Arming Syrian Rebels

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Pat, I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with concrete evidence that the U.S. was on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets at any point from 1975 onward. The fact that you are accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about regarding the NIE from 1975 and the Team B assessment of that intelligence estimate is clearcut evidence that you are the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Forget about what the average citizen thought at the time. We have the advantage of hindsight and also of knowing what was going on in the gov’t at the time. In 1975 the collective U.S. intelligence community produced its annual NIE, which Team B then contradicted. However, the historiography has shown that Team B was incorrect and that the NIE was correct. The NIE was an analysis built on highly classified intelligence, whereas the Team B analysis was simply a reworking of the NIE by people who operated outside of the intelligence community, hardly a position to make an effective counterargument about the meaning of and evidence behind top-secret intelligence. Donald Rumsfeld was the Sec’y of Defense at the time and responsible for pushing the alternative analysis. Paul Wolfowitz was one of the central members. The net effect of the Team B analysis was to exaggerate and overstate the actual strength and delivery/deterrence capabilities of the USSR, which ultimately led to an increase in arms production for the U.S. military/industrial complex, who was the only entity to gain from the erroneous alternative analysis.
[/quote]
Challenge accepted.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm

Of course these documents are all about the same thing, the 1983 Soviet Nuclear Wars Scare. But you wanted evidence, so here is evidence.

I don’t think you really understood the mindset at the time. Whether the arms increase was necessary or not is irrelevant. What was relevant was the effect it had on the Soviet Union and how it changed the game significantly. You mix that with the Star Wars scare and the Cold War took a significant turn in our favor and had enormous impact on the Soviets, particularly economically. It forced the soviets to scramble and spend tons of money on counter moves, money they did not have.
What’s funny is that STI wasn’t really feasible, but the Soviets did not know that; it scared the shit out of them. It made a significant turn of events that led to it’s fall in 1990. [/quote]

Also, I find it ironic that earlier you dismissed something I said about the CIA because they essentially dropped the ball on WMDs in Iraq and then you turn around and try to use a CIA intelligence analysis to support your assertion that we were on the brink of nuclear war. Furthermore, that analysis happened after many of the higher-ranking analysts and their superiors were installed by the same people in the Reagan administration who were some of the primary architects and/or proponents of Team B’s (erroneous) findings. That analysis is a bit flawed, it is far from definitive, as the link you provided pointed out, and it partially served to validate the very people who were in their positions as a result of previous inaccurate assessments of the Soviet threat.

Beyond that, much of the hysteria that existed in the USSR at this particular time was due to the feeling that Reagan was on the verge of attacking the Soviets with nukes, a fear that Reagan certainly did nothing to quell with his rhetoric. They were on a defense alert, meaning that if they were attacked by the U.S., they would be ready to send everything they had our way at a moment’s notice, much of which probably would have landed in the Atlantic Ocean anyways. Unless Reagan was on the verge of pushing the Big Red Button, we were not on the verge of war.

102

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Hmmm… I think you might just be throwing words at me rather than thinking through what you are saying. I haven’t slept much, so apologies if this is terse:

  1. & 5) You wrote: "The only thing that would instigate a war between us and China would be an overtly aggressive action on our part toward them. " In your worldview only the US’s actions can lead to war. This is silly.

If the US abandons the East, either because isolationists like you move us there politically or because we have “withered” as you put it, China WILL become more aggressive towards Taiwan.

Your strawman about China=USSR is just that: a strawman.

Your idea that fear of a war between China and Japan or Taiwan is a “doomsday scenario” is absurd. Your faith in trade/globalization is far beyond reasonable. You seem to be (because of ignorance or inappropriate faith in economics?) downplaying the animosity between these nations and the rampant nationalism of these nations. I don’t think that China will go to war with Japan over the Senkaku islands this year (I wasn’t so sure 6 months ago), but only fools would say it is beyond reasonable to see war as a possibility.

[/quote]

  1. Talk about strawmen. Where did I say that only U.S. instigation can lead to war? DId I say that? No. In the case of a potential war with China, U.S. aggression is the most likely action that would occur that could lead to war between the two. It is not the only way that war in this world can happen. If you think that war between China and Japan is at all likely, you are looking too far into the past and not enough into the present-day world in which the two exist. Of course war is a possibility. I never said it wasn’t. I don’t think it will happen and I certainly don’t think it is likely. China wants to fit in, for lack of a better term. They see the way the U.S. and South Korea and Japan have enjoyed prosperity and they know enough from their own history to understand that warfare with their neighbors is not a long-term solution for them anymore. China is hardly a flourishing democracy, but it is light years ahead of the days of Mao and the Cultural Revolution. The people there have a much larger voice in the way their gov’t operates than at any time in recent history and they understand that warfare only brings them more hardships and less chance at prosperity. They are becoming a very materialistic society, and they understand that war may mean more “glory” or whatever, but it also means they get less shit for themselves. This isn’t the China of the Kuomintang vs the CPC anymore. They’re way beyond that stage now.

[/quote]

3a) I quoted directly from you. This is why I don’t think you are actually thinking…just typing.

3b)China/Japan-
Senkaku war possible? Could Asia really go to war over these? | The Economist

  Relations/propaganda: http://www.economist.com/news/china/21578699-government-reins-overly-dramatic-anti-japanese-television-shows-staged-warfare?fb_action_ids=10151490183410888&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=scn%2Ffb_ec%2Fstaged_warfare&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

 You don't have to burn the books, they just remove them: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21574629-how-china-makes-sure-its-internet-abides-rules-cat-and-mouse/print

 Peoples opinions about war: (from the link above) [i]A recent poll suggested that just over half of China�¢??s citizens thought the next few years would see a �¢??military dispute�¢?? with Japan.[/i]

[/quote]

You provide an article from the Economist about the massive Internet censorship that exists in China, and then you turn around and try to support your argument that China and Japan were on the brink of war over the Senkaku Islands by pointing to the majority opinion of Chinese who believed this was the case.

Do you understand why that is a completely ridiculous way to support your argument? The opinion of the Chinese populace means NOTHING on the matter, given that, as you pointed out via the Economist article, they have extremely limited access to basic information. Their opinion may be that they were on the brink of war or that it will happen eventually, but their opinions are extremely ill-informed, as you yourself indicated. I’m sorry, but the opinion of a populace in which many, many people aren’t even aware that there was massive bloodshed in Tiananmen Square and who have never seen the famous picture of the Unknown Man standing in front of the tanks there is hardly something to build an argument from or use to lend any legitimacy to what you are saying.

Obviously it’s you isn’t thinking if you are going to use the opinion of a people who know only what their gov’t tells them to strengthen your point.

Also, I understand that the world is relatively stable, perhaps more so than at any previous time in the last several hundred years. But in a more specific sense, when was the last time that a country was stabilized due to the U.S. gov’t going in and using the same sort of methods that will undoubtedly be used in Syria should we follow the advice of you and others on here? Name one country since WWII where we went in and established a puppet gov’t in the name of stabilizing an area and actually achieved that. You’re absolutely right in saying that we have a pretty stable world. But that stability has NOT been achieved through the methods that will be used in Syria if we go in there and try to do more nation-building.

Iraq is hardly more stable than it was in 2001, and the same can be said for Afghanistan. We certainly didn’t stabilize Vietnam when we started putting money into it in the 1950’s. What are we going to do differently in Syria? I could see your point if you were offering some sort of solution, but you aren’t. You’re simply saying we should go in there for the sake of stabilizing the country. But the methods that you seem to think will work are exactly the ones that have failed all over the continent already. What is going to be different about Syria?[/quote]

Honest questions: Did you read my links above? Not just a quick skim, but actually read them? By the way, there was three not one.

Your post is either a misunderstanding of my position (by focusing on one of many points of information) or an obvious strawman. Either way, I won’t respond to it beyond this.

103

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Pat, I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with concrete evidence that the U.S. was on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets at any point from 1975 onward. The fact that you are accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about regarding the NIE from 1975 and the Team B assessment of that intelligence estimate is clearcut evidence that you are the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Forget about what the average citizen thought at the time. We have the advantage of hindsight and also of knowing what was going on in the gov’t at the time. In 1975 the collective U.S. intelligence community produced its annual NIE, which Team B then contradicted. However, the historiography has shown that Team B was incorrect and that the NIE was correct. The NIE was an analysis built on highly classified intelligence, whereas the Team B analysis was simply a reworking of the NIE by people who operated outside of the intelligence community, hardly a position to make an effective counterargument about the meaning of and evidence behind top-secret intelligence. Donald Rumsfeld was the Sec’y of Defense at the time and responsible for pushing the alternative analysis. Paul Wolfowitz was one of the central members. The net effect of the Team B analysis was to exaggerate and overstate the actual strength and delivery/deterrence capabilities of the USSR, which ultimately led to an increase in arms production for the U.S. military/industrial complex, who was the only entity to gain from the erroneous alternative analysis.
[/quote]
Challenge accepted.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm

Of course these documents are all about the same thing, the 1983 Soviet Nuclear Wars Scare. But you wanted evidence, so here is evidence.

I don’t think you really understood the mindset at the time. Whether the arms increase was necessary or not is irrelevant. What was relevant was the effect it had on the Soviet Union and how it changed the game significantly. You mix that with the Star Wars scare and the Cold War took a significant turn in our favor and had enormous impact on the Soviets, particularly economically. It forced the soviets to scramble and spend tons of money on counter moves, money they did not have.
What’s funny is that STI wasn’t really feasible, but the Soviets did not know that; it scared the shit out of them. It made a significant turn of events that led to it’s fall in 1990. [/quote]

Also, I find it ironic that earlier you dismissed something I said about the CIA because they essentially dropped the ball on WMDs in Iraq and then you turn around and try to use a CIA intelligence analysis to support your assertion that we were on the brink of nuclear war. Furthermore, that analysis happened after many of the higher-ranking analysts and their superiors were installed by the same people in the Reagan administration who were some of the primary architects and/or proponents of Team B’s (erroneous) findings. That analysis is a bit flawed, it is far from definitive, as the link you provided pointed out, and it partially served to validate the very people who were in their positions as a result of previous inaccurate assessments of the Soviet threat.

Beyond that, much of the hysteria that existed in the USSR at this particular time was due to the feeling that Reagan was on the verge of attacking the Soviets with nukes, a fear that Reagan certainly did nothing to quell with his rhetoric. They were on a defense alert, meaning that if they were attacked by the U.S., they would be ready to send everything they had our way at a moment’s notice, much of which probably would have landed in the Atlantic Ocean anyways. Unless Reagan was on the verge of pushing the Big Red Button, we were not on the verge of war.[/quote]

I provided documentation to support my claim of a ‘brink of war scenario’, I was saying niether to or fro with regards to the CIA. It’s one of the sources, I provided 3 lest the you claim the source was invalid, incorrect or otherwise errant. You asked for an example to show prove there was a nuclear scare beyond the year 1975 and I did so. Plain and simple.

The rest of your post is pretty ignorable. The only morons who were afraid of Reagan attacking the Soviets preemptively were really radical left-wing ‘no-nukes’ nut jobs and the soviets in 1983. Regan professed a ‘Peace through Strength’ manta and most of the Republic supported that.

104

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Pat, I challenge you or anyone else to provide me with concrete evidence that the U.S. was on the brink of nuclear war with the Soviets at any point from 1975 onward. The fact that you are accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about regarding the NIE from 1975 and the Team B assessment of that intelligence estimate is clearcut evidence that you are the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Forget about what the average citizen thought at the time. We have the advantage of hindsight and also of knowing what was going on in the gov’t at the time. In 1975 the collective U.S. intelligence community produced its annual NIE, which Team B then contradicted. However, the historiography has shown that Team B was incorrect and that the NIE was correct. The NIE was an analysis built on highly classified intelligence, whereas the Team B analysis was simply a reworking of the NIE by people who operated outside of the intelligence community, hardly a position to make an effective counterargument about the meaning of and evidence behind top-secret intelligence. Donald Rumsfeld was the Sec’y of Defense at the time and responsible for pushing the alternative analysis. Paul Wolfowitz was one of the central members. The net effect of the Team B analysis was to exaggerate and overstate the actual strength and delivery/deterrence capabilities of the USSR, which ultimately led to an increase in arms production for the U.S. military/industrial complex, who was the only entity to gain from the erroneous alternative analysis.
[/quote]
Challenge accepted.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm

Of course these documents are all about the same thing, the 1983 Soviet Nuclear Wars Scare. But you wanted evidence, so here is evidence.

I don’t think you really understood the mindset at the time. Whether the arms increase was necessary or not is irrelevant. What was relevant was the effect it had on the Soviet Union and how it changed the game significantly. You mix that with the Star Wars scare and the Cold War took a significant turn in our favor and had enormous impact on the Soviets, particularly economically. It forced the soviets to scramble and spend tons of money on counter moves, money they did not have.
What’s funny is that STI wasn’t really feasible, but the Soviets did not know that; it scared the shit out of them. It made a significant turn of events that led to it’s fall in 1990. [/quote]

I think you DO understand the mindset at the time, except that it’s the mindset of the public at the time, not the mindset of those who knew the most about what the Soviets were likely to do in a given situation. The people with the most access to intelligence on the Soviets, including the Soviet Russia Division of the CIA, understood that they were very close to collapse regardless of the arms race. If anything, the arms race that developed in the late 1970’s simply served to prop up the Soviet gov’t even longer that it would have if left alone. Arms production floated the Russian economy along for a few years while the “specter” of an American arms buildup allowed the Soviets to further demonize the U.S. while distracting from the reality of their own situation. The 1975 NIE argued that letting the Soviets fall on their own sword rather than provide them with further ways to distract the populace from the nature of the ineffective gov’t was the fastest way to ending their regime. Subsequent information that came from post-Soviet Russia, such as the Mitrokhin Archives, strongly support the conclusions that the NIE reached in 1975.

Communism was a flawed system of gov’t at best. And in the hands of the Soviets it was doomed to fail. By the late 1970’s they simply didn’t need any help from us to come to an end. Most Soviets were simply too uninformed to know anything about the Star Wars program. They were served highly exaggerated propaganda. The ONE thing the Soviets had going for them is that they had WAY more agents within various areas of the American intelligence community (and had enjoyed an overwhelming advantage over the CIA in this respect since at least 20 years before the CIA ever existed) than the U.S. had in Russia. The Russian gov’t probably had a very good idea of what the Star Wars program was really capable of. We do know for sure now that the Soviet gov’t was using the American arms buildup as an excuse to exert tighter controls over its populace and promote a climate of suspicion, which conversely enabled them to justify even longer than they should have their authoritarian regime. “We may be bad, but the Americans are even worse, and if you don’t believe us then why else would they be ramping up their arms production?”

In a country as destitute as most Russians were aware theirs was by that time, it was easy to sell the anti-American angle. It was easy for the Russians to lie to their people about the reasons for the U.S. preparing to come after a broken down nation like what Russia was then. When you’re a broken country like Russia was, the only thing worse to an uneducated, ill-informed populace than the gov’t responsible for such poverty is the country willing to kick you when you’re down with their nuclear-tipped boots.[/quote]

Nobody believed the Soviets, not even the Russians. Considering I am the birth child of escapees from communism, I get it better than this, uh, assessment of yours. It affected me personally. Don’t believe me, ask Dr. Matt, he lived it.

The Soviets bought SDI hook, line and sinker. Their own documents proved it.

105

[quote]pat wrote:

And I agree with his stance, I just think he is moving a little too slow. I get it, it’s a huge gamble and you want to tread as carefully as possible, but I think as some point you have to come up with a decisive plan and implement. You don’t want to be fully reactive.[/quote]

Maybe we don’t have a decisive plan yet. I’ve read we’re (the CIA) stockpiling weapons in Jordan to be released starting in August. We have an “elaborate” vetting process. I hope that is the case. A U.S. source said it would take 5 months before U.S. arms support would have any meaningful difference. That’s not very decisive but might be the best action to take.

Here is a link from an Israeli source agreeing with you about Assad being over: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-disputes-western-view-that-syrian-civil-war-has-swung-assad-s-way.premium-1.532237

Makes sense the way they lay it out. There will be factions of people that will never coexist peacefully or be ruled by Assad again. However, Assad still has substantial support and/or there is still a substantial amount of people who don’t want to turn the country over to jihadists. I doubt there’s a possibility of creating a fair democracy in Syria where every different group is represented and no one is subjected to violence or oppression.

So I don’t know what the best solution is. Probably to just split the country up based on affiliations but I suppose creating new borders and countries isn’t an easy or quick process.

EDIT to include another source saying the Israelis think Assad will win: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/06/12/assad-seen-winning-back-territory-u-s-intel-on-syria-was-totally-wrong/

Also mentions how Israel cautioned NATO about moving against Assad given the radical influence in the opposition group. I wonder who has better regional intelligence between Israel and the U.S.? I’m sure they share a lot but not everything.

106

720×516 61.7 KB

Nope, cannot possibly go wrong. The CIA has my full confidence in such matters.

107

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

And I agree with his stance, I just think he is moving a little too slow. I get it, it’s a huge gamble and you want to tread as carefully as possible, but I think as some point you have to come up with a decisive plan and implement. You don’t want to be fully reactive.[/quote]

Maybe we don’t have a decisive plan yet. I’ve read we’re (the CIA) stockpiling weapons in Jordan to be released starting in August. We have an “elaborate” vetting process. I hope that is the case. A U.S. source said it would take 5 months before U.S. arms support would have any meaningful difference. That’s not very decisive but might be the best action to take.

Here is a link from an Israeli source agreeing with you about Assad being over: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-disputes-western-view-that-syrian-civil-war-has-swung-assad-s-way.premium-1.532237

Makes sense the way they lay it out. There will be factions of people that will never coexist peacefully or be ruled by Assad again. However, Assad still has substantial support and/or there is still a substantial amount of people who don’t want to turn the country over to jihadists. I doubt there’s a possibility of creating a fair democracy in Syria where every different group is represented and no one is subjected to violence or oppression.

So I don’t know what the best solution is. Probably to just split the country up based on affiliations but I suppose creating new borders and countries isn’t an easy or quick process.

EDIT to include another source saying the Israelis think Assad will win: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/06/12/assad-seen-winning-back-territory-u-s-intel-on-syria-was-totally-wrong/

Also mentions how Israel cautioned NATO about moving against Assad given the radical influence in the opposition group. I wonder who has better regional intelligence between Israel and the U.S.? I’m sure they share a lot but not everything.[/quote]

The United States has been moving weapons into Syria since the fall of Gaddafi in Libya. Libyan weapons were being transported to Syria. If America wanted to it could also use a third party to facilitate weapons transfers, let’s say using Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons from a foreign nation and then having them transported to Syria to arm the opposition. It just hasn’t been overt support, probably since Russia is supporting Assad.

Assad is being propped up by the Russians, there’s a good chance he’ll stay in power due to that. Other nations don’t want to openly meddle with Russia’s interests. Beyond doing things for political purposes like arming the “underdog” not much can be done to effectively arm them to combat Assad’s regime. If Assad falling is bad for Israel that doesn’t mean the United States can’t go against their interests, it just means America will increase their aid package.

108

[quote]b89 wrote:

The United States has been moving weapons into Syria since the fall of Gaddafi in Libya. Libyan weapons were being transported to Syria. If America wanted to it could also use a third party to facilitate weapons transfers, let’s say using Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons from a foreign nation and then having them transported to Syria to arm the opposition. It just hasn’t been overt support, probably since Russia is supporting Assad.

Assad is being propped up by the Russians, there’s a good chance he’ll stay in power due to that. Other nations don’t want to openly meddle with Russia’s interests. Beyond doing things for political purposes like arming the “underdog” not much can be done to effectively arm them to combat Assad’s regime. If Assad falling is bad for Israel that doesn’t mean the United States can’t go against their interests, it just means America will increase their aid package.
[/quote]

I wasn’t aware of the stuff in your first paragraph, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I do know that the Saudi’s are constantly and loudly bitching about the U.S. not doing enough for them.

Are you saying America will increase its aid package to Israel, or its aid package to the hypothetically new Syria regime? It seems crazy to me that we would create a problem and then just throw money at it to keep everyone happy.

109

Savages: Syrians behead Christians for helping military, as CIA ships in arms - Washington Times

I saw this video and it’s disturbing and barbaric. I wouldn’t go searching for the video (it’s not in that link). This is why I don’t want to meddle in Syria and support these people. I feel like the public opinion is changing in the U.S. and this is causing our government to waver on decisive action. I hope Obama and Kerry take a calculated approach to this but they prone to fuck-ups.

110

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

The United States has been moving weapons into Syria since the fall of Gaddafi in Libya. Libyan weapons were being transported to Syria. If America wanted to it could also use a third party to facilitate weapons transfers, let’s say using Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons from a foreign nation and then having them transported to Syria to arm the opposition. It just hasn’t been overt support, probably since Russia is supporting Assad.

Assad is being propped up by the Russians, there’s a good chance he’ll stay in power due to that. Other nations don’t want to openly meddle with Russia’s interests. Beyond doing things for political purposes like arming the “underdog” not much can be done to effectively arm them to combat Assad’s regime. If Assad falling is bad for Israel that doesn’t mean the United States can’t go against their interests, it just means America will increase their aid package.
[/quote]

I wasn’t aware of the stuff in your first paragraph, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I do know that the Saudi’s are constantly and loudly bitching about the U.S. not doing enough for them.

Are you saying America will increase its aid package to Israel, or its aid package to the hypothetically new Syria regime? It seems crazy to me that we would create a problem and then just throw money at it to keep everyone happy. [/quote]

It’s because the Assad regime is being supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia hates Iran in pretty much every way possible. They want American support to guarantee Iran and Assad are out and can’t interfere with Saudi Arabia’s power and influence in the region.

If something were to happen and it wasn’t mutually beneficial for both America and Israel then the issue would probably be resolved by an increase in their aid package. That’s how most things go, it just keeps countries playing ball. I’m not so sure America would give anything to a new regime in Syria, which will come if America gets behind the opposition, because it’s really just a lot of AQ Iraq guys fighting alongside a dwarfed Free Syrian Army. They’d just receive weapons and some American support like enforcing a no fly zone or bombing key sites to assist them with a victory.

111

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

The United States has been moving weapons into Syria since the fall of Gaddafi in Libya. Libyan weapons were being transported to Syria. If America wanted to it could also use a third party to facilitate weapons transfers, let’s say using Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons from a foreign nation and then having them transported to Syria to arm the opposition. It just hasn’t been overt support, probably since Russia is supporting Assad.

Assad is being propped up by the Russians, there’s a good chance he’ll stay in power due to that. Other nations don’t want to openly meddle with Russia’s interests. Beyond doing things for political purposes like arming the “underdog” not much can be done to effectively arm them to combat Assad’s regime. If Assad falling is bad for Israel that doesn’t mean the United States can’t go against their interests, it just means America will increase their aid package.
[/quote]

I wasn’t aware of the stuff in your first paragraph, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I do know that the Saudi’s are constantly and loudly bitching about the U.S. not doing enough for them.

Are you saying America will increase its aid package to Israel, or its aid package to the hypothetically new Syria regime? It seems crazy to me that we would create a problem and then just throw money at it to keep everyone happy. [/quote]

It’s because the Assad regime is being supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia hates Iran in pretty much every way possible. They want American support to guarantee Iran and Assad are out and can’t interfere with Saudi Arabia’s power and influence in the region.

If something were to happen and it wasn’t mutually beneficial for both America and Israel then the issue would probably be resolved by an increase in their aid package. That’s how most things go, it just keeps countries playing ball. I’m not so sure America would give anything to a new regime in Syria, which will come if America gets behind the opposition, because it’s really just a lot of AQ Iraq guys fighting alongside a dwarfed Free Syrian Army. They’d just receive weapons and some American support like enforcing a no fly zone or bombing key sites to assist them with a victory.

[/quote]

Oh I know about Saudi Arabia and Iran’s hostility toward each other. Their mutual hostility surpasses any hostility toward Israel, and I think that isn’t a well known dynamic to Westerners. My opinion is we have no obligation to do anyone’s bidding in the Middle East (aside from Israel which is in the law) even if Iran is a stated enemy and Saudi is a pseudo-ally. If the Saudi’s are so horrified with what is going on than they can send in their own troops. I get irritated when other countries think they can bully us into a war that doesn’t concern us. Assad winning isn’t going to give Iran regional hegemony.

If America exerts real influence to ensure Assad’s take down, I think we’re going to have to do more than just give Israel more money. My guess is a new regime will be very anti-American and anti-Israel. No one is going to be thanking us in Syria that’s for sure.

112

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh I know. I am just implying that would be the best possible outcome for us. I think the most realistic goal is to have some sort of established relations with the new government. The whole ‘keep your enemies closer’ thing. They won’t ever like us, they will never be our friends but we can have enough influence to have them in a situation of ‘do no harm’.[/quote]

That would be a good solution if it had some prospects of success. Infortunately we are taking that approach with the Sunni funamentalists that started all of this in out attempt to crush Assad, Iran and their proxies. Whilst propping up “pro-Western” Sunni governments in the oil rich states we are also allowing to some extent the spread of Wahabism and radical Sunni mosques as well as Sunni terrorism and their foreign policy objectives, the Afghan Taliban, the plethora of Islamist groups in Pakistan and throughout the MUslim world.

But where does having an alliance end and appeasement begin? Also, it must be kept in mind that our Sunni “friends” mostly have a very slim hold of power with a radicalised populace clamouring for war. Sanctions are unlikely to cripple their war effort as they are expanding their military and militias now on our dollar and have a grip on half the world’s oil and sea trade routes. The Sunnis are obviously plotting how the downfall of Assad and Iran can allow them to consolidate their militias across the region and gain tactical advantage against the West.

Fortunately their military is no match for any of the super powers however China controls access to the earth’s ‘rare earth metals’ which are vital to modern warfare and some say gives them the status of most powerful country on earth.

113

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Fortunately their military is no match for any of the super powers however China controls access to the earth’s ‘rare earth metals’ which are vital to modern warfare and some say gives them the status of most powerful country on earth.[/quote]

Superpowers? As in plural? I’m afraid that only the U.S. qualifies as such. China and Russia are currently categorized across the board as only great powers. You’d be hard pressed to find a reputable international relations theorist who would contend otherwise. However, they are regarded as potential superpowers in the 21st century, along with India, the EU, and Brazil.

114

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
Savages: Syrians behead Christians for helping military, as CIA ships in arms - Washington Times

I saw this video and it’s disturbing and barbaric. I wouldn’t go searching for the video (it’s not in that link). This is why I don’t want to meddle in Syria and support these people. I feel like the public opinion is changing in the U.S. and this is causing our government to waver on decisive action. I hope Obama and Kerry take a calculated approach to this but they prone to fuck-ups.[/quote]

Yeah, no thanks. Why am I supposed to support helping one set of psychos replace another?

Edit: I had posted a link to the video our honorable rebels decapitating the priest and others. It seems to have been removed, understandably.

115

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

The United States has been moving weapons into Syria since the fall of Gaddafi in Libya. Libyan weapons were being transported to Syria. If America wanted to it could also use a third party to facilitate weapons transfers, let’s say using Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons from a foreign nation and then having them transported to Syria to arm the opposition. It just hasn’t been overt support, probably since Russia is supporting Assad.

Assad is being propped up by the Russians, there’s a good chance he’ll stay in power due to that. Other nations don’t want to openly meddle with Russia’s interests. Beyond doing things for political purposes like arming the “underdog” not much can be done to effectively arm them to combat Assad’s regime. If Assad falling is bad for Israel that doesn’t mean the United States can’t go against their interests, it just means America will increase their aid package.
[/quote]

I wasn’t aware of the stuff in your first paragraph, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I do know that the Saudi’s are constantly and loudly bitching about the U.S. not doing enough for them.

Are you saying America will increase its aid package to Israel, or its aid package to the hypothetically new Syria regime? It seems crazy to me that we would create a problem and then just throw money at it to keep everyone happy. [/quote]

It’s because the Assad regime is being supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia hates Iran in pretty much every way possible. They want American support to guarantee Iran and Assad are out and can’t interfere with Saudi Arabia’s power and influence in the region.

If something were to happen and it wasn’t mutually beneficial for both America and Israel then the issue would probably be resolved by an increase in their aid package. That’s how most things go, it just keeps countries playing ball. I’m not so sure America would give anything to a new regime in Syria, which will come if America gets behind the opposition, because it’s really just a lot of AQ Iraq guys fighting alongside a dwarfed Free Syrian Army. They’d just receive weapons and some American support like enforcing a no fly zone or bombing key sites to assist them with a victory.

[/quote]

Oh I know about Saudi Arabia and Iran’s hostility toward each other. Their mutual hostility surpasses any hostility toward Israel, and I think that isn’t a well known dynamic to Westerners. My opinion is we have no obligation to do anyone’s bidding in the Middle East (aside from Israel which is in the law) even if Iran is a stated enemy and Saudi is a pseudo-ally. If the Saudi’s are so horrified with what is going on than they can send in their own troops. I get irritated when other countries think they can bully us into a war that doesn’t concern us. Assad winning isn’t going to give Iran regional hegemony.

If America exerts real influence to ensure Assad’s take down, I think we’re going to have to do more than just give Israel more money. My guess is a new regime will be very anti-American and anti-Israel. No one is going to be thanking us in Syria that’s for sure.[/quote]

I think assisting Saudi Arabia really just boils down to being the ways of the world. To maintain a relationship with them a nation is going to have to play ball with them, playing ball with them is helping them increase their power and influence within the region. Iran “winning” after US involvement begins could be a threat though. Actually, nations being so weak on Iran’s nuclear program is the more significant threat. Nothing will ever happen to it though, not unless Israel really takes it into their own hands.

It’ll most likely end up like Libya when Assad falls. However, I think the CIA wont be too active there due to the Benghazi aftermath. That or the politicians will make a greater commitment to the boots on the ground there and actually try to ensure their safety.

116

[quote]Revanchist wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Fortunately their military is no match for any of the super powers however China controls access to the earth’s ‘rare earth metals’ which are vital to modern warfare and some say gives them the status of most powerful country on earth.[/quote]

Superpowers? As in plural? I’m afraid that only the U.S. qualifies as such. China and Russia are currently categorized across the board as only great powers. You’d be hard pressed to find a reputable international relations theorist who would contend otherwise. However, they are regarded as potential superpowers in the 21st century, along with India, the EU, and Brazil.[/quote]

Okay if you want to get technical ‘emerging superpower.’

117

[quote]pat wrote:

I am actually all for setting up a puppet government over there. If we intervene, it has to be to the point we plant our flag. We cannot let the rebels run the show, it will be a theocracy much like the Taliban, we cannot support Assad, he’s all but done. So a new government is going to take effect, we have to intervene to the point where we can ensure they will do no harm to us or our interests. [/quote]

Good plan. Can’t see what could possibly go wrong. Hey, it worked in Iraq.

118

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Revanchist wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Fortunately their military is no match for any of the super powers however China controls access to the earth’s ‘rare earth metals’ which are vital to modern warfare and some say gives them the status of most powerful country on earth.[/quote]

Superpowers? As in plural? I’m afraid that only the U.S. qualifies as such. China and Russia are currently categorized across the board as only great powers. You’d be hard pressed to find a reputable international relations theorist who would contend otherwise. However, they are regarded as potential superpowers in the 21st century, along with India, the EU, and Brazil.[/quote]

Okay if you want to get technical ‘emerging superpower.’[/quote]

Shall we then say that China, India and the EU are all superpowers, but only the United States is a superduperpower?

119

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
Nope, cannot possibly go wrong. The CIA has my full confidence in such matters.[/quote]

Heh. My earlier post was practically the same as this one, down to the snarky tone.

I like the cartoon. I just noticed that the little black Taliban ball’s eyebrows are the Arabic word “Jihad!” and its mouth is the words “al-jihad fisabilillah” or “War in the cause of God”. Very clever and subtle. Where is that cartoon from?

120

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
Nope, cannot possibly go wrong. The CIA has my full confidence in such matters.[/quote]

Heh. My earlier post was practically the same as this one, down to the snarky tone.

I like the cartoon. I just noticed that the little black Taliban ball’s eyebrows are the Arabic word “Jihad!” and its mouth is the words “al-jihad fisabilillah” or “War in the cause of God”. Very clever and subtle. Where is that cartoon from?[/quote]

Im with you guys, the CIA and America’s trustworthy government would never lead us down the wrong road.