Syria

Postby the other one » Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:38 am

So again the USA starts to intervene in the near east.
The news of today report about the USA who have some "proofs" that Syria uses chemical weapons. And yes it looks the same like Iraq with the difference Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Ooops Iraq hadn't. The thing they call "proof" came from the same people. But as Iraq there isn't even a proof. But that doesn't matter they are the evil, the USA are good.
And now none else than the nobel peace prize winner Obama wants to support the rebells, to make more war, to kill more civilian and to build up a dictatorship called "democracy".
It's just a war more with US- participation that is based on a lie.
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”


Bertrand Russell

Re: Syria

Postby drawscore » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:29 am

Gawd, we ought to get out of that zoo, and let the various sects of Islam kill each other. Maybe help Israel carpet bomb Iran and Syria.

Drawscore

Re: Syria

Postby xtc » Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:55 am

Never mind, there will be lots of nice contracts to repair the runways afterwards!
Cynical? Me, surely not.
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!

More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

Re: Syria

Postby Chris12 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:29 am

To be far this is what the rebels have been begging for since day one.

Getting involved won't do any good either way in my opinion. As much as Assad deserves to go I have zero trust in the rebels being any better.

Re: Syria

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:25 pm

Chris12 wrote:As much as Assad deserves to go I have zero trust in the rebels being any better.

Me too. I think the decision to get involved is just going to bite us in the arse - as usual!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Syria

Postby w3sKer96 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:26 am

I also hastily agree that whatever 'interests' that the current administration will concoct, whether they be humanitarian or otherwise, are not good enough reasons to intervene. And it will be detrimental if we do.

I see almost every intervention leading to horrendous, unintended consequences that undermine geopolitical stability and ensure a continued presence in middle eastern affairs and a role as global policemen, something that does nothing to bring about long term peace.

Us waving our fists at Assad will hardly take the guy out. He's managed to stay relatively in power for two years of conflict now. And the other countries within the area with bigger stakes will find themselves intervening.

I think one argument is that ousting Assad, who allies with Tehran, will weaken the Iranian state. But wouldn't that just give them motivation to ally with Shia Iraq, who also helps Assad?

As for the use of chemical weapons, especially gas ones, those are the least constrained geographically of the WMD's. But putting boots on the group or entangling in war preparations like no fly zones would encourage Assad to use them as a last resort.

I could see intervention if I thought it was a purely humanitarian case of genocide, an armed government against an unarmed populace. But both sides are armed and willing to kill to advance the cause. And with fired up Islamic radicals filling the gaps of insurgents, I expect reprisals no matter who comes out of this in the end.

What do you guys think will be the result? With the divisions occurring within the rebel forces, and the outside support Damascus gets from Lebanon's Hezbollah and Russia, I don't see a complete rebel victory as plausible.

Re: Syria

Postby drawscore » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:21 am

It's "wag the dog." Obama and his Chicago thugocracy will ride into Syria with guns blazing, not so much to help the rebels, who will be just as bad, or even worse, than Assad, but rather, to divert attention away from the scandals swirling around his administration.

Drawscore

Re: Syria

Postby Chris12 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:36 am

I won't bother addressing that with anything more then a ''Seriously?''

If the rebels win I think Syria will fall to even more infighting not soon after. If Assad wins he will find himself isolated for quite some time.

Re: Syria

Postby drawscore » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:16 am

Do you deny there are scandals in the Obama administration, and that he would dearly love to see the media turn their attention away from them?

Drawscore

Re: Syria

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:13 am

Normally I'd say just stay out of it and just let them wipe one another out... but then Salin Palin in all her majestic ignorance had to chime in.
Really, "Let Allah sort it out?"
http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-u-dec ... itics.html
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Syria

Postby Chris12 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:59 am

drawscore wrote:Do you deny there are scandals in the Obama administration, and that he would dearly love to see the media turn their attention away from them?

Drawscore


Not really. Do you deny the same goes for every leader ever and that you didn't look further then his party when making that observation?

Re: Syria

Postby drawscore » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:31 am

I would say that the last two administrations that were relatively scandal free, were Bush the elder, and Eisenhower.

And why do you care? You don't even live here.

Drawscore

Re: Syria

Postby Chris12 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:59 am

I believe the last two times you said that got you the message to get of your high horse, so again get off your high horse. I don't have to be American to know a clear bias when I see one.

I have no stake in the whole republican vs democrat thing so trust me if I see someone hating Bush just for being a republican rather then his wars my reaction would be the same.

Re: Syria

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:08 am

drawscore wrote:I would say that the last two administrations that were relatively scandal free, were Bush the elder, and Eisenhower.

And why do you care? You don't even live here.

Drawscore

Maybe he should care because everything our government does affects everyone in Europe (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) just about as much as it affects American citizens. That's an unavoidable consequence of being a leading world power; we affect everyone whether we mean to or not... just as various European powers used to have (and to a lesser extent still have) major effects on us.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Syria

Postby w3sKer96 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:46 am

When I said if a rebel victory was possible, that in no way suggested that I supported the rebels. It was just a point of inquiry.

Daniel Pipes, head of Middle East Forum, encourages intervention but doesn't support a victory on either side, especially in opposition which would support a rogue Turkish government and enflmaing Islamists (extreme ones I mean). So to him, continued fighting would be less costly to western interests. He even went so far as to suggest that when Assad became exhausted from fighting, 'Western support then can go to non-Baathist and non-Islamist elements.'

Now, regardless of whether you think is a legitimate realpolitik move, I highly doubt that American policymakers have true international knowledge to prop up a side in retreat. To support Asad to make sure he is not defeated, but not enough to ensure a victory. And then to be able to time an allegiance to the opposition when Assad gains strength, or when they are balanced enough to support new combatants. Baffles the mind.