Jump to content


Photo

In Syria


  • Please log in to reply
15021 replies to this topic

#14901 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 09 July 2019 - 0854 AM

It would, but as a breach of the 1953 truce agreement. Legally, North Korea very much remains in a state of war with not just the South, but the UN overall (or at least its non-communist wartime members), and a lot of current regulations concerning the DMZ etc. remain based upon that. Of course the North Koreans also have undertaken the odd military action in recent decades, like infiltrating commandos and, most exemplary, in all likelihood torpedoeing and sinking ROKS Cheonan in 2010.

Edited by BansheeOne, 09 July 2019 - 0858 AM.

  • 0

#14902 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,054 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 0933 AM

 

Just because a war was not formally cancelled does not mean that countries are considered by the international community to actually be in a state of war.  North and South Korea, for example. 


Probably the worst example you could find to underline a wrong point.

 

 

So if North Korea bombed Seoul tomorrow and claimed that they were legally still at war so not guilty of aggression, you're really telling me that the UN would agree with their reasoning?


  • 0

#14903 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 09 July 2019 - 1005 AM

Certainly not, because North Korea was already the aggressor in the hostilities which established the current state of war.

Again, people need to divorce the legalties of armed conflict from the question of who is guilty of starting it. The existence of a state of armed conflict triggers the application of relevant rules - the right to cause harm by military action, but within the scope of the rules of warfare, protection from same under international humanitarian law, etc. It doesn't matter whether this was preceded by a formal declaration, and who is attacker or defender. However, the UN Charter forbids to wage war except in individual or collective self-defense, or to restore peace upon authorization of the UN itself. Whether a party violated that ban is a separate question to establish.

Edited by BansheeOne, 09 July 2019 - 1006 AM.

  • 0

#14904 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 10 July 2019 - 0714 AM

Nobu and Josh you're bringing up true info, but a bit too late.
In 2011, prior to the civil war and the various spillovers and incidents that dragged Israel into an airstrike campaign, the relations between Syria and Israel were at an all time high. And by that I mean there were no real open threats, no military actions, there was quiet.

Olmert was Israel's PM at the time. He offered Assad the Israeli part of the Golan, in exchange to a full withdrawal of Iranian forces, and IIRC the ending of relations military relations with Iran.

Assad refused. And if we look at it from a dictator's point of view, it makes sense. Israel's Golan is a very small piece of territory in the vast Syria. Basically meaningless to Syria and only meaningful to Israel.

Iran, on the other hand, was a good ally to them. It was willing to aid Syria in any conflict it would drag it into.


Today it makes no sense to Israel to offer this deal again. Assad would almost surely take it, because it would mean no more airstrikes, but that ship has sailed.
Israel's interest in getting Iranian forces removed from Syria is being fulfilled via airstrikes and raids.

If about a year or 2 ago you'd read healines like this on Israeli media:
"Iranian forces are now estimated at X along the border, rise from past estimated Y".

Then today the much more scarce headlines on the topic are:
"Iranian forces are still trying to move weapons through central Syria".

So the IDF has succeeded in removing Iran's military presence from the south via attrition, and is now trying to do the same in central Syria and Lebanon's border.

There will be no deal because Israel basically got what it wanted without a deal.

 

While I agree with most of your post, The Golan is important to Syria. For oje a matter of pride and national integrity, as Israel ahs illegally annexed it and Israel can shoot into Damascus from there. I think that makes the capital a bit uncomfortable. OTOH Syria could shoot far into Israel from there, if they had control. So it is important to Syria, but not much Assad and his crew can do about it at the moment.


Edited by Panzermann, 10 July 2019 - 0714 AM.

  • 0

#14905 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 July 2019 - 0827 AM

Not only could shoot into Israel from the Golan but did.
  • 0

#14906 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 432 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 2328 PM


Nobu and Josh you're bringing up true info, but a bit too late.
In 2011, prior to the civil war and the various spillovers and incidents that dragged Israel into an airstrike campaign, the relations between Syria and Israel were at an all time high. And by that I mean there were no real open threats, no military actions, there was quiet.

Olmert was Israel's PM at the time. He offered Assad the Israeli part of the Golan, in exchange to a full withdrawal of Iranian forces, and IIRC the ending of relations military relations with Iran.

Assad refused. And if we look at it from a dictator's point of view, it makes sense. Israel's Golan is a very small piece of territory in the vast Syria. Basically meaningless to Syria and only meaningful to Israel.

Iran, on the other hand, was a good ally to them. It was willing to aid Syria in any conflict it would drag it into.


Today it makes no sense to Israel to offer this deal again. Assad would almost surely take it, because it would mean no more airstrikes, but that ship has sailed.
Israel's interest in getting Iranian forces removed from Syria is being fulfilled via airstrikes and raids.

If about a year or 2 ago you'd read healines like this on Israeli media:
"Iranian forces are now estimated at X along the border, rise from past estimated Y".

Then today the much more scarce headlines on the topic are:
"Iranian forces are still trying to move weapons through central Syria".

So the IDF has succeeded in removing Iran's military presence from the south via attrition, and is now trying to do the same in central Syria and Lebanon's border.

There will be no deal because Israel basically got what it wanted without a deal.

 
While I agree with most of your post, The Golan is important to Syria. For oje a matter of pride and national integrity, as Israel ahs illegally annexed it and Israel can shoot into Damascus from there. I think that makes the capital a bit uncomfortable. OTOH Syria could shoot far into Israel from there, if they had control. So it is important to Syria, but not much Assad and his crew can do about it at the moment.

Pride is indeed a cancerous habit of some politicians, but I think Assad is a bit more pragmatic than that. I think the only truly emotional leader left in the region is Abbas, though even that is disputed due to corruption.

The Golan is strategic, but much more so in the context of the 6 day war and the conflicts preceding it.
After Israel and Syria came to a ceasefire agreement in 1974, Israel withdrew from the Syrian half of the Golan and some even more strategic high points.
Essentially, the strategic golan was split between the two.
  • 0

#14907 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,054 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0714 AM

Assad's doctrine is one enemy at a time, appeasement of all others until the current target is finished with.  With Israel, Syria neither has the strength nor the technical means to deal with the problem.  But, the S-300's are a step in the correct direction.  Get Idlib finished with, then rebuild the economy and stabilize the country, then reequip the military with modern weapons such as SU-57 and S-400.


  • 0

#14908 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1207 PM

Hah! Su-57 and S-400 are a pipe dream. Syria couldn't possibly afford them even if the Russians were willing to sell. Even Idlib seems like an unmanageable task for the SAA now that Turkey has fully sided with the rebels there. They have so many ATGWs they are using them on infantry Hezbollah style.


  • 0

#14909 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1227 PM

Syria will only get that kit if Putin just gives it away for free.  Also Assad will not be able to rebuild the Syrian economy. He is the reason the Syrian economy collapsed in the first place. He very well could be the most incompetent nation leader in the world over the last decade. Syrian reliance upon outside help has made Assad into a captive of Iran.


  • 0

#14910 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,644 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1318 PM

Sadat was a genius.


  • 0

#14911 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,054 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1501 PM

Syria will only get that kit if Putin just gives it away for free.  Also Assad will not be able to rebuild the Syrian economy. He is the reason the Syrian economy collapsed in the first place. He very well could be the most incompetent nation leader in the world over the last decade. Syrian reliance upon outside help has made Assad into a captive of Iran.

 

Step 1 - win the war and unify Syria

Step 2 - rebuild the economy.

Step 3 - rearm the military with modern weapons.

 

Step 3 is quite some ways off - it's not even clear Step 1 can be achieved in any predictable timeframe.


  • 0

#14912 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 2113 PM

Syria held the Golan for 21 years, Israel has held it for 52 years. Syrian borders were a "Colonist construct" based around the French and British Mandate and Ottoman Provinces. Time to tell Syria to pound sand.


  • 0

#14913 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sopron, Hungary
  • Interests:history, music

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0925 AM

What would you tell about Jerusalem to the Israelis then?
  • 0

#14914 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0948 AM

Syria held the Golan for 21 years, Israel has held it for 52 years. Syrian borders were a "Colonist construct" based around the French and British Mandate and Ottoman Provinces. Time to tell Syria to pound sand.

 

That is a pretty good argument actually. :D


  • 0

#14915 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,054 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1126 AM

It's also a good argument for Turkey, etc., to revise their own southern borders.  Colonial constructs and all.   The same letter telling Syria to pound sand could be forwarded to another colonial construct - Iraq.


  • 0

#14916 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,891 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1226 PM

Deterring Israeli air attacks is sort of out of the question. The first hurdle is retaking much of Idlib. And hence Syria doesn't need fancy equipment - even a rebuilding of the army to a 1990's standard would be a huge advance and good enough to take care of the Idlib rebels.

The ATGM in Idlib are a problem but mostly as the army lacks sufficient numbers of determined infantry, and so the quite tiny amount of remaining armor ends up doing too much work in too many places - and hence in small numbers and in poor deployments (2 tanks sitting in some forsaken place as a morale boost and CS platform for the platoon sized garrison etc.).


Edited by KV7, 12 July 2019 - 1227 PM.

  • 0

#14917 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1345 PM

 

Syria held the Golan for 21 years, Israel has held it for 52 years. Syrian borders were a "Colonist construct" based around the French and British Mandate and Ottoman Provinces. Time to tell Syria to pound sand.

 

That is a pretty good argument actually. :D

 

 

 

It's also a good argument for Turkey, etc., to revise their own southern borders.  Colonial constructs and all.   The same letter telling Syria to pound sand could be forwarded to another colonial construct - Iraq.

 

 Sykes-Picot agreement and the various conferences in the early twenties cut up the carcass of the ottoman empire for the french and british short-term interests. The whole of the area is a mess of borders drawn on a map ignoring the local populations. Seeding many of the current conflicts.


  • 0

#14918 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1705 PM

Funny enough, the population went up in the British mandate due to immigration (both Arab and Jew) and infant mortality went down, but then what did the British ever give us anyways....... 


Edited by Colin, 12 July 2019 - 1705 PM.

  • 0

#14919 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,054 posts

Posted 13 July 2019 - 0812 AM

Funny enough, the population went up in the British mandate due to immigration (both Arab and Jew) and infant mortality went down, but then what did the British ever give us anyways....... 

 

For India, the answer to that question was a taste of globalisation under corporations.  In reading Ferguson's book, in ruling the subcontinent, the British specialised in skimming about 1% of Indian GDP off the top annually and exporting it elsewhere in the world.  This 1% cut was the key to keeping India poor, and used the progenitors of the current crop of globalist corporations such as the East India Tea Company, which was kind of a corporation, government, and mercenary army all rolled up into one.  Worked out very well for Britain.  Maybe not so good for India.  And no one - me included - could possibly suggest that Britain and France made a total hash of rule in the Middle East after 1918 in comparison to the Ottomans in the Centuries before it.   :^)


Edited by glenn239, 13 July 2019 - 0814 AM.

  • 0

#14920 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 432 posts

Posted 13 July 2019 - 0907 AM

What would you tell about Jerusalem to the Israelis then?


Jerusalem is a different case. Its ownership was always determined with military power, not subject to treaties.
Before Israel, it was Jordan for about 19 years. Before Jordan it was the UK. Before the UK it was the Ottoman empire. Etc etc
  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users