whilst everyone is worried about a talentless sell out with shaky morals, US, UK and France are strongly suggestive of war in Syria. Where is the uproar? the US government funds the rebels who were reported to be the ones doing the chemical warfare and then goes around acting like a bastion of morality saying that the Assad regime is unacceptable.
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
Where is the uproar? [/quote]
The anti-war left who protested under Bush are currently totally cool with the war because Obama.
The pro-war right under Bush are waiting to get all indignant and explain why this is different.
I’m not a foreign policy wonk, so I’ve got little to say except I fully expect to make fun of those in camp A as much as possible, so I hope those and camp B fail at showing how it is different.
This situation is big. Syria could go up in a powder keg blast pretty soon, and I’m going to be watching with interest.
The best thing for the U.S. is to back the fuck off and let Assad kill everyone and anyone he wants. He may have the backing of Iran, but since when was that inherently not in our interest? The guy is a loony and all that, but I’d rather have that loony in charge rather than the hardcore, fundamental Islamists that are quickly overwhelming the ranks of the “rebels”. This situation is way more clearcut than, say, the situation with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If we start funding the rebels, we’re essentially funding the people that will turn right the fuck around and start using that ill-gotten capital to fund terrorism across the Middle East and perhaps even here in America. People hear Iran and automatically assume that whatever side is opposite of them is the best side for the U.S. to side with.
Syria is not the geopolitical/strategic lynchpin that many argue it is. The whole “today Syria, tomorrow the entire Middle East” attitude is not so much ignorant as it is overly alarmist. Regardless of what side the U.S. funds when the dust settles there will be an ugly regime left standing. The reality is that the U.S. can either hope for a ruthless regime with the backing of Shi’ites and Iranians, or we can hope for an Islamic fundamentalist regime backed by al Qaeda. I’ll take the former rather than the latter. There’s a reason that Russia is also backing Assad. Many who are nostalgic for the days of the Cold War would like to argue that Russia is doing this primarily in the hopes of destabilizing the U.S. I think the reality is much closer to the inverse, that Russia does not want to invite further instability in a region so close to their own border. A ruthless government like Assad’s is actually preferable to the inevitable lawless regime that could change any number of times similar to what is going on in Egypt (another situation we are on the wrong side of regarding the army vs the Brotherhood there). I’ll take a madman capable of anything over some Islamist group with no clear leader, all of whom are capable of anything. One madman is preferable to a whole slew of them.
The war will most likely happen for the following reasons:
- War makes money.
- War controls population.
- War distracts from government corruption.
- The Middle East has oil.
- Bigger things are going on behind the scenes than just what is at face value.
I can’t wait for Push to come in here and say that we can’t just sit on our hands and let the area devolve, that we have to do something! That’s the attitude he always mocks whenever some sort of gun-control thread pops up.
Also, I didn’t read Chushin’s post until after I posted, stupid mistake.
Chushin, I believe it depends on where you read that tells a particular story. From my understanding, Assad is/was winning. Why resort to chemical warfare when you know that will bring in outside influence on behalf of the rebels for “humanity” sake? Its kind of like winning a fair match of in wrestling and then getting a chair to “finish the job,” getting disqualified by the referree and then 3 of the guy’s buddies backstage to beat your ass. Why not just continue winning?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The best thing for the U.S. is to back the fuck off and let Assad kill everyone and anyone he wants. He may have the backing of Iran, but since when was that inherently not in our interest? The guy is a loony and all that, but I’d rather have that loony in charge rather than the hardcore, fundamental Islamists that are quickly overwhelming the ranks of the “rebels”. This situation is way more clearcut than, say, the situation with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If we start funding the rebels, we’re essentially funding the people that will turn right the fuck around and start using that ill-gotten capital to fund terrorism across the Middle East and perhaps even here in America. People hear Iran and automatically assume that whatever side is opposite of them is the best side for the U.S. to side with.
Syria is not the geopolitical/strategic lynchpin that many argue it is. The whole “today Syria, tomorrow the entire Middle East” attitude is not so much ignorant as it is overly alarmist. Regardless of what side the U.S. funds when the dust settles there will be an ugly regime left standing. The reality is that the U.S. can either hope for a ruthless regime with the backing of Shi’ites and Iranians, or we can hope for an Islamic fundamentalist regime backed by al Qaeda. I’ll take the former rather than the latter. There’s a reason that Russia is also backing Assad. Many who are nostalgic for the days of the Cold War would like to argue that Russia is doing this primarily in the hopes of destabilizing the U.S. I think the reality is much closer to the inverse, that Russia does not want to invite further instability in a region so close to their own border. A ruthless government like Assad’s is actually preferable to the inevitable lawless regime that could change any number of times similar to what is going on in Egypt (another situation we are on the wrong side of regarding the army vs the Brotherhood there). I’ll take a madman capable of anything over some Islamist group with no clear leader, all of whom are capable of anything. One madman is preferable to a whole slew of them.
[/quote]
I might or might not quibble with a few of the details, but for the most part “ditto”.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Also, I didn’t read Chushin’s post until after I posted, stupid mistake.
Chushin, I believe it depends on where you read that tells a particular story. From my understanding, Assad is/was winning. Why resort to chemical warfare when you know that will bring in outside influence on behalf of the rebels for “humanity” sake? Its kind of like winning a fair match of in wrestling and then getting a chair to “finish the job,” getting disqualified by the referree and then 3 of the guy’s buddies backstage to beat your ass. Why not just continue winning?[/quote]
War is like a knife fight. There aren’t any rules in either one. Not for those who have a commitment to winning the war at all costs. And if one is going to go to war, there really is no point in NOT going all the way and using anything and everything at one’s disposal. I don’t like it anymore than anyone else does, but that is the reality of war. We, the U.S., are fools for limiting ourselves the way we do in all of our engagements. What’s the point of going to war without a total commitment to victory at all costs? I don’t want to draw an inappropriate comparison between war and sports, but I seriously wonder how many people who are pissed off about the use of chemical weapons in warfare also find it hypocritical, pointless, whatever that we ban athletes from using things like PEDs in search of a better chance at victory.
DB:
(Always good to see you posting…!)
It seems to me that in the Middle East…for there to be any sense of “stability”…there is some group or group that has to be literally crushed by another.
That is a damn sad state of affairs.
Mufasa
Some places on the planet just cannot function democratically. It’s almost like the whole ME and North Africa is hardwired to choose brutal regimes of one ilk or another. And as far as the West goes, brutal military secular regimes are our best bet in the region.
So I say let Assad be, support the new military government in Egypt and let the the Islamic winter that followed the Arab spring be crushed.
I’m with Quasitech
assad wasnt winning…far from it. he is barely holding the capital.
the strike was against strategic rebel holding with tons of sunni civilian as casualties
if you knew the history of his clan you would understand how far they will push boundaries to remain in control
his dad exterminated more than 40k people within a week, not to mention torture rape and fear tactics they commonly use
The US needed to act much sooner. If there ever was a legitimate reason to interfere in the ME, Syria is it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The best thing for the U.S. is to back the fuck off and let Assad kill everyone and anyone he wants. He may have the backing of Iran, but since when was that inherently not in our interest? The guy is a loony and all that, but I’d rather have that loony in charge rather than the hardcore, fundamental Islamists that are quickly overwhelming the ranks of the “rebels”. This situation is way more clearcut than, say, the situation with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If we start funding the rebels, we’re essentially funding the people that will turn right the fuck around and start using that ill-gotten capital to fund terrorism across the Middle East and perhaps even here in America. People hear Iran and automatically assume that whatever side is opposite of them is the best side for the U.S. to side with.
Syria is not the geopolitical/strategic lynchpin that many argue it is. The whole “today Syria, tomorrow the entire Middle East” attitude is not so much ignorant as it is overly alarmist. Regardless of what side the U.S. funds when the dust settles there will be an ugly regime left standing. The reality is that the U.S. can either hope for a ruthless regime with the backing of Shi’ites and Iranians, or we can hope for an Islamic fundamentalist regime backed by al Qaeda. I’ll take the former rather than the latter. There’s a reason that Russia is also backing Assad. Many who are nostalgic for the days of the Cold War would like to argue that Russia is doing this primarily in the hopes of destabilizing the U.S. I think the reality is much closer to the inverse, that Russia does not want to invite further instability in a region so close to their own border. A ruthless government like Assad’s is actually preferable to the inevitable lawless regime that could change any number of times similar to what is going on in Egypt (another situation we are on the wrong side of regarding the army vs the Brotherhood there). I’ll take a madman capable of anything over some Islamist group with no clear leader, all of whom are capable of anything. One madman is preferable to a whole slew of them.[/quote]
Tend to agree. Not really a good side in this.
FWIW, these WMDs are the very WMDs trucked from Iraq that everyone claimed did not exist.
Containing this fight to Syria is the key; no way to stop it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The best thing for the U.S. is to back the fuck off and let Assad kill everyone and anyone he wants. He may have the backing of Iran, but since when was that inherently not in our interest? The guy is a loony and all that, but I’d rather have that loony in charge rather than the hardcore, fundamental Islamists that are quickly overwhelming the ranks of the “rebels”. [/quote]
Yep
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The best thing for the U.S. is to back the fuck off and let Assad kill everyone and anyone he wants. He may have the backing of Iran, but since when was that inherently not in our interest? The guy is a loony and all that, but I’d rather have that loony in charge rather than the hardcore, fundamental Islamists that are quickly overwhelming the ranks of the “rebels”. This situation is way more clearcut than, say, the situation with the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. If we start funding the rebels, we’re essentially funding the people that will turn right the fuck around and start using that ill-gotten capital to fund terrorism across the Middle East and perhaps even here in America. People hear Iran and automatically assume that whatever side is opposite of them is the best side for the U.S. to side with.
Syria is not the geopolitical/strategic lynchpin that many argue it is. The whole “today Syria, tomorrow the entire Middle East” attitude is not so much ignorant as it is overly alarmist. Regardless of what side the U.S. funds when the dust settles there will be an ugly regime left standing. The reality is that the U.S. can either hope for a ruthless regime with the backing of Shi’ites and Iranians, or we can hope for an Islamic fundamentalist regime backed by al Qaeda. I’ll take the former rather than the latter. There’s a reason that Russia is also backing Assad. Many who are nostalgic for the days of the Cold War would like to argue that Russia is doing this primarily in the hopes of destabilizing the U.S. I think the reality is much closer to the inverse, that Russia does not want to invite further instability in a region so close to their own border. A ruthless government like Assad’s is actually preferable to the inevitable lawless regime that could change any number of times similar to what is going on in Egypt (another situation we are on the wrong side of regarding the army vs the Brotherhood there). I’ll take a madman capable of anything over some Islamist group with no clear leader, all of whom are capable of anything. One madman is preferable to a whole slew of them.[/quote]
Tend to agree. Not really a good side in this.
FWIW, these WMDs are the very WMDs trucked from Iraq that everyone claimed did not exist.
Containing this fight to Syria is the key; no way to stop it.[/quote]
We have Saudi Arabia backing the rebels and Iran backing Asad. This is a Muslim Civil War. We just need to contain this Civil War and keep Israel Safe. Either side starts loosing and they will change the attention to Israel. The only way to Unite both sides of the war is to get Israel involved.
I am thinking though that we need to launch some cruise and tomahawk missiles to destroy the large caches of chemical weapons. Do not take sides, but make sure neither side has control of the WMDs. That is just my $0.02.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Some places on the planet just cannot function democratically. It’s almost like the whole ME and North Africa is hardwired to choose brutal regimes of one ilk or another. And as far as the West goes, brutal military secular regimes are our best bet in the region.
So I say let Assad be, support the new military government in Egypt and let the the Islamic winter that followed the Arab spring be crushed.[/quote]
I like your handle…
The countdown begins.
I don’t think entering a religious conflict that is regionally syrian but with fighters from as far as Russia and China flying in as well as Canada and the United States to support Shi’a or Sunni. Your not going to stop it just by bombing them from a distance. The troops that go in will be stuck in there for years getting shot at from both sides. Plus its a little more complicated then just 2 sides.
Now how Iran China and Russia responds will be interesting.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
We have Saudi Arabia backing the rebels and Iran backing Asad. This is a Muslim Civil War. We just need to contain this Civil War and keep Israel Safe. Either side starts loosing and they will change the attention to Israel. The only way to Unite both sides of the war is to get Israel involved.
I am thinking though that we need to launch some cruise and tomahawk missiles to destroy the large caches of chemical weapons. Do not take sides, but make sure neither side has control of the WMDs. That is just my $0.02.
[/quote]
I agree totally with this. Anyone that thinks Obama is itching to get involved in this clusterfuck is loopy. What could be the upside?