Aleppo battle: Assad says victory in city would be 'huge step'

BBC News ^ | 12/8/2016 | BBC

[Nextrush]

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said a victory for his army in Aleppo would be a "huge step" towards ending the country's five-year civil war.

But he added that the defeat of rebel groups in the northern city would not end the conflict.

The rebels called for a five-day truce to allow the evacuation of civilians, after withdrawing from their last strongholds in Aleppo's Old City.

But Mr. Assad ruled out any ceasefires, as his army continues its offensive.

This is despite new calls for an immediate truce from the US and five Western powers....

Utter ruins in recaptured districts-the BBC's Lyse Doucet in Aleppo

Rebel-held districts in east Aleppo are falling fast, faster than expected. The full story from the battlefield is still emerging.

Areas we've been able to visit are a testament to intense fighting. The district of Al-Shaar, cleared on Tuesday to enable the army's assault on the Old City, is now in utter ruin. The smoke of battle still hung in the air a day later as did the residue of explosives.

There are also reports of deals to allow rebel fighters to retreat, including from the Old City.

But the most battle hardened fighters, including forces known as the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front are vowing to fight on in what remains of the opposition enclave.

The Syrian military, an its Russian and Iranian allies, aren't listening to calls for a truce, or even for humanitarian corridors.

Monday's mortar attack on Russia's field hospital is said to have stiffened Moscow's resolve to finish the battle for Aleppo as soon as possible......

[Cronos]

Solidwood "Directly after 9/11 we should have toppled the House of Saud and dismembered Saudi Barbaria. It’s not even a state... it’s the personal property of a gang of cutthroats." --> you are so, sooo correct

the different tribes were conquered by the Al Saud family who named the land after themselves.

[Cronos]

It doesn’t have to be that way. Mecca & Medinas custodianship could be internationlized or put under the Hashemites, maybe even Egyptian oversight. Or a Vatican-like “clerical rump state” without economic and military significance.

Correct -- I'm reading about the WWI Arabian theatre and LAwrence of Arabia.

The Hashemites were traditional rulers of the Hijaz -- for centuries, until the British supported teh Sauds and gave the Hashemites Iraq and Jordan as consolation prizes

A sound soltuion would be to put King Hussein of Jordan as the King of the Hejaz

And then turn Jordan over to the Palestinians

And then give ISrael the west bank and Gaza -- Palestinian moslems moved to Jordan

And tear the Sauds apart, just like the Ottomans did to them in the early 1800s

[Nextrush]

Kuwait was invaded and Saddam Hussein’s troops moved to the Saudi border so I think Saddam Hussein needed pushback and he got it.

That war was paid for by the Saudis, Kuwaitis so I guess you can say our armed forces were paid mercenaries in the First Gulf War.

The second one was the wrong war in the wrong place doing the bidding of the Saudis after 9/11 which was done by terrorists with ties to them.

[Cronos]

Britain is much better positioned to manage the ‘diplomatic’ angle - that’s Britain forte in general.

Historically speaking, the British have been diplomatic fools in the middle east -- setting up evil with short-term gains. Right from the early 1800s when they propped up the Ottoman Turks instead of freeing Christians, to when they put Sunnis and Shias in a Christian Lebanon, to when in WWI they didn't attack at Antioch, when there was clear news of Arabs (under the Hashemites and secular pan-Arabism) and Armenians and Kurds ready to overthrow the Turks; instead they expended blood and thousands of lives at Gallipolli.

No, the Brits are an expended force -- let the Middle Easterners come under Russia and China and India's thumbs.

The Russians and Chinese won't be so nice -- look at Russia's brutal yet effective, people moving in the 1940s and 50s -- creating ethnically pure states.

They will slaughter all the non-Christians out of Lebanon, create Alawite and Christian Syrias, Christian Assyria, probably also a wider Armenia

Plus, the Russians will be kept busy for decades in the Middle East and Turkey -- no time or ability to cause mischief in the west.

[odds]

In engineering the current M.E. Britain had a distinct agenda to serve the British Empire that was. Today that British Empire does not exist, and geopolitics have significantly changed too.

Of course, Britain still has her political, but more so her economic interests in the M.E. as much as the Russians, Americans, and the Chinese, in that region.

What I was saying before here was in a context & specifically about helping the US by using British diplomacy and influence to transition the House of Saud out of being custodians of Mecca and Medina, whilst limiting their ‘other support’ for the Saudis and the Gulf states.

The ‘other support’ includes: selling military equipment to them (along with the U.S.), doing business deals with them, and quit publicizing how ‘liberal’ & religiously tolerant the Gulf states are because they got nightclubs, a surplus of British tourists, and build a church or two to show goodwill.

Surprisingly or not, Russia exercises a great deal of diplomacy (not brutality) with Iran, as does China (to a lesser extent), to rein in the Mullahs in Iran.

With the Saudis, the Russians are definitely much less tolerant.

Needless to say, both the Saudis and Iranian regimes know exactly where they stand with Britain, USA, Russia and I should think with China too.

[odds]

BTW, >>”Saddam attacks Iran and now, boosted by the money and arms from the Gulf states, defeats it and crushes the Ayatollahs”<<

I don’t agree with this at all.

Replacing one homicidal maniac with another and giving him more land, hence power, is dysfunctional, at best.

The Mullahs regime will have to be brought down from ‘within’; only way to make it a sustainable positive change.

[odds]

“brought down” -—> a better word to use is “phased out”.

[SolidWood]

I am with odds on the mattef of Iran.
Some political containment but eventually let change happen from within.

Saddam (funded by the Arab sheiks) DID try to conquer parts of Iran 1980-88. He was defeated despite havin in thr end a great material advantage vs. Iran and much more international backers.

ANY conflict that targets Iranian territorial integrity is utter folly and becomes as a rallying point for Iranians, who foremostly are nationalists. This enabled in the 80’s the Mullahs to strengthen their regime. Despite all misgivings with the regime, Iranians will always defend their territory and make any sacrifice. Though there are sizeable ethnic minorities there is a strong national cohesion in Iran, unlike in it’s neighboring states.

Getting rid of Saddam was not bad itself. But the entire process was riddled with Errors.

In the end we can’t change history... but we shouldn’t repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

[SolidWood]

Sorry for the typos. Tiny screen - fat fingers.

[Cronos]

I know you won't agree :)

But it's my opinion that Saddam was less of a danger than the Ayatollahs. Saddam was basically about "me, me, me" -- he shrugged off the BAathist cloak pretty fast to be the stereotypical Big man (like Gaddafi) -- the Ayatollahs like Stalin or H or Mao have an entire system to back them up.

[odds]

Well, I am taking into account what I know about Iran and Iranians in general.

Most Iranians don’t hate him per se, though should think the ones impacted by that 8 year long war & are still alive remember. Most actually blame Khomeini for prolonging that war.

My point is, had Saddam won, Iran, most likely, would have been under his control. Ayatollahs despite their foreign Arab ideology of Islam, still hold some key Iranian traits and practices. Not so for Saddam, never mind other points.

But how he treated the Kurds in Iraq is also very telling. Too bad GHB threw the Kurds under the bus, back then. It’s all complicated.

All in all, Solidwood is correct and gets the basic points. A Saddam rule would’ve been ok in an Arab country. Iran isn’t an Arab country - that’s the bottom line.

[SolidWood]

Saddam would have annexed Iran’s Khuzistan province... “Arabistan” to him.

The main part of Iran would have been put under a regime of the Islamic-Marxist People’s Mojahedin (PMOI/MKO/MEK) terrorist cult that was first supporting Khoneini, but fell out with him and allied with Saddam.

The MEK leaders, the Rajavis, created an armed unit in Iraq and tried to conquer Iran’s West with Iraqi help late in the war.
The Iranian forces quickly obliterated the MEK “Iranian Liberation Army” and smashed their vainglorious fantasy of creating a pro-Saddam leftist puppet regime in Iran.

Now with Saddam gone the MEK Islamo-Marxists under the name “National Resistance Organization” are in cahoots with the Israelis, Saudis and US neocons (especially John Bolton and Richard Perle).

The MEK is almost universally despised by Iranians for their treachery and opportunism.

[odds]

We’ll have another discussion about that soon.

For now, yes, MeK have always been a puppet themselves. One of the culprits who worked to terrorize people in Iran, and actively worked to overthrow the Shah and his government, at the time, in favor of Khomeini.

[Sam Gamgee]

Assad has my blessing to crush them all - and package up a few terrorist body parts and send them to the royals in Saudi Arabia.

[Sam Gamgee]

That’s the story from John McCain, fellow RINOS, and the warmonger converts in the Democratic Party.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes and the Brits celebrate that effing asshole Lawrence of Arabia. They have always had a hard on where Arabs are concerned. They sided against Christendom when they sided with the Turks against Russia in the Crimean. They paid tribute to the damn Barbary Pirates (to Lord Nelson's credit he was absolutely against this) while Jefferson decided enough is enough. Oh, yes, and being effing assholes to the ANZAC forces in Gallipolli. They also left behind weapon caches for the Arabs after they exited Palestine, and their own officers killed Jews in fighting for the Jordanians.

[odds]

As you probably know, Saddam started that war by first attacking Khuzestan, oilfields there too. It used to have a majority ethnic Iranian-Arab population (shi’ites mostly). They are were very integrated into overall “Iranian culture”.

An interesting point about Khuzestan is that during Iraq-Iran war, the ethnic Arabs in Iran fought valiantly on Iran’s side, and the Iraqi Arabs fought on Saddam’s side. Both Shi’ites. Just goes to show that it never was purely about sunni-shia differences, but much more nationalistic.

MeK similar to the communist Tudeh party were very much influenced by the Soviets. MeK had the added Islamic component (still does) as part of their Marxist (more Stalinist like Saddam) ideology. They won’t have a future in Iran, and change color like a chameleon. IOW, they are extremely unreliable, and not politically savvy or intelligent.

I was ok with Richard Perle during GWB admin insofar as his noises about supporting Iranian ‘opposition’. I believe he meant beyond MeK. But a problem with today’s Iranian opposition is that there is a big void, which MeK has been trying to fill. The Pahlavis have a lot of baggage. Though I still think the Shah’s son can be a catalyst to facilitate positive change, but he most likely will not & cannot be an active leader. The political make up of Iran is ever so gradually & subtly changing, even as speak. Another revolution is not advisable, partly because of the situation & instability in the broader M.E. at present.