Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on May 25, 2013, 10:06:15 pm
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-fighting-hezbollah-20130526,0,7835258.story
could this perhaps hurt Hezbollah?
-
The whole thing is a mess.
Hezbollah (Obviously not nice people) have thrown in with Assad (Obviously not a nice person) to fight against the Al Qaeda (obviously not nice people)-linked rebels (Probably not nice people but maybe some of them just want Assad's boot off their neck).
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-fighting-hezbollah-20130526,0,7835258.story
could this perhaps hurt Hezbollah?
Why should this hurt Hezbollah ?
By fighting against the "Zionist & American Conspiracy" they justify their existence and they attract new supporters and members.
Peace in Middle East would hurt them more...
-
I think that Syrian rebels can cause problems for Hezbollah, because they're using similar tactics as them. So, Hezbollah might end up getting a taste of it's own medicine. Though I don't think this will change anything, quite the opposite, in fact. The rebels will be facing a greater enemy force and might end up suffering too many loses, thus allowing Assad to maintain status quo. The only thing we know for sure is that civilians will be the ones to suffer the most, as always in this kind of conflict.
-
The whole thing is a mess.
Hezbollah (Obviously not nice people) have thrown in with Assad (Obviously not a nice person) to fight against the Al Qaeda (obviously not nice people)-linked rebels (Probably not nice people but maybe some of them just want Assad's boot off their neck).
You forgot the U.S., Russia and E.U. with conflicting goals, no concern who they are allying with and a desire to use the conflict to score domestic political points. :nono:
Even if Assad loses, Hezbollah won't lose their base of power in Lebanon, or Iran's support. And if their direct support for the regime draws the western/Israeli troops in, they win big.
-
Welcome to international politics. :)
-
The whole thing is a mess.
Hezbollah (Obviously not nice people) have thrown in with Assad (Obviously not a nice person) to fight against the Al Qaeda (obviously not nice people)-linked rebels (Probably not nice people but maybe some of them just want Assad's boot off their neck).
Can we hope that all the not-nice people wind up pounding each other to bits in the process?
-
Oh, they'll do that plenty. Unfortunately, a lot of possibly-nice people will get pounded as well.
-
Oh, they'll do that plenty. Unfortunately, a lot of possibly-nice people will get pounded as well.
What? they always get pounded. They are at the lowest place in the food chain.
I'd say we, but I don't want to sound ... confident? on my niceness maybe.
-
Why should this hurt Hezbollah ?
By fighting against the "Zionist & American Conspiracy" they justify their existence and they attract new supporters and members.
Peace in Middle East would hurt them more...
is that how the rebels look to the mideast? I assumed that as part of the arab spring, people everywhere liked them.
-
This conflict has such an equal distribution of force.. it could go on for many years.
-
Both sides are terrible, we should stay out of this conflict.
Looks like it's too late for the Euros though...
-
Let's add some fun to this thread, shall we?
Israel warns Moscow that it will attack shipments of Russian weapons to Syria:
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-warns-russia-against-giving-syria-missiles-132538404.html
Syria arms embargo lifted: Britain and France force EU to relax ban on supplying weapons to rebels:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/syria-arms-embargo-lifted-britain-and-france-force-eu-to-relax-ban-on-supplying-weapons-to-rebels-8633597.html
Iran Extends $4-Bln Credit to Syria:
http://en.ria.ru/world/20130528/181380579.html
WW3 here we come!
-
As much as I hate the comparison, there are similarities here to the WW1 buildup, in that a relatively minor squabble (and a civil war to boot) in a geographically sensitive area has the potential to draw in much greater powers (In this case, Israel and Iran, Russia and the US) as a result of alliances and local interests. Far and away the most dangerous development (IMO) is the Russia/Israel problem if both sides follow through on their threats/promises (The Russians to deliver the anti-aircraft missiles, the Israelis to stop them - shades of the Cuban missile crisis there, if on a smaller scale).
There are, of course, massive, massive differences between the world of today and the world in 1914 (or the world in October 62 for that matter), global interconnectedness being the big one, nukes being number two and a decreased element of societal militarization being number three. So I doubt that this could start anything like a 20th century style world war. But... the American position of treating Israel like a 51st state (while having no control over what they do) puts them in an incredibly uncomfortable position if anything serious starts to go down, especially in the event of a serious Russia/Israel row.
Iran is... well, not irrelevant, but not so much of a concern. They're betting 4 billion (or, realistically, a fraction of that) on Assad being able to cling to power. If he does, then they can claim to be a major factor in keeping him there, and probably keep large elements of Syria's elite very happy as well (depending on what exactly "the import of consumer goods" implies), while the US is betting that the rebels will win, and thus supplying them non lethal aid, basically for the same reason. That's not a major problem (unless you happen to be a Syrian civilian, but who cares about them in international gamesmanship) until one side or the other starts openly supplying weapons, at which point things start to change - psychologically if not practically.
Iran will matter much, much more is the Assad regime does fall - they perfected the art of covertly assisting and (probably) financing Shia militias to promote their own particular ideologies in Iraq. That's what they know, and that's bound to be their back-up plan in case the FSA wins, and get taken over by Sunni islamists (which seems to happen a lot in these Arab revolutions). They'll be a massive pain in the arse for whoever inherits Syria one way or the other, but in the buildup... keep an eye on them, but it'll be the Israelis, the Russians, Hezbollah and, of course, the Americans who're driving things if this does blow right up.
-
As much as I hate the comparison, there are similarities here to the WW1 buildup, in that a relatively minor squabble (and a civil war to boot) in a geographically sensitive area has the potential to draw in much greater powers (In this case, Israel and Iran, Russia and the US) as a result of alliances and local interests. Far and away the most dangerous development (IMO) is the Russia/Israel problem if both sides follow through on their threats/promises (The Russians to deliver the anti-aircraft missiles, the Israelis to stop them - shades of the Cuban missile crisis there, if on a smaller scale).
I must admit that part of me is fascinated to see what will happen when Israel can't get away with their usual tactic of sabre-rattling and hinting that they have nukes.
-
Why should this hurt Hezbollah ?
Hezbollah's name was made and its existence staked on being the enemy of Israel, and to a lesser extent the protector of Lebanon. They stand to lose a great deal of their broad-based support in that country if they decide to become Shi'a revolutionary group number five-seventy-nine.
-
Given how secularist he was, I wonder what Assad Senior would have made of this.
-
I must admit that part of me is fascinated to see what will happen when Israel can't get away with their usual tactic of sabre-rattling and hinting that they have nukes.
The problem is their other usual tactic - comprehensive military victories against significantly weaker opponents (Palestine and Lebanon in recent years) - which keeps that sabre rattling relevant - just isn't going to happen against the Russians. Maybe 10 years ago it would have, but this is a thoroughly Putinized Russia, with a military that, while not at peak soviet standards, also isn't the ridiculously underfunded joke that it was in the late 90s, and a strong desire to get back at least some degree of the worldwide relevance of the Soviet Union.
The bright side is that at least some senior Israelis seem to understand that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/29/israel-moscow-talks-halt-missiles-syria):
"We are unhappy with the prospect of these very serious weapons arriving in Syria but we cannot stop Russia delivering them to the Middle East. We would not strike a Russian target – our egos are big but they're not that big," one senior Israeli diplomat told the Guardian on condition of anonymity.
The Israeli military will not hesitate, however, to take any steps necessary to prevent the transfer of this sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft technology to Hezbollah militants or other hostile groups.
"I don't know how upset the Russians would be if, at some point between payment and the installation of this technology in Damascus by Russian experts, something was done to damage the weaponry. As long as no Russians were hurt and they got paid, I don't think they would care," the diplomat added.
That, of course, is a pretty important question, given the significance of Syria in Russian foreign affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus). They have a vested interest in keeping Assad in power, so in turn they have a vested interest in keeping the west from enforcing a Libya style no-fly-zone, which is what these weapons are really all about.
It's a very delicate, potentially very nasty situation.
-
What the hell is going on there?
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22710915)
The military chief of the main umbrella group of Syrian rebels, the Free Syrian Army, has accused Hezbollah fighters of "invading" Syria in a BBC interview.
Gen Selim Idriss claimed that more than 7,000 fighters of the Lebanese Shia movement were taking part in attacks on the rebel-held town of Qusair.
The French foreign minister has estimated the number at 3,000-4,000.
The US State Department has demanded that Hezbollah withdraw its fighters from Syria immediately.
A spokeswoman Jen Psaki said their presence was an "extremely dangerous" escalation.
The statements follow a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, which condemned government attacks on Qusair and the involvement of foreign fighters.
Also
But the statement is a sign of growing concern in the US that the conflict in Syria is morphing into a complex regional war by proxy.
-
Given how secularist he was, I wonder what Assad Senior would have made of this.
The same he has made with Hama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre) ?
-
That's actually a somewhat different issue though.
The Ba'ath Party of Syria, which advocated the ideologies of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism had clashed with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with a conservative ideology, since 1940.[11] The two groups were opposed in important ways. The Ba'ath party was secular, nationalist and led by the minority Alawites, which conservative Sunni Muslims considered heretics. The Muslim Brotherhood, like other Islamist groups, saw nationalism as un-Islamic and religion as inseparable from politics and government.
The secularism of the Ba'ath Party is one of the few good things you can actually say about them. The Hama massacre wasn't based on religion so much as the fact that someone was trying to topple the government.
Hezbollah on the other hand seem to be increasingly moving towards being militantly Shia. And this could end up biting Assad on the arse if they want him to be more religious.
-
Things may be getting a bit more serious now - Looks like Assad is getting a little too excited. He's got his hezbollah fighters, he's got his S-300s (so he claims, realistically, they're very unlikely to e there just yet) and he's pretty openly stated that he has his eyes firmly on the Golan heights.
There's a good summary article from the NY Times here (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all):
“We’re in stormy waters indeed,” said Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. “Somebody or other has to not do what they have openly claimed they would do. Somebody has to lose serious face, and governments don’t like to lose face at the moment of serious confrontation.”
Honestly, I'm starting to think Assad will probably win here, in the sense that he'll hold onto power in a much less stable country. The opposition will almost certainly become increasingly Islamicized, and Syria will very likely end up a sectarian powder keg, but I think he's got a very good chance of being the man holding that fuse a few months from now. If he does... well, the Golan Heights are going to look even more attractive in that situation, especially if Hezbollah's timely intervention gives them a voice at the Syrian table, or if Iran (another backer) gets hit by anti-nuclear-program airstrikes (or Syria does again, for that matter).
Things are not improving. :|
-
It's not really that simple. The S-300s represent a possible offensive weapon, given the small size of Israel, that can disrupt air travel over that country. The Israelis cannot accept Assad's having them. They'll kill the missiles. It's a strategic necessity.
-
Russia Is Upping The Ante By Sending Its Only Aircraft Carrier To The Mediterranean:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-deploys-admiral-kuznetsov-carrier-2013-6
-
This is turning really ugly, really fast. Also, the situation seems uncomfortably similar to that just before WWI started. I hope we won't end up with WWIII on our hands...
-
Aww, your ski-ramp carrier is cute...and this is a really bad place to put it if things go south. Might as well hand NATO a freebie.
-
So apparently Syria has issued a travel warning about Turkey's use of violence against protestors, but I have no idea if I should ever trust the Atlantic Wire.
-
This is turning really ugly, really fast. Also, the situation seems uncomfortably similar to that just before WWI started. I hope we won't end up with WWIII on our hands...
Don't worry. It will all be over by christmass.
-
Don't worry. It will all be over by christmass.
lol, no.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/world-exclusive-iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html
As if things couldnt get worse.
-
Don't worry. It will all be over by christmass.
lol, no.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/world-exclusive-iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html
As if things couldnt get worse.
/me thinks you missed the joke.
-
/me thinks you missed the joke.
Never heard that joke, either way things wont be over soon.
-
/me thinks you missed the joke.
Never heard that joke, either way things wont be over soon.
Let me help you. People said both World Wars would be over by Christmas.