Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Assad's Plan B?

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:04:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?

This scenario, while likely, would not be the best. I feel like the rebels, surrounding the land and all, would likely attack it.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:04:13 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?

This scenario, while likely, would not be the best. I feel like the rebels, surrounding the land and all, would likely attack it.

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:04:13 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?

This scenario, while likely, would not be the best. I feel like the rebels, surrounding the land and all, would likely attack it.

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:16:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.

If the U.S gets someone from the GOP, I can definitely see the U.S committing troops to a conflict surrounding the establishment of that specific nation-state.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:19:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:16:39 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.

If the U.S gets someone from the GOP, I can definitely see the U.S committing troops to a conflict surrounding the establishment of that specific nation-state.

Assuming there is a conflict. I see no reason for the rebels to go after Assad when he's pretty much surrendered half his country to them.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 10:27:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:19:58 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:16:39 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.

If the U.S gets someone from the GOP, I can definitely see the U.S committing troops to a conflict surrounding the establishment of that specific nation-state.

Assuming there is a conflict. I see no reason for the rebels to go after Assad when he's pretty much surrendered half his country to them.

True.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:02:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.

Alwaistan would take up the Syrian coastline. Meaning that the Assad regime would gain most (if not all) of Mediterranean trade routes leading into Syria.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:05:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 12:02:31 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Alwaistan would take up the Syrian coastline. Meaning that the Assad regime would gain most (if not all) of Mediterranean trade routes leading into Syria.

That is true. But you also have to take in the human factor. After years of endless civil war you finally get a piece of Syria. Tired rebels would be more likely to take this, be free from Assad's reign, and stop fighting, than to start a new war over trade routes. Also, there's a sizable bit of the intl. community that supports them, who I don't think will stop trade because of only the Mediterranean trade routes.

There's also a chance that Assad will cut his losses and stop messing with the rebels completely, and still let trade through. Small chance, but after the war's over it's possible.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:12:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 12:05:17 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:02:31 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Alwaistan would take up the Syrian coastline. Meaning that the Assad regime would gain most (if not all) of Mediterranean trade routes leading into Syria.

That is true. But you also have to take in the human factor. After years of endless civil war you finally get a piece of Syria. Tired rebels would be more likely to take this, be free from Assad's reign, and stop fighting, than to start a new war over trade routes. Also, there's a sizable bit of the intl. community that supports them, who I don't think will stop trade because of only the Mediterranean trade routes.

There's also a chance that Assad will cut his losses and stop messing with the rebels completely, and still let trade through. Small chance, but after the war's over it's possible.

The war wouldn't be over if the regime left, it would just mean that a major player had left the game. The creation of Alwaistan would likely lead to Assad's withdrawal from the war. Causing even more instability in the region

groups ISIS, Al Nusra, et cetera, usually thrive best in instablility. If Alawaistan is created, ISIS would still be existent. The Regime would also likely retreat from the war, leaving the power vacuum and later instablity as a perfect opportunity for ISIS.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:13:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 12:12:08 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
The war wouldn't be over if the regime left, it would just mean that a major player had left the game. The creation of Alwaistan would likely lead to Assad's withdrawal from the war. Causing even more instability in the region

groups ISIS, Al Nusra, et cetera, usually thrive best in instablility. If Alawaistan is created, ISIS would still be existent. The Regime would also likely retreat from the war, leaving the power vacuum and later instablity as a perfect opportunity for ISIS.

Ok, that's true. This whole time I imagined Assadland as taking up Northern Syria, not the coastline. In that case Syria would be their problem.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:14:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 12:13:48 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/4/2016 12:12:08 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
The war wouldn't be over if the regime left, it would just mean that a major player had left the game. The creation of Alwaistan would likely lead to Assad's withdrawal from the war. Causing even more instability in the region

groups ISIS, Al Nusra, et cetera, usually thrive best in instablility. If Alawaistan is created, ISIS would still be existent. The Regime would also likely retreat from the war, leaving the power vacuum and later instablity as a perfect opportunity for ISIS.

Ok, that's true. This whole time I imagined Assadland as taking up Northern Syria, not the coastline. In that case Syria would be their problem.

Sorry *ISIS* not Syria.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
kevin24018
Posts: 1,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 12:20:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
retreat would make sense, then you can slowly expand your borders especially with Russia backing you. It would be over, he would just pull back, consolidate a safe area for him and his followers, then at some point extend his borders, maybe slowly but none the less expand.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:38:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The ultimate of goal of the U.S and its allies is to remove Assad~~thus, there is no long-term reality of the West tolerating any 'Assadland' within Syria; no matter how small it may be or if he himself views it as an eventual option.

Besides, who would govern the rest of Syria? The rebels and other militia groups cannot seriously be looked at as viable alternatives.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:00:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:19:58 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:16:39 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.

If the U.S gets someone from the GOP, I can definitely see the U.S committing troops to a conflict surrounding the establishment of that specific nation-state.

Assuming there is a conflict. I see no reason for the rebels to go after Assad when he's pretty much surrendered half his country to them.

Well, most non-regime controlled areas are under exclusive ISIS control, contested by ISIS/rebels, or are Kurdish territories.

As of yet the rebels only really have some areas in and around Aleppo.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:04:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:38:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The ultimate of goal of the U.S and its allies is to remove Assad~~thus, there is no long-term reality of the West tolerating any 'Assadland' within Syria; no matter how small it may be or if he himself views it as an eventual option.

If the rebels stop pursuing Assad once he's in Assadland then there's nobody for the West to back.

Besides, who would govern the rest of Syria? The rebels and other militia groups cannot seriously be looked at as viable alternatives.

Yeah, but the same question applies to now, if Assad is overthrown, there's no way Syria will have a proper government under the rebel groups. It'll be like Libya.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:13:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:04:23 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 9:38:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The ultimate of goal of the U.S and its allies is to remove Assad~~thus, there is no long-term reality of the West tolerating any 'Assadland' within Syria; no matter how small it may be or if he himself views it as an eventual option.

If the rebels stop pursuing Assad once he's in Assadland then there's nobody for the West to back.

There's nothing to suggest that they *would* do that though. And the fact that the U.S has its own interest (regardless of the rebels) in the removal of Assad is being overlooked. There's obviously a reason that they 'back' them.

Besides, who would govern the rest of Syria? The rebels and other militia groups cannot seriously be looked at as viable alternatives.

Yeah, but the same question applies to now, if Assad is overthrown, there's no way Syria will have a proper government under the rebel groups. It'll be like Libya.

Exactly, I agree with that. The point is that 'moderate opposition' is non-existent and the country would collapse even further; with more fighting, sectarian division, etc.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:27:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:13:19 PM, Emilrose wrote:
There's nothing to suggest that they *would* do that though. And the fact that the U.S has its own interest (regardless of the rebels) in the removal of Assad is being overlooked. There's obviously a reason that they 'back' them.

The rebels are fighting for control. Once Assad leaves they'd have that, what's the point in pursuing him further when they have control. If they were rational they'd at the very least stop the war for a while to build up the nation Assad left them with. I think it's pretty safe to assume they would first concern themselves with Syria instead of Assad once he's run off.

Exactly, I agree with that. The point is that 'moderate opposition' is non-existent and the country would collapse even further; with more fighting, sectarian division, etc.

True. But then it'd be exactly like it is now. The formation of Assadland wouldn't make the inevitable outcome any different. If anything it makes it more clear what would happen in the region if the government is overthrown.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:46:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:27:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:13:19 PM, Emilrose wrote:
There's nothing to suggest that they *would* do that though. And the fact that the U.S has its own interest (regardless of the rebels) in the removal of Assad is being overlooked. There's obviously a reason that they 'back' them.

The rebels are fighting for control. Once Assad leaves they'd have that, what's the point in pursuing him further when they have control. If they were rational they'd at the very least stop the war for a while to build up the nation Assad left them with. I think it's pretty safe to assume they would first concern themselves with Syria instead of Assad once he's run off.

If Assad still has areas of control (which is what this OP is proposing), then there's every reason for them to pursue him further; their aim is to take the 'whole' of Syria. Though so far they've been pretty unsuccessful in that due to the predominance of other militia groups.

I'd point out once more, that you've overlooked western interest in a *total* removal of his presence within Syria; he is not an option for them, in any long-term sense.

Exactly, I agree with that. The point is that 'moderate opposition' is non-existent and the country would collapse even further; with more fighting, sectarian division, etc.

True. But then it'd be exactly like it is now. The formation of Assadland wouldn't make the inevitable outcome any different. If anything it makes it more clear what would happen in the region if the government is overthrown.

Technically, it would be worse than it is now. Because there do exist some relative freedoms in Assad territory and people within it are able to have some peace. For example, there's parts of Syria that do not even remotely look like a warzone. With the vast majority of territory going to the rebels, you'd have other militia like ISIS, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah also wanting a piece and re-taking land~~thus creating more war.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:49:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:46:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
If Assad still has areas of control (which is what this OP is proposing), then there's every reason for them to pursue him further; their aim is to take the 'whole' of Syria. Though so far they've been pretty unsuccessful in that due to the predominance of other militia groups.

Yeah, they've been unsuccessful for years now. They're human, I do believe even they're tired of the war, and by now [or whenever this happens], they'll take any concession from Assad and put their focus on building up their part of Syria before chasing Assad again.

I'd point out once more, that you've overlooked western interest in a *total* removal of his presence within Syria; he is not an option for them, in any long-term sense.

But again, if there aren't any rebels that are pursuing Assad then there's no way the West will just take their own troops and head on over to Assadland. There's no way the people would let their governments do that.

Technically, it would be worse than it is now. Because there do exist some relative freedoms in Assad territory and people within it are able to have some peace. For example, there's parts of Syria that do not even remotely look like a warzone. With the vast majority of territory going to the rebels, you'd have other militia like ISIS, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah also wanting a piece and re-taking land~~thus creating more war.

Ok, I agree with you there. It would be terrible if Assad's gov't collapsed to the rebels.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:55:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 10:16:39 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:14:36 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:11:34 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/3/2016 10:08:46 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Assadland would be heavily backed by one of the world's most powerful militaries (Russia's military).

And the rebels' Syria would be backed by one of the other ones....

Russia is more open to directly sending ground troops and getting involved than the US would be. But honestly i don't see a reason for the rebels to attack Assadland in the first place.

If the U.S gets someone from the GOP, I can definitely see the U.S committing troops to a conflict surrounding the establishment of that specific nation-state.

Trump has already promised to cooperate with Russia to get Isis.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:10:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:49:57 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:46:20 PM, Emilrose wrote:
If Assad still has areas of control (which is what this OP is proposing), then there's every reason for them to pursue him further; their aim is to take the 'whole' of Syria. Though so far they've been pretty unsuccessful in that due to the predominance of other militia groups.

Yeah, they've been unsuccessful for years now. They're human, I do believe even they're tired of the war, and by now [or whenever this happens], they'll take any concession from Assad and put their focus on building up their part of Syria before chasing Assad again.

That's possible, but many of them are indeed driven by ideology and I still hold the viewpoint that they're not really thinking along those lines. They haven't even reached a point where they can pragmatically focus on 'building up their part of Syria', such notions of thinking are yet to occur to them. As well as opportunity, because of groups that they're additionally fighting with~~who, in all likelihood, are/will trying to take the small amounts that they've gained.

I'd point out once more, that you've overlooked western interest in a *total* removal of his presence within Syria; he is not an option for them, in any long-term sense.

But again, if there aren't any rebels that are pursuing Assad then there's no way the West will just take their own troops and head on over to Assadland. There's no way the people would let their governments do that.

I did say or even suggest that there would be any direct military action from the West~~my point is that the seek Assad's complete removal, and thus likely continue their methods for reaching this goal which would be further assisting the rebels. The U.S in no way would be in *any* agreement with the existence of 'Assadland'.

Technically, it would be worse than it is now. Because there do exist some relative freedoms in Assad territory and people within it are able to have some peace. For example, there's parts of Syria that do not even remotely look like a warzone. With the vast majority of territory going to the rebels, you'd have other militia like ISIS, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah also wanting a piece and re-taking land~~thus creating more war.

Ok, I agree with you there. It would be terrible if Assad's gov't collapsed to the rebels.

Yes, we can certainly agree on this point; Syria would just fall to pieces.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:19:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:10:47 PM, Emilrose wrote:
That's possible, but many of them are indeed driven by ideology and I still hold the viewpoint that they're not really thinking along those lines. They haven't even reached a point where they can pragmatically focus on 'building up their part of Syria', such notions of thinking are yet to occur to them. As well as opportunity, because of groups that they're additionally fighting with~~who, in all likelihood, are/will trying to take the small amounts that they've gained.

This is another reason that they won't go after Assad after he's given up chunks of Syria and fled. It kinda fits in with what I said before. "Building up Syria" includes dealing with the other rebel groups and ISIS first. They would be preoccupied with their Syria to do anything about Assad for a long time. And if there aren't any rebels going after Assad then the West has no one to back, and, like I said, they sure as hell aren't going to go in themselves.

I did say or even suggest that there would be any direct military action from the West~~my point is that the seek Assad's complete removal, and thus likely continue their methods for reaching this goal which would be further assisting the rebels. The U.S in no way would be in *any* agreement with the existence of 'Assadland'.

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. The rebels would be to busy with Syria to go after Assad. There won't be any other option than direct action if the rebels won't go after him.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:29:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:38:43 PM, Emilrose wrote:
The ultimate of goal of the U.S and its allies is to remove Assad~~thus, there is no long-term reality of the West tolerating any 'Assadland' within Syria; no matter how small it may be or if he himself views it as an eventual option.

Besides, who would govern the rest of Syria? The rebels and other militia groups cannot seriously be looked at as viable alternatives.

+1
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:10:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:19:03 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 11:10:47 PM, Emilrose wrote:
That's possible, but many of them are indeed driven by ideology and I still hold the viewpoint that they're not really thinking along those lines. They haven't even reached a point where they can pragmatically focus on 'building up their part of Syria', such notions of thinking are yet to occur to them. As well as opportunity, because of groups that they're additionally fighting with~~who, in all likelihood, are/will trying to take the small amounts that they've gained.

This is another reason that they won't go after Assad after he's given up chunks of Syria and fled. It kinda fits in with what I said before. "Building up Syria" includes dealing with the other rebel groups and ISIS first. They would be preoccupied with their Syria to do anything about Assad for a long time. And if there aren't any rebels going after Assad then the West has no one to back, and, like I said, they sure as hell aren't going to go in themselves.


By staying within Syria, he wouldn't be 'fleeing'. Assad would still exist, and still have some territory~~thus, the rebels would continue to have something to dispute over and the U.S would still have what they view as 'non-democratic' leader at their hands.

I didn't say or even suggest that there would be any direct military action from the West~~my point is that the seek Assad's complete removal, and thus likely continue their methods for reaching this goal which would be further assisting the rebels. The U.S in no way would be in *any* agreement with the existence of 'Assadland'.

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. The rebels would be to busy with Syria to go after Assad. There won't be any other option than direct action if the rebels won't go after him.

Not necessarily, and certainly not if the U.S still has an invested interest in seeing him completely removed from any form of power there. The other aspect to my point is that an 'Assadland' is not an improved alternative and would ultimately increase the level of conflict in Syria.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:20:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:10:09 AM, Emilrose wrote:
By staying within Syria, he wouldn't be 'fleeing'. Assad would still exist, and still have some territory~~thus, the rebels would continue to have something to dispute over and the U.S would still have what they view as 'non-democratic' leader at their hands.

He would be leaving huge swaths of the country for the rebels to have, they would obviously want to figure out how to manage that first. As for the US, they can't do anything if the rebels aren't fighting.

Not necessarily, and certainly not if the U.S still has an invested interest in seeing him completely removed from any form of power there. The other aspect to my point is that an 'Assadland' is not an improved alternative and would ultimately increase the level of conflict in Syria.

The only other option is American ground troops. If there's no one left to do the work for you, you have to do it yourself. And an Assadland would be a better alternative if the rebels were happy with their own autonomous region to govern, and if they're rational, then they'll take it.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 12:10:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?

It's a reasonable strategy and if it led to peace and the eradication of Islamic state and the other terrorist controlled zones of territory it eould be a viable solution. The terrorists would maintain a guerilla presence but weakening them and preventing them controlling territory is essential. Personally i think assad controlling the majority of the country and the Kurds controlling the northern part would be the most likely agreement to maximise peace prospects while limiting extremism, violence and oppression.
AR1
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 1:12:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/7/2016 12:10:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?

My question is why west wants to oust the Asad's regime. The rebels are simply terrorist and what US is doing is simply arming them with some very advance weapons. This is going to be a grave mistake.. US did the same with Afghanistan in 80s, arming the great" heros" Talibans(who used to be heros once, because they were fighting Russia) and then after 20 years US bombed the same heros..and there is still no solution for the Afghanistan..
For me, there should be no involvmenet of non-state actors. The solution is to unarm the rebels, bomb the ISIS and ask Asad to call the elections, so let people of Syria decide what they think is good for their country..but this is not going to happen because, Saudia and Iran have made Syria a playground to ensure their hegemony in the Muslim world and Middle east..
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2016 11:33:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 9:51:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Basically the scenario proposed is that if Assad reaches the point where he is unable to reassert control of Syria he'll retreat his forces to a piece of territory which has a large number of Alawites (and Shias in general), a place where Assad's regime is still popular. Then with serious Russian backing he'll establish this "Assadland" as a kind of second Syria within Syria.
Is this a likely scenario in your opinion? Why or why not?

If Assad does withdraw from much of the country, Im slightly interested in what Syria's neighbors would do as a result. I can fully see the Kurds and possibly even the Turks using this opportunity to make much larger territorial gains into Syria. I have no idea if Jordan, Iraq, or Lebanon would do the same, but the territory may be better off under the control of the various nations surrounding Syria than under ISIS or the rebels.