Syria on the Brink

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I was going to post the story, but there are to many to choose from. The fact that the U.S. closed the embassy is telling.
Isolationists will say, “It’s not our problem.”
The moral /ethical issue creeps in that you cannot ignore. If you know they are committing mass slaughters on their own people and you have the power to stop it, do you?
Problem number 1, Syria is not poor and is well armed. Problem number 2 is they are good buddies with Russia and China.

However, they are slaughtering their populous and we have the power to put an end to it, but at what cost?

Discuss.

2

[quote]pat wrote:
I was going to post the story, but there are to many to choose from. The fact that the U.S. closed the embassy is telling.
Isolationists will say, “It’s not our problem.”
The moral /ethical issue creeps in that you cannot ignore. If you know they are committing mass slaughters on their own people and you have the power to stop it, do you?
Problem number 1, Syria is not poor and is well armed. Problem number 2 is they are good buddies with Russia and China.

However, they are slaughtering their populous and we have the power to put an end to it, but at what cost?

Discuss.[/quote]

I don’t know…I am kinda sick of the U.S. playing the worlds police-man.

If we had a budget surplus…maybe. But the sheer cost of another conflict seems to be just too much.

3

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I was going to post the story, but there are to many to choose from. The fact that the U.S. closed the embassy is telling.
Isolationists will say, “It’s not our problem.”
The moral /ethical issue creeps in that you cannot ignore. If you know they are committing mass slaughters on their own people and you have the power to stop it, do you?
Problem number 1, Syria is not poor and is well armed. Problem number 2 is they are good buddies with Russia and China.

However, they are slaughtering their populous and we have the power to put an end to it, but at what cost?

Discuss.[/quote]

I don’t know…I am kinda sick of the U.S. playing the worlds police-man.

If we had a budget surplus…maybe. But the sheer cost of another conflict seems to be just too much.[/quote]

Well, that’s the problem. Let’s say you know your neighbor is physically abusing his wife and kids. I am not talking the blurry line kind of stuff I am talking he beats the shit out of his family. Now let’s say you have the power to put an end to it, say by calling the police or something. What do you do? Technically it’s none of your business but can you sit around and allow it to happen when you have the power to stop it?

Same thing here, can we allow the Syrian government to continually kill thousands upon thousands of people unchecked? Where do we draw the line?

4

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I was going to post the story, but there are to many to choose from. The fact that the U.S. closed the embassy is telling.
Isolationists will say, “It’s not our problem.”
The moral /ethical issue creeps in that you cannot ignore. If you know they are committing mass slaughters on their own people and you have the power to stop it, do you?
Problem number 1, Syria is not poor and is well armed. Problem number 2 is they are good buddies with Russia and China.

However, they are slaughtering their populous and we have the power to put an end to it, but at what cost?

Discuss.[/quote]

I don’t know…I am kinda sick of the U.S. playing the worlds police-man.

If we had a budget surplus…maybe. But the sheer cost of another conflict seems to be just too much.[/quote]

Well, that’s the problem. Let’s say you know your neighbor is physically abusing his wife and kids. I am not talking the blurry line kind of stuff I am talking he beats the shit out of his family. Now let’s say you have the power to put an end to it, say by calling the police or something. What do you do? Technically it’s none of your business but can you sit around and allow it to happen when you have the power to stop it?

Same thing here, can we allow the Syrian government to continually kill thousands upon thousands of people unchecked? Where do we draw the line?[/quote]

You cannot draw a line…period.

There are many, MANY countries who oppress and kill their populace…we cannot stop every incident.

I mean, using your example…let’s say to stop your neighbor you have to stay home from work, and lose your job.

Is it still worth it when you cannot feed your kids?

5

I miss his audacity too.

6

Having said that I wouldn’t trust any of those guys in the photo as far as I could throw them. And Bush was no strategic thinker but when he started talking about “evil doers” and his eyes glassed over Putin wasn’t as eager to play chicken. If the Ruskies thought we meant business they wouldn’t be in Syria.

7

The perception of an American president giggling with his finger hovering over “the button” (Ronbo Raygun)) is not a bad thing. I will say again. If we weren’t wasting trillions on utterly deleterious, self destructive social welfare programs we would have plenty of money to actually police the entire globe. Maybe two.

8

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The perception of an American president giggling with his finger hovering over “the button” (Ronbo Raygun)) is not a bad thing. I will say again. If we weren’t wasting trillions on utterly deleterious, self destructive social welfare programs we would have plenty of money to actually police the entire globe. Maybe two.[/quote]

My point is that if people think you’re serious they won’t push you. There would be no need for ‘intervention’ if Putin/Assad believed we had the resolve and will to bomb the Syrian regime and its infrastructure to smithereens. “Blowback” is not the cause of anything. Weakness is the cause. We really have brought all this on ourselves.

9

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I was going to post the story, but there are to many to choose from. The fact that the U.S. closed the embassy is telling.
Isolationists will say, “It’s not our problem.”
The moral /ethical issue creeps in that you cannot ignore. If you know they are committing mass slaughters on their own people and you have the power to stop it, do you?
Problem number 1, Syria is not poor and is well armed. Problem number 2 is they are good buddies with Russia and China.

However, they are slaughtering their populous and we have the power to put an end to it, but at what cost?

Discuss.[/quote]

I don’t know…I am kinda sick of the U.S. playing the worlds police-man.

If we had a budget surplus…maybe. But the sheer cost of another conflict seems to be just too much.[/quote]

Well, that’s the problem. Let’s say you know your neighbor is physically abusing his wife and kids. I am not talking the blurry line kind of stuff I am talking he beats the shit out of his family. Now let’s say you have the power to put an end to it, say by calling the police or something. What do you do? Technically it’s none of your business but can you sit around and allow it to happen when you have the power to stop it?

Same thing here, can we allow the Syrian government to continually kill thousands upon thousands of people unchecked? Where do we draw the line?[/quote]

You cannot draw a line…period.

There are many, MANY countries who oppress and kill their populace…we cannot stop every incident.

I mean, using your example…let’s say to stop your neighbor you have to stay home from work, and lose your job.

Is it still worth it when you cannot feed your kids?[/quote]

Well, that is a good point. There is a strategic side to this story too. Where as the Congo situation had none. Africa really gets the shit end of the stick.

10

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I miss his audacity too.[/quote]

In hindsight I can say most definitely he wasn’t as dumb as people thought. The whole coolness of the Russian situation was brought on by Putin, not Bush. As evidenced by the recent finger that the Russians gave us, I would say that whole “Reset” button bullshit can be categorized as an epic fail.
I mean we can even get the Russians to admit that Al Assad is a naughty noo-noo, then well, I would say relations ain’t great. I mean, if they are picking the Syrians over the U.S. in this obvious of a situation, then well, we didn’t reset shit.

11

The Russians aren’t going to let Assad go any time soon. As good as it will be for that region for Assad to go it might be a really good idea to let that slaughter go on. It will show all the America hating, shit talkers, what we are up against.

Sure a lot of people are going to die. But at the end of the day I think their sacrifice will be worth it, just so the sensibilities won’t be offended that America got involved. I’m sure Orion will be pleased.

12

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I miss his audacity too.[/quote]

In hindsight I can say most definitely he wasn’t as dumb as people thought. The whole coolness of the Russian situation was brought on by Putin, not Bush. As evidenced by the recent finger that the Russians gave us, I would say that whole “Reset” button bullshit can be categorized as an epic fail.
I mean we can even get the Russians to admit that Al Assad is a naughty noo-noo, then well, I would say relations ain’t great. I mean, if they are picking the Syrians over the U.S. in this obvious of a situation, then well, we didn’t reset shit.[/quote]

I think the fact that Russian business has invested ten’s of billions of dollars in Syria is the driving factor.

Business runs the Russian government.

13

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I miss his audacity too.[/quote]

In hindsight I can say most definitely he wasn’t as dumb as people thought. The whole coolness of the Russian situation was brought on by Putin, not Bush. As evidenced by the recent finger that the Russians gave us, I would say that whole “Reset” button bullshit can be categorized as an epic fail.
I mean we can even get the Russians to admit that Al Assad is a naughty noo-noo, then well, I would say relations ain’t great. I mean, if they are picking the Syrians over the U.S. in this obvious of a situation, then well, we didn’t reset shit.[/quote]

I think the fact that Russian business has invested ten’s of billions of dollars in Syria is the driving factor.

Business runs the Russian government.[/quote]

Putin runs the Russian government, and their assets won’t be worth shit if the situation devolves into civil war. The situation is getting more dire…
If we do send bombs, I say we hit russian and chinese assets first, then they can quit whining about them.

14

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I miss his audacity too.[/quote]

In hindsight I can say most definitely he wasn’t as dumb as people thought. The whole coolness of the Russian situation was brought on by Putin, not Bush. As evidenced by the recent finger that the Russians gave us, I would say that whole “Reset” button bullshit can be categorized as an epic fail.
I mean we can even get the Russians to admit that Al Assad is a naughty noo-noo, then well, I would say relations ain’t great. I mean, if they are picking the Syrians over the U.S. in this obvious of a situation, then well, we didn’t reset shit.[/quote]

I think the fact that Russian business has invested ten’s of billions of dollars in Syria is the driving factor.

Business runs the Russian government.[/quote]

Putin runs the Russian government, and their assets won’t be worth shit if the situation devolves into civil war. The situation is getting more dire…
If we do send bombs, I say we hit russian and chinese assets first, then they can quit whining about them.[/quote]

The Russians want the status quo in Syria…they will veto any U.N. Security Council resolution for multi-national response in Syria.

The last thing the U.S. wants to do is get involved in another conflict with elections coming up…so nothing happens.

Putin rules because the business elite allow him to do so…Russia is more corrupt than mexico.

15

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
We really have brought all this on ourselves.[/quote]

damn straight, goes all the way back to doing nothing when the bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Had we struck there, I doubt they would have the balls to stand up to us now.

16

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I miss his audacity too.[/quote]

In hindsight I can say most definitely he wasn’t as dumb as people thought. The whole coolness of the Russian situation was brought on by Putin, not Bush. As evidenced by the recent finger that the Russians gave us, I would say that whole “Reset” button bullshit can be categorized as an epic fail.
I mean we can even get the Russians to admit that Al Assad is a naughty noo-noo, then well, I would say relations ain’t great. I mean, if they are picking the Syrians over the U.S. in this obvious of a situation, then well, we didn’t reset shit.[/quote]

I think the fact that Russian business has invested ten’s of billions of dollars in Syria is the driving factor.

Business runs the Russian government.[/quote]

Putin runs the Russian government, and their assets won’t be worth shit if the situation devolves into civil war. The situation is getting more dire…
If we do send bombs, I say we hit russian and chinese assets first, then they can quit whining about them.[/quote]

The Russians want the status quo in Syria…they will veto any U.N. Security Council resolution for multi-national response in Syria.

The last thing the U.S. wants to do is get involved in another conflict with elections coming up…so nothing happens.

Putin rules because the business elite allow him to do so…Russia is more corrupt than mexico.[/quote]

Whether the U.S. wants to do something or not I don’t think is an issue. We may not have a choice. It depends on who does what and how much blood is flowing. We launched on Libya for less.

17

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a clear and unified message coming out of their meeting in Washington, D.C. Monday: They are looking for a political solution in Syria and won’t consider putting international troops there unless the Syrian regime agrees…Clinton said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the State Department accuses of murdering civilians, would have to agree first.

18

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a clear and unified message coming out of their meeting in Washington, D.C. Monday: They are looking for a political solution in Syria and won’t consider putting international troops there unless the Syrian regime agrees…Clinton said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the State Department accuses of murdering civilians, would have to agree first.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/13/clinton_no_troops_in_syria_without_assad_s_consent[/quote]

Well that’s just fantastically, mind-bottlingly (yes, bottled) DUMB. Yeah, let’s ask the massacring almost genocidal criminal’s permission to discipline/intervene. I’m sure he’ll say “yes”.

19

I just can’t understand this administration. I also noticed today in the 2013 budget an $800 Million earmark for the Arab Spring countries and the continuance of aid to Egypt.

20

'An Al Qaeda affiliate is “extending its reach into Syria,” possibly infiltrating the opposition as Al Qaeda’s leader publicly endorses the anti-Assad movement. Yet Iran supposedly has consummated a “shotgun marriage” with Al Qaeda and is releasing Al Qaeda prisoners, in spite of its feelings for the Assad regime.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the situation is “curious.”

“(Iran has) a lot at stake in keeping that regime in power, and yet, Al Qaeda has apparently been carrying out attacks in Syria against the regime,” Bolton said.

But he cited speculation that “this is really a double game - that Iran and Al Qaeda are cooperating to infiltrate the opposition.”

Bolton said Iran’s interest clearly is in preserving the Assad regime, and that the country is “prepared to shed a lot of Syrian blood” to achieve that. “It wouldn’t surprise me that they would turn to almost anybody for assistance to accomplish that objective,” he said.

Source: Al Qaeda influence complicates US approach to Syria | Fox News

Wahabist, Saudi/Qatari-backed Syrian Sheikh Adnan al-Aroor.