Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After once again reading an article about Syria and the fighting going on there is a quote from Ban-Ki Moon where he warned of the imminent danger of civil war. Now this statement annoyed me no end, how is it not civil war already? We have two armed factions, the FSA and regular army fighting over control of the country, with the aim of the FSA to be rid of President Assad. They are using tanks, artillery and infantry strikes against each other, though with more hardware on the regular army side. To be this screams civil war, what do you guys say? Am I wrong or is Syria already fighting their civil war.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18377756

There is the article that annoyed me.

The first rule of international politics. The UN is run primarily by idiots.

LordofHats wrote:The first rule of international politics. The UN is run primarily by idiots.

Would idiots make Mugabe a Goodwill Ambassador? They have to be rather clever trolls to pull that one out of the bag.

13,000 people dead usually qualifies as a civil war.

dæl wrote:Would idiots make Mugabe a Goodwill Ambassador? They have to be rather clever trolls to pull that one out of the bag.

Would idiots put Syria on a human rights council while said civil war is ongoing?

*waits for Shuma to come to thread and tell me I'm wrong*

Just calling it now, cause its probably gonna happen

LordofHats wrote:The first rule of international politics. The UN is run primarily by idiots.

At the very least, people who realize that the UN is really toothless and wish that it wasn't.

Although if you listen to evangelistic writers in the US you'd think that the UN was a NWO world government.

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The first rule of international politics. The UN is run primarily by idiots.

At the very least, people who realize that the UN is really toothless and wish that it wasn't.

Although if you listen to evangelistic writers in the US you'd think that the UN was a NWO world government.

Melissia...they're clearly trying to steal our freedoms(prob start banning MickyD's) and they indoctrinate our children with public education!!

But yes..Syria is at the civil war point and has been for some time now

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic,or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united nation state.The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war#cite_note-fearon-0

Based off the definition of civil war, yes it is.

Harriticus wrote:13,000 people dead usually qualifies as a civil war.

Didn't realise it was that many dead, even more proof as you say.

I would say undoubtedly, the whole situation is a terrible one.

But then if you use this measure for what determines a 'civil war' you should also say that Iraq is in the same situation. It's not making the news any more (the Western Media and indeed armies have moved on, leaving a shattered country in their wake) but there is barely a day that goes by without some kind of bombing or fighting take place, with deaths in the hundreds.

The question will really be what will happen if the chinless-wonder now in charge of Syria is removed? There seems to have been a lot of instances of revolution in the middle East, but then the moment the Tyrant is removed from power, everyone stands around looking at each other saying, "errr.. so what now?" And then some equally undesirable chap ends up taking charge, the protests continue as does the killing, and round it goes (at least this has happened in Egypt).

Update, apparently the Syrian army has been using children as human shields, including on their vehicles while the FSA have been using them in support and medical roles. Keeps getting better and better...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9325965/Syrian-army-using-children-as-human-shields.html for the former.

Also mentions that FSA may be recruiting children as soldiers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18405800

There is the article that I read on it.

Though personally I don't think it would be at this level of violence and death if the rebels weren't being given arms and supplies

LordofHats wrote:
*waits for Shuma to come to thread and tell me I'm wrong*

First.

But we've had this argument before.

Syria will be defined out of policy not reality.

Too many influential nations cannot afford Syria to go bang. So its kept as a pressure cooker. The reasons are simple

Assad has high profile backers, particularly Russia.

Israel has no great beef with Assad, they will have far more problems if hardline Islamists get in.

This will cause problems with the Turkish border and Turkey is a regional power and has more clout than at first appears.

The destablisiation of Syria will effect Iraq and sandwich Iraq between hostile Islamists to both west and east. This would make inclusions easier and more damaging.

Pacific wrote:I would say undoubtedly, the whole situation is a terrible one.

But then if you use this measure for what determines a 'civil war' you should also say that Iraq is in the same situation. It's not making the news any more (the Western Media and indeed armies have moved on, leaving a shattered country in their wake) but there is barely a day that goes by without some kind of bombing or fighting take place, with deaths in the hundreds.

The question will really be what will happen if the chinless-wonder now in charge of Syria is removed? There seems to have been a lot of instances of revolution in the middle East, but then the moment the Tyrant is removed from power, everyone stands around looking at each other saying, "errr.. so what now?" And then some equally undesirable chap ends up taking charge, the protests continue as does the killing, and round it goes (at least this has happened in Egypt).

I've been saying this exact same thing for a couple of weeks now...

Orlanth wrote:Syria will be defined out of policy not reality.

Because policy is apparently not reality. Kosovo is a part of Serbia, you know?

From what I have read it doesn't seem all that civil.

Huffy wrote:Though personally I don't think it would be at this level of violence and death if the rebels weren't being given arms and supplies

Whats the alternative? Let Syria kill any who question its government?

Russia is sending combat helicopters to Syrian government to make the whole situation more exciting, less boring.

Finally, some international intrigue.

A challenger appears?

Albatross wrote:A challenger appears?

Why is it we never get Third Party Intrigue? FOr once it'd be nice to see the Chinese James Bond going against the RUssians. Come on people, think out side the box here!

Pacific wrote:I would say undoubtedly, the whole situation is a terrible one.

But then if you use this measure for what determines a 'civil war' you should also say that Iraq is in the same situation. It's not making the news any more (the Western Media and indeed armies have moved on, leaving a shattered country in their wake) but there is barely a day that goes by without some kind of bombing or fighting take place, with deaths in the hundreds.

The question will really be what will happen if the chinless-wonder now in charge of Syria is removed? There seems to have been a lot of instances of revolution in the middle East, but then the moment the Tyrant is removed from power, everyone stands around looking at each other saying, "errr.. so what now?" And then some equally undesirable chap ends up taking charge, the protests continue as does the killing, and round it goes (at least this has happened in Egypt).

I think a lot of those problems is the lack of any real charismatic leaders of the opposition movements, people who will keep the revolution going after the previous government is gone. It's the reason that Cuba's revolution did so well, the Cuban Revolutionary forces had a strong and charismatic leader in Fidel Castro (along with Raul Castro, Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos) who actually had a vision of how he wanted to change the country. I understand that Castro is a very divisive figure but even the people who do not like him and disagree with his politics should be able to agree that he was a strong and capable leader.

In the middle east there are lots of groups fighting for change but haven't given any thought to what that change will actually be and how they're going to implement it after they're victorious. This creates the confusion and uncertainty which provides the opportunity for a military dictatorship to rise out of a movement which was originally trying to reach democracy. The guy with the most guns takes power until the groundwork is in place for democratic elections but by that time he's grown quite comfortable in his position.

Well apparently the UN has now called it civil war, so I suppose that answers this this question.

Ahtman wrote:Russia is sending combat helicopters to Syrian government to make the whole situation more exciting, less boring.

Finally, some international intrigue.

That's quite a fun title...

Mr Hyena wrote:

Huffy wrote:Though personally I don't think it would be at this level of violence and death if the rebels weren't being given arms and supplies

Whats the alternative? Let Syria kill any who question its government?

absolutely...why should my country spend money on a quagmire, I really could care less, the situation is incredibly complicated and went don't know enough about the fractured opposition to support them. I mean do we want another Iraq, which is still suffering incredible violence? or maybe Libya, where it's turning into a state of tribal warfare?
It isn't worth the time, money, or political capital.
Syria is a backwater, they don't export much of value, and in strategic terms we have little to gain,pressure Iran? why not hit their lifeline in New Delhi?....and I don't see any western intervention in this country.

A civil war is an upgrade from what it was before: just a massacre.