banks, and it has a population that is 50% under the age of 40.
The Ayatollahs know they need to put these kids to work or they're going to lose their control. The green revolution of 2009 failed, but Ahmadinijad made things worse afterwards. A second revolution could topple the theocracy that rules the country.
Iran has 2 choices:
1. It can become the middle eastern equivalent of North Korea, with nukes, a large army, and total isolation from the rest of the world. Iran knows it is close to being an outcast, and it wants just the opposite; it wants to be the leader of the middle east.
2. It can drop it's nuclear weapons program and come to terms with Israel while retaining it's nuclear power generation. By making this step first, it puts pressure on Israel to step back from it's own nukes, especially if Iran offers a peace treaty between the two nations.
The power of the Iranian revolution of 1975 is rapidly fading. The nation's young weren't even born then, and they see the old course of hostility to the west as being dangerous, unnecessary, and a hindrance to prosperity. Since Iran has never started a war for over 100 years, Rouhani may be only the first President to change the failed militarism of the ruling Ayatollahs.
All Iran has to do is step back, and the entire scene changes drastically.
Regardless the Sunnis and ****es are themselves involved as always by different countries supporting one or the other. There is none that really want a democracy but support their own interest which is likely to be the same ole military rule as seen in Egypt. They do not want a democracy endangering their own status in the region.
That is only if Iran continues the course it has taken for 30 years.
After the debacle of President Ahmadinijad, President Rouhani was carefully selected by the Ayatollahs as a much more moderate leader. Iran wants to recover it's long frozen assets in foreign banks, and it has a population that is 50% under the age of 40.
The Ayatollahs know they need to put these kids to work or they're going to lose their control. The green revolution of 2009 failed, but Ahmadinijad made things worse afterwards. A second revolution could topple the theocracy that rules the country.
Iran has 2 choices:
1. It can become the middle eastern equivalent of North Korea, with nukes, a large army, and total isolation from the rest of the world. Iran knows it is close to being an outcast, and it wants just the opposite; it wants to be the leader of the middle east.
2. It can drop it's nuclear weapons program and come to terms with Israel while retaining it's nuclear power generation. By making this step first, it puts pressure on Israel to step back from it's own nukes, especially if Iran offers a peace treaty between the two nations.
The power of the Iranian revolution of 1975 is rapidly fading. The nation's young weren't even born then, and they see the old course of hostility to the west as being dangerous, unnecessary, and a hindrance to prosperity. Since Iran has never started a war for over 100 years, Rouhani may be only the first President to change the failed militarism of the ruling Ayatollahs.
All Iran has to do is step back, and the entire scene changes drastically.
Iran has something else to face: it doesn't make enough kids to replace the old people, like China. Not a problem now but will be a BIG problem in about 15 years.
The war started, (as it did in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain....) as a popular uprising against a brutal regime. The Syrian government responded ruthlessly and has managed to hang on. As the war has dragged on the original rebels have increasingly been taken over by religious fundamentalist jihadists and Al-Queda types. It has become a war between Shiites (Syrian gov't and Hezbollah, funded by Russia and Iran), and the FSA (Free Syrian Army) - mainly Sunni rebels (funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the west/USA).
LiveLeak has many videos from both sides showing the brutality of the war. I'm totally turned off by the "Allah Aka Bar" chants of rebels following a death or blowing up of a tank or hospital. On the other side there are videos of Gov't troops mocking rebel prisoners with "Allah Aka Bar" taunts and "you're off to see the 72 virgins" before beating or killing them. Increasingly the rebel's religious fervor makes me lean towards the gov't side.
The war has changed, and despite the original noble goal of freeing people from a brutal regime, US shouldn't be funding the Islamic nutbars.
Al Qaeda the third participant, and to suggest all rebels are Al Qaeda is simple false. You are poorly informed. CIA had boots in the ground specifically to make sure US knew who were Al Qaeda, and who were not.
No the rebels absolutely are Al Queda. You can argue Al Queda is only one faction of the rebels, that's fair. You'd also have to admit they're the strongest faction militarily & organizationally though. The Saudi's are thick as thieves with Al Queda & they're backing them.
Theres no winners in this war just a lot of dead people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
