Syria again - your solutions?

[BasketCase]

Yea spending a few hundred billion more on nation building sounds like a wise investment in the current economic climate, especially since our current nation building project in Afghanistan is going so well.

And clearly what we did to the taliban, Saddam, and Gaddafi really scared dictators like Assad, Im sure if we do it ONE more time the lesson will finally be taught.

One more time? No. Not good enough. You have to do it every time. Because the minute you slack off and stop, the dirtbags of the world will start acting up again.

And we're not doing it every time. The problem is, we only did it to the Taliban, Saddam, and Libya. Not North Korea, not Musharaf's Egypt, not the Palestinians, not Iran, not Cuba. In addition, people like you have been saying explicitly that you don't want to invade Syria because it has much more complicated international politics than, say, Libya did. That gives Assad a way to avoid getting invaded: by creating complicated politics that will involve many other nations if an invasion occurs. Do you not consider it suspicious that the world's dictators keep bringing that up?? How many of them mention something along the lines of "foreign interference dragging the entire region into war"? They're doing it on purpose. They're playing on your fears.

 

[kramerfan86]

Do you have a magic gold tree that is going to pay for the 10s of trillions of dollars of war you plan on participating in? I notice you ignored the cost point in my first point, think that suddenly doesnt matter? Even if you eliminated EVERY social program the amount of war you want to do would still put us horribly into deficit.

 

[Tee Kay]

Slightly on-topic


Link to video.

 

[r16]

NO
We should remember in our dealings with the Saudi’s that their first aim is to defend the house of Saud and the second aim is to spread Wahhabism.

the first one is the glory of US that supports and provides .

second is being an empire on its own .

 

[Winner]

That'd save them the effort of destroying all their mosques themselves.

He who controls the past, controls the present.

Don't bomb Syria! It would destabilize the region! Bomb Saudi Arabia instead!

1) I said that as a half-joke.
2) Saudi Arabia is the most destabilizing force in the Muslim world, even though it probably thinks it's bringing stability. SA exports its version of Islamic fanaticism, ultra-conservatism, and all manners of reactionary thought around the Muslim world and beyond, thus causing the West all kinds of headaches.

Really, Saudi Arabia should be destroyed and the House of Saud should be given the Romanov treatment. I'd like nothing better than to drag them all in chains to some suitably open square and let the crowds have their way with them. I am not joking now. (Okay, I'd probably spare the women and children.)

You only resort to bombing when the other side resists and responds with force.

We should remember in our dealings with the Saudi’s that their first aim is to defend the house of Saud and the second aim is to spread Wahhabism.

Saudi Arabia is a tumour that needs to be removed if the Middle East is to be truly reformed into something the rest of the world can live with.

Slightly on-topic


Link to video.

I love Yes, (Prime) Minister sooo much.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, it's easy to prove a point when you're cherry-picking your examples. Plenty of democracies in history have gone the way that Syria is going. I'm not sure pointing to surviving Western democracies proves anything in and of itself.

What makes you think I'm cherry picking? Weimar Germany was pretty unstable. Belgium, while its viability is in question, is not, because the potential break-away states would definitely continue Belgium's political system. Whereas in Weimar Germany, the political system crumbled before the Nazi's.

But the bottom line is that democracies are inherently more stable because they have much broader and stronger constituencies.

So a non-democratic regime with governmental changes is not stable? I thought you're talking about the "destruction of a political system and not just a particular government"?

Indeed I am. Note that when a dictatorship crumbles, pretty much anything and everything that was remotely associated with it goes with it and a new regime and political system must be build from scratch, even if its a carbon-copy of the old regime because the power base that sustained the political system is completely destroyed. Democracies usually seamlessly transition from one government to another, because the power-base stays identical.

 

[aelf]

What makes you think I'm cherry picking? Weimar Germany was pretty unstable. Belgium, while its viability is in question, is not, because the potential break-away states would definitely continue Belgium's political system. Whereas in Weimar Germany, the political system crumbled before the Nazi's.

But the bottom line is that democracies are inherently more stable because they have much broader and stronger constituencies.

And what I'm saying is that that's a meaningless generalisation that you have not managed to back up with any solid evidence beyond pointing to the one example of Belgium. Also, I'm pretty sure someone who believes in wholesale generalisations about democracies would put the Weimar Republic down as a democracy.

Indeed I am. Note that when a dictatorship crumbles, pretty much anything and everything that was remotely associated with it goes with it and a new regime and political system must be build from scratch, even if its a carbon-copy of the old regime because the power base that sustained the political system is completely destroyed. Democracies usually seamlessly transition from one government to another, because the power-base stays identical.

Um, you can be pretty sure that there'd be plenty of the old regime left in terms of institutions that are (often in all but name) carried over to the new regime. If the new regime is so similar to the old one, why bother tearing everything down? I'm not convinced you actually have a clue about what you're talking about.

 

[Cutlass]

More like turned into an exercise in holding a wolf by the ears - the only thing worse than sticking it out is the shame of leaving it half-done.

That argument has a lot of merit. I respect the way Colin Powell put it, "you break it, you bought it". However there has to be limits. There has to be a point at which you accept that you've lost. And the price you are paying, and asking your soldiers to pay, is just too great for a mission that you have no real prospect of accomplishing.

 

[Neomega]

Supporting the rebels is supporting Al-Queada. Syria has a serious problem with Islamic fundamentalism... ...you know, the kind of problem war-hungry Americans wish they had.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ed-in-drone-attack-surfaces-in-new-video?lite

Al-Queada's "#2" that was killed recently, just released a video, and in this video, he urges al-Queada to fight Assad.
Picking a side, for the sake of "doing something" is the cry of the idiotic control freak.

 

[del62]

Here is what Oliver Kamm wrote in this article in the Times

The Monday after the Houla massacre I spent the afternoon looking through the photographs obtained of its aftermath. We can’t publish them: they show, close up and in detail, the bloodied corpses of children lying in rows on the floor of a mosque. Some of these children would have been barely at the stage of toddling. The Editor felt that it was important I see these pictures before writing another word on the subject.

chilling stuff, as bad as the Saudis are, and I have no love for the Saudis, at the moment it is the Syrian Regime doing this.

I don't know how plusable it is but this is a temporary solution put forward (refernced in the article by a former US State Dept fficial

…should resolve to protect the establishment of no-kill zones by local Syrian authorities by whatever means necessary, short of foreign troops on the ground. These means would include the provision of intelligence and communications equipment, antitank and anti-mortar weapons, and, crucially, air support against Syrian government tanks and troops that seek to enter or overrun a zone. The provision of such support would also require the disabling of Syrian air defenses.

Are the rebels really Al Qaeda though, I am sure that is what the Syrian Government and possible Russia/China/Iran would want us to believe, there may be elements but does they make up the opposition

 

[Winner]

Ah, I see we're in the "CNN effect" phase now. Show us some stabbed kids and we're willing to blow other kids to pieces with our precision-guided bombs to stop more from being kil-- wait, I have to think this over.

 

[Leoreth]

Supporting the rebels is supporting Al-Queada. Syria has a serious problem with Islamic fundamentalism... ...you know, the kind of problem war-hungry Americans wish they had.

Al-Qaida is also anti-abortion, does that mean all pro-lifers support terrorism? (Before this derails the thread: no, it doesn't.)

That's "Hitler ate sugar" style thinking.

 

[Neomega]

Al-Qaida is also anti-abortion, does that mean all pro-lifers support terrorism? (Before this derails the thread: no, it doesn't.)

That's "Hitler ate sugar" style thinking.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

What I was saying is Syria, as the rest of the middle east, has a serious problem with Islamic fundamentalism, and a large part of the insurgency is driven by Islamic fundamentalists.

And when I say problem, I mean like they have actually infiltrated local governments and the army and police force through the natural spread of their religion.

And when I say "war hungry Americans wish they had" I mean those people here in the United States that say Obama is a muslim spy and run around with "terrorist hunting license" stickers on their trucks. As in, there are those in America who wish they had an enemy close by to pull the trigger on, (without actually knowing what a terrible situation it is)

Ah, I see we're in the "CNN effect" phase now. Show us some stabbed kids and we're willing to blow other kids to pieces with our precision-guided bombs to stop more from being kil-- wait, I have to think this over.

We'll stop as soon as our bombs have killed more civilians than Assad.

chilling stuff, as bad as the Saudis are, and I have no love for the Saudis, at the moment it is the Syrian Regime doing this.

there isn't even any proof that the Syrian government is ordering these attacks, much less proof that the killed are enemies of the Syrian government. Many are claiming they are actually government sympathizers.

And by the way, the religious minorities are afraid of what happens if the Sunni majority takes over, because, Christians, for instance, were protected under Assad.

Are the rebels really Al Qaeda though, I am sure that is what the Syrian Government and possible Russia/China/Iran would want us to believe, there may be elements but does they make up the opposition

As if NATO's word is any better than Russia/China/Iran

and it's not just al-queada, there are also many Islamic fundamentalist groups that despise Assad's secular regime.

Just like the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, which is now poised to take power because of their stupid voting system they set up.

Of course, watching the train wreck, and warning people about it, for the past ten years, that is American foreign policy, you would think they had wised up to the lies by now.

And just in case you want any idea of what America is capable of in its lies:

Bodo League Massacre - wonderful, America pins the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of Koreans on North Korea... ...only to find 50 years later they were lying, it was actually South Korea that did it
Iraqis are kicking Kuwaiti babies from incubators (note, Amnesty International confirmed this heinous lie)

 

[Winner]

We'll stop as soon as our bombs have killed more civilians than Assad.

Do us all a favour and bomb Texas instead

You, me, the UN, or nobody else have any damn idea what's happening in Syria now. We don't know who's shooting at whom, what the goals of all the various factions are, who hates whom more, and so on and so forth. The media with its usual grasp of complicated realities is presenting us with a straightforward good vs. evil narrative, with Assad being the Bad Guy now (just a few years back the same media hailed him as a Western-minded reformer) and the rebels being heroes fighting evil childkillers. That just makes it crystal clear to anyone of sceptical mind that it's all just a pile of horse manure.

Let me repeat my position in a more succinct manner: the West has no right nor interest in intervening in a civil war where a bunch of bad guys are fighting each other for power. It's their problem, their war and it's not the West's responsibility to sort it out (and fail trying as usual). If one side in the civil war starts firing missiles at Italy or something, then it will be a problem the West should be concerned with. Until then, let them sort out their problems as they see fit.

Personally, I believe it would be best for everyone if Assad won and restored order. If he doesn't, Syria is in for a bloody ride. Be it as it may, it's not our problem.

 

[Tahuti]

And what I'm saying is that that's a meaningless generalisation that you have not managed to back up with any solid evidence beyond pointing to the one example of Belgium. Also, I'm pretty sure someone who believes in wholesale generalisations about democracies would put the Weimar Republic down as a democracy.

The Weimar Republic was a democracy; the only problem was that constitutional and institutional flaws allowed it to become a dictatorship, so from this particular perspective, you have a point.

Um, you can be pretty sure that there'd be plenty of the old regime left in terms of institutions that are (often in all but name) carried over to the new regime. If the new regime is so similar to the old one, why bother tearing everything down?

Because newly founded (carbon-copy) institutions need to be repopulated with figures loyal to the new regime. For example, most of the aristocracy (responsible for maintaining most of the institutions at the time, outside of the church) of royalist France left the country during the French revolution.
Even the Napoleonic regime that was functionally similar to the Ancien regime in its authoritarianism had to recreate such institutions from scratch. That said, such is not always necessary and not always happens either: In the said example, Napoleon also had some Bourbon-era aristocrats in his employ.

 

[Tahuti]

whoops... double post

 

[Leoreth]

Personally, I believe it would be best for everyone if Assad won and restored order. If he doesn't, Syria is in for a bloody ride. Be it as it may, it's not our problem.

I believe it would be best if Syria developed a liberal democracy with religious tolerance. You know, so we don't have to choose between an authoritarian dictatorship that supports a small religious minority at the expense of others and religious fundamentalists with the intentions of ethnic cleansings.

I mean, we are sharing our pipe dreams here, aren't we?

 

[red_elk]

I believe it would be best if Syria developed a liberal democracy with religious tolerance.

Also, it would be best if there were no wars in the world and all people were like brothers and sisters to each other.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Indeed I am. Note that when a dictatorship crumbles, pretty much anything and everything that was remotely associated with it goes with it and a new regime and political system must be build from scratch, even if its a carbon-copy of the old regime because the power base that sustained the political system is completely destroyed. Democracies usually seamlessly transition from one government to another, because the power-base stays identical.

What? Plenty of dictatorships build very stable political mechanisms that outlast any particular regime.

 

[aelf]

Because newly founded (carbon-copy) institutions need to be repopulated with figures loyal to the new regime.

Wait, so that means when you are talking about systemic instability, you are talking about the destruction of particular governments (or, more precisely, the replacement of the personnel responsible for running the system) rather than about the destruction of the political system.

I can't keep up with the changes in your argument.