You see, I am Syrian, even though currently abroad. And I am wondering when the Americans will learn one thing. This revolt in Syria was artificial, financed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, drived by the US and it errupted for one reason - oil, oil pipes, gas. Syria was by far the most secular country in the region, and me, being from the Christian minority, can firmly say we had far more freedom than anyone in the Gulf states or Turkey. Since the beginning of the war Syrian poulation realized that the revolt is not for freedom, for f*ck sake, Saudi is financing and arming the rebels, and in their country there is not even one drop of "free speech"or democracy. The rebels are not only far worse, they have the same ideology like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, they are all salafi-wahhabi groups, and this ideology, no surprise, originates from Saudi. This is why no Christian towns left in territories under rebel control. Not even one. USA are committing crimes after crimes in Syria, and no, we see it, my relatives see it, we are not stupid to find out which product ISIS is.
The U.S. under NATO's consent, has established at least 5 bases in Syria and an airport of all things--totally illegal if not a direct act of war against a country that never gave consent to where NATO rules don't apply . NATO countries are stealing Iraqi and Syrian oil . NATO cooperates in that theft with resources like air space, bases for transport of oil, weapons and drugs (NATO traffics in drugs covertly ). Organized Crime is NATO.
Rebel victories end civil wars? Well, firstly, victory is a conclusion to a war, regardless of which side is victorious. But what exactly makes a rebel victory better than a loyalist victory? The American Civil War ended with a rebel defeat, and I highly doubt you'd say that a rebel victory would have been prefered in this case.There was also foreign intervention by the French on the side of the rebels. Whether or not the intervention prolonged the war in any way is debatable. Tell me again how a rebel victory is somehow better than a loyalist one, because you listed off a couple of rebel victories, said "see, it turned out pretty well", then failed to mention all the rebel victories that went horribly for the country (eg. Libya, Russia, Iran, etc.).
You fail to understand the major difference between the American Civil War and most civil wars today. In the American Civil War, both sides were well organized and had very clear win conditions. Capture the opposition's capital and score multiple meaningful military victories. Within days of The Union capturing Richmond, the war was over. It would've likely been the same for the confederates. Had they won some key battles early on and captured D/C the war would've been over. The Confederacy was much more like a country than rebels. It had land, a capital, a government, and an army. In the Syrian Civil War, what is the condition that marks The Government has won? Is it killing all the Rebels? How do you determine who is a Rebel? Can you do it without genocide? Probably not. Rebels usually don't have a capital. They don't usually have a government. They usually don't have a well organized army. Under what conditions is the government a clear cut winner? The rebels do have a clear cut path to victory. Perhaps capture the capital. Perhaps topple the government. Perhaps kill the president. Perhaps force the military to surrender. Perhaps all of these things. You understand how the Rebels have a clear and concise way to win the war? The government doesn't have that. How foreign intervention prolongs wars is complicated but here is a simplified version. Lets say the Russians support one side for whatever reason. The Americans see the Russians supporting one side and decide that it would be bad for them to allow the Russian supported side to win, ans they start supporting the opposite side. Both sides have many backers and get more powerful. The war becomes more gruesome and neither side makes much headway because if they start falling behind their backers prop them back up. You see how this can spiral out of control. SO do you see how that a Rebel victory is usually the only way to 'end' a civil war? The government has no real conditions to win. Any way it does use to win (genocide, very harsh laws, etc.) will likely push more people into supporting the rebels. Some exceptions like the American Civil War do occur, but they are few and far between in today's world. And even in those cases it acts more like a real war between 2 states than a civil war.
Seriously being a Cypriot you have misunderstood the whole peacekeeper thing. Cyprus was divided by the UK. Cypriots during WW2 at the time were under British rule. Britain promised independence once the war was over if they joined the fight. They did. Christians and Muslims fought together in Greece against Italy. Once it was all said and done Britain said you have a choice. Be annexed to Greece or be annexed to Turkey. They did this knowing full well that the island being 75-80 Christian and Greek speaking they'd choose Greece. Turkish cypriots had no say. The fighting started. Half of the Greek speakers wanted to join Greece and the other half didn't. Turksih Cypriots did not want to join Greece. Add some fascist groups from Greece and you have a shit storm. England was there all along including the time when Turkey invaded as a "peace keeper" and did fuck all. Turkey took what they wanted. the north is not recognised. Not part of the EU not part of anything but it is controlled by Turkey. The UN has a presence, UK has its bases, Turkey has an army and Greece has an army. Its a mess and all because it needed to be due to its proximity to the middle east. The Brits want to have bases there. Thats it plain and simple. They screwed us just like they screwed everywhere they ever set foot. Also there's tonnes of gas.....
When u say, "the international community doesn't want countries to split up" Why not? Smaller /more decentralized states tend to the needs of people and are generally more egalitarian than massive countries with 100millions/ billions of people. Maybe that is the solution to civil war. Is let them go their own way, it is unrealistic to expect larger hierarchal governments to tend to the needs to the people ,since they are disconnected and much more prone to corruption.
The international community referring to the states themselves. The state doesn't want decentralization and it doesn't care about egalitarianism. It wants to maintain control over what it already has, or preferably expand the breadth and/or depth of that control.
Loalrikowki yes :) precisely my point! I think the solution stares at them in the face, but people refuse to address it because it challenges their preconceived notions
@@Deadwolfedge Fair point. I just don't like isolationism (I like trade, cultural exchange, and whatnot), so I wouldn't lead with that. But if the groups you mentioned also agree we shouldn't be meddling, I'm happy to 1-issue coalition!
It's funny. Big Think uploaded this video yesterday, then suddenly pulled it - then re uploading it again. Strange!
Joshua B I noticed that too
As in, the video was playing but without any content. (black or blank screen)?
That happens a lot on this site, it's mostly an adblocker issue. (As in, they're trying to block adblockers.)
You see, I am Syrian, even though currently abroad. And I am wondering when the Americans will learn one thing. This revolt in Syria was artificial, financed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, drived by the US and it errupted for one reason - oil, oil pipes, gas. Syria was by far the most secular country in the region, and me, being from the Christian minority, can firmly say we had far more freedom than anyone in the Gulf states or Turkey. Since the beginning of the war Syrian poulation realized that the revolt is not for freedom, for f*ck sake, Saudi is financing and arming the rebels, and in their country there is not even one drop of "free speech"or democracy. The rebels are not only far worse, they have the same ideology like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, they are all salafi-wahhabi groups, and this ideology, no surprise, originates from Saudi. This is why no Christian towns left in territories under rebel control. Not even one. USA are committing crimes after crimes in Syria, and no, we see it, my relatives see it, we are not stupid to find out which product ISIS is.
The U.S. under NATO's consent, has established at least 5 bases in Syria and an airport of all things--totally illegal if not a direct act of war against a country that never gave consent to where NATO rules don't apply . NATO countries are stealing Iraqi and Syrian oil . NATO cooperates in that theft with resources like air space, bases for transport of oil, weapons and drugs (NATO traffics in drugs covertly ). Organized Crime is NATO.
The issues in each country are too complex to generalize with a simple statement.
Did anyone notice at 0:04 that _Big Think_ is sponsored by the Charles Koch Foundation?
Sponsorships affect the agenda of the video
But then who would we sell our weapons and security devices to. Long wars are more profitable for the retailers.
Rebel victories end civil wars? Well, firstly, victory is a conclusion to a war, regardless of which side is victorious. But what exactly makes a rebel victory better than a loyalist victory? The American Civil War ended with a rebel defeat, and I highly doubt you'd say that a rebel victory would have been prefered in this case.There was also foreign intervention by the French on the side of the rebels. Whether or not the intervention prolonged the war in any way is debatable.
Tell me again how a rebel victory is somehow better than a loyalist one, because you listed off a couple of rebel victories, said "see, it turned out pretty well", then failed to mention all the rebel victories that went horribly for the country (eg. Libya, Russia, Iran, etc.).
You fail to understand the major difference between the American Civil War and most civil wars today.
In the American Civil War, both sides were well organized and had very clear win conditions. Capture the opposition's capital and score multiple meaningful military victories. Within days of The Union capturing Richmond, the war was over. It would've likely been the same for the confederates. Had they won some key battles early on and captured D/C the war would've been over.
The Confederacy was much more like a country than rebels. It had land, a capital, a government, and an army.
In the Syrian Civil War, what is the condition that marks The Government has won? Is it killing all the Rebels? How do you determine who is a Rebel? Can you do it without genocide? Probably not. Rebels usually don't have a capital. They don't usually have a government. They usually don't have a well organized army. Under what conditions is the government a clear cut winner?
The rebels do have a clear cut path to victory. Perhaps capture the capital. Perhaps topple the government. Perhaps kill the president. Perhaps force the military to surrender. Perhaps all of these things. You understand how the Rebels have a clear and concise way to win the war? The government doesn't have that.
How foreign intervention prolongs wars is complicated but here is a simplified version. Lets say the Russians support one side for whatever reason. The Americans see the Russians supporting one side and decide that it would be bad for them to allow the Russian supported side to win, ans they start supporting the opposite side. Both sides have many backers and get more powerful. The war becomes more gruesome and neither side makes much headway because if they start falling behind their backers prop them back up. You see how this can spiral out of control.
SO do you see how that a Rebel victory is usually the only way to 'end' a civil war? The government has no real conditions to win. Any way it does use to win (genocide, very harsh laws, etc.) will likely push more people into supporting the rebels. Some exceptions like the American Civil War do occur, but they are few and far between in today's world. And even in those cases it acts more like a real war between 2 states than a civil war.
This is a reupload?
Seriously being a Cypriot you have misunderstood the whole peacekeeper thing. Cyprus was divided by the UK. Cypriots during WW2 at the time were under British rule. Britain promised independence once the war was over if they joined the fight. They did. Christians and Muslims fought together in Greece against Italy. Once it was all said and done Britain said you have a choice. Be annexed to Greece or be annexed to Turkey. They did this knowing full well that the island being 75-80 Christian and Greek speaking they'd choose Greece. Turkish cypriots had no say. The fighting started. Half of the Greek speakers wanted to join Greece and the other half didn't. Turksih Cypriots did not want to join Greece. Add some fascist groups from Greece and you have a shit storm. England was there all along including the time when Turkey invaded as a "peace keeper" and did fuck all. Turkey took what they wanted. the north is not recognised. Not part of the EU not part of anything but it is controlled by Turkey. The UN has a presence, UK has its bases, Turkey has an army and Greece has an army. Its a mess and all because it needed to be due to its proximity to the middle east. The Brits want to have bases there. Thats it plain and simple. They screwed us just like they screwed everywhere they ever set foot. Also there's tonnes of gas.....
MrPanangelo when I become the president I'll tell England to fuck off and try and help :)
When u say, "the international community doesn't want countries to split up"
Why not? Smaller /more decentralized states tend to the needs of people and are generally more egalitarian than massive countries with 100millions/ billions of people.
Maybe that is the solution to civil war. Is let them go their own way, it is unrealistic to expect larger hierarchal governments to tend to the needs to the people ,since they are disconnected and much more prone to corruption.
The international community referring to the states themselves. The state doesn't want decentralization and it doesn't care about egalitarianism. It wants to maintain control over what it already has, or preferably expand the breadth and/or depth of that control.
Loalrikowki yes :) precisely my point!
I think the solution stares at them in the face, but people refuse to address it because it challenges their preconceived notions
Disliking because of Koch sponsorship. Gross.
Soon they may even have climate denialism. This sucks.
Bird up.
savage t Aesthetic Knight SNAIL DOWN
this video should be called. the pretty obvious of you think about it duh.
What we need is a perfect brain control device ... Free will is the reason for all of human trouble
Why not listen to the libertarians and keep our noses out of everybody's business?
Not just Libertarians, also isolationist, some conservatives and most leftist.
@@Deadwolfedge Fair point. I just don't like isolationism (I like trade, cultural exchange, and whatnot), so I wouldn't lead with that. But if the groups you mentioned also agree we shouldn't be meddling, I'm happy to 1-issue coalition!
Muppet...