Syria

[zoogs]

Nobody's taking Putin at his word, least of all the Obama administration (and by extension I think in this case, carl )

 

Putin's taken this chance to try to play the hero, which I think is actually working out well for us. The Russians can either do the heavy lifting and respond to our demands, which require swift and complete action on a timescale of weeks, or they'll have made a mockery of the international community by attempting to help their buddies weasel away.

 

Already the Russians have tried to make this about other countries needing to peacefully cooperate with Syria, when come on. This was brought about by the criminal actions of Syria. They're not suddenly making a decision to participate in a treaty. They're answering for their actions.

 

If that's not what they intend to do I hope the strikes do go forward and I'd hope that domestically, Congress gives their approval instead of yielding to Russian sentiment.

 

And that's a good link, rawhide. Syria would very much like the luxury of the role of a United States destroying their own chemical stockpile, but that's not one they deserve or should be granted.

[walksalone]

Nobody's taking Putin at his word, least of all the Obama administration (and by extension I think in this case, carl )

 

Putin's taken this chance to try to play the hero, which I think is actually working out well for us. The Russians can either do the heavy lifting and respond to our demands, which require swift and complete action on a timescale of weeks, or they'll have made a mockery of the international community by attempting to help their buddies weasel away.

 

Already the Russians have tried to make this about other countries needing to peacefully cooperate with Syria, when come on. This was brought about by the criminal actions of Syria. They're not suddenly making a decision to participate in a treaty. They're answering for their actions.

 

If that's not what they intend to do I hope the strikes do go forward and I'd hope that domestically, Congress gives their approval instead of yielding to Russian sentiment.

 

And that's a good link, rawhide. Syria would very much like the luxury of the role of a United States destroying their own chemical stockpile, but that's not one they deserve or should be granted.

 

Well, if they're not taking him at his word, then there should be stipulations to their plan...

 

U.N. personnel need to be there for the process, monitoring both the Syrians and the Russians.

 

I don't think the Russians are worried about being a mockery. (their handling of Chechnya is proof of that) There's no good guy in Syria, just a bunch of bystanders getting shot up by the a$$hole protagonists...

[zoogs]

Hasn't the entire series of recent developments been about going via the U.N.? There wasn't ever a point where it looked like Russia was going to step in and literally handle the disarmament themselves, right?

[walksalone]

Hasn't the entire series of recent developments been about going via the U.N.? There wasn't ever a point where it looked like Russia was going to step in and literally handle the disarmament themselves, right?

 

I haven't heard them mentioned much, if at all through this whole deal.

[husker_99]

we should just let the Syrians figure out their own problems. they will eventually solve it.

[Roark]

1) You are making a huge assumption if you say that Assad used chemical weapons "against his own people." There is not enough evidence to make that call, yet.

2) Firing a missile at a country without provocation is an act of war.

3) Kerry's proposal that Syria surrender its chemical weapons within a week was an obvious gaffe, taken advantage by the Russians to keep the US from attacking.

 

 

[Junior]

we should just let the Syrians figure out their own problems. they will eventually solve it.

 

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776.

[HSKR]

we should just let the Syrians figure out their own problems. they will eventually solve it.

 

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776.

 

Did you just compare the colonial revolutionaries to Al Qaeda?

[Excel]

we should just let the Syrians figure out their own problems. they will eventually solve it.

 

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776.

 

Did you just compare the colonial revolutionaries to Al Qaeda?

 

1. "Al Qaeda", at least as the organization that struck the US on 9/11, doesn't really exist anymore. It's like what we see with Nazism after World War Two. What you have now are a bunch of radical people who subscribe to the basic tenents (Salafi Jihadism, Pan-Islamism etc...) popularized by UBL and AQ and several organizations (AQ in Iraq, AQ in the Arabian Peninsula, AQ in the Islamic Maghreb) that claim to be continuations/heirs/affiliates or somehow incarnations of the original AQ. Some of them have/had legitimate links to the real deal, others do not.

 

It doesn't much matter because of the way these organizations, and the original Al Qaeda, work. These ideas, at their core, are popular with a lot of people throughout the Muslim world and their adherents bounce around between the organizations and allegiances that propagate those radical beliefs all the time. A kid might be a "member" of Lashkar-e-Islam, "the Taliban" and "Al-Qaeda" all at the same time depending on who asks him, when and how. "Terrorism" is (and has been for a while) a franchise operation. It's all farmed out. Give young men these ideas, some money and a little bit of training and motivation and they act. The specific organization isn't really important.

 

2. The Syrian Civil War, as we all know, is a very complicated conflict. I feel like you're implying that all, or at least most, rebels subscribe to the belief set I mentioned above. It's a concern of mine as well and it's why I want to stay out of it but I really don't think that this is Assad v. Al Qaeda. I think that it's more or less Secular/Moderate Sunni Syrians and Kurds and Islamic Militants (in an awkward working alliance) v. Assad. The proportions on the left side of the equation are important and I don't think anybody has a solid sense of how they breakdown but this and this (I know its reddit, sorry) gives a decent generalized view of it. I'd venture to say that most people fighting Assad are not "Al Qaeda" types but my fear is that we'd see something like we saw in Mali where the more moderate (in Mali it was the ethnic Tuaregs) groups initiate the revolt and then get pushed aside by the stronger and more violent Islamists. This war has been going on too long and I think we're already seeing that radicalization process happening so my fear, which you probably share, is that even if we just support the Moderate Rebels and they do overthrow Assad the radical Islamists will win out. Maybe we completely agree and I'm just taking issue with your wording...oh well.

 

On what I think we should do? Stay the hell out.

 

Syria is an upside down Iraq.

 

Iraq: Secular Baathist Dictator, Oppressed Shia Majority, Sunnis with a few Christians rule. Lots of Oil.

Syria: Secular Baathist Dictator, Oppressed Sunni Majority, Alawites with a few Shittes rule. Very little oil comparatively.

 

When I look at Syria I see an ethnic and religious conflict that's actually played out, quite violently, before. We see a Sunni population rising up against their Alawite rulers and this is where it gets really s***y: Whoever wins a lot more people are going to die. Sunnis win? They massacre the Alawites. Assad wins? Pogroms in major Sunni cities. Its going to be bad no matter what we do.

 

Even our "allies" are on different sides of it:

 

- The Turks: Want the Secular side to win out so they have a stable southern neighbor that can help them deal with the Kurds. Under no circumstances do they want that Kurdish population in NE Syria to gain any kind of confidence or freedom of action.

 

- The Saudis and all their rich Gulf buddies: Secretly pulling for the more radical ones to win. This may not be their Governments' positions but their rich nationals who enjoy exporting Wahhabism are definitely funding them. Where do you think the fighters we see blowing up SAA tanks with RPG-29's are getting those fancy things? We're not buying them those things, I can guarantee you that.

 

- The Israelis: They just seem to want Assad's world to burn as a way of undermining Hezbollah. This makes sense but it also lacks foresight as whoever replaces him could be even worse...then again this may explain why they’re so quiet. They're probably content to just sit there and throw money at AIPAC until they can buy enough Congressional votes to have our Air Force bomb Assad.

 

- The French: I haven’t figured Francois Hollande out yet. I think he’s just drunk with the success of his intervention in Mali and probably feels he has to do something because of Syria’s French Colonial past.

 

- The Brits: See America, that’s how a Government is supposed to work. Your elected representatives tell the executive “no” and then he doesn’t do it.

 

...and then there's us with our illustrious record of overthrowing dictators and installing lasting democracies like we did in Iran, Chile, Guatemala and Brazil. Also, we’ve never collaborated with or supported autocrats like Park Chung-hee, Teodoro Mbasogo, Saddam Hussein or the House of Saud so we have plenty of moral credibility…

 

We need to stay out of it. The best and safest time to intervene in this war was well over a year ago when it was still young and less of a mess...and even then it would have been a bad idea. Now we’re just embarrassing ourselves on the world stage.

 

I apologize for the rambling, I'm typing this while fighting disgust with the UW game.

 

TLDR: Not "Al Qaeda" but still not ok to intervene.

[HSKR]

we should just let the Syrians figure out their own problems. they will eventually solve it.

 

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776.

 

Did you just compare the colonial revolutionaries to Al Qaeda?

 

1. "Al Qaeda", at least as the organization that struck the US on 9/11, doesn't really exist anymore. It's like what we see with Nazism after World War Two. What you have now are a bunch of radical people who subscribe to the basic tenents (Salafi Jihadism, Pan-Islamism etc...) popularized by UBL and AQ and several organizations (AQ in Iraq, AQ in the Arabian Peninsula, AQ in the Islamic Maghreb) that claim to be continuations/heirs/affiliates or somehow incarnations of the original AQ. Some of them have/had legitimate links to the real deal, others do not.

 

It doesn't much matter because of the way these organizations, and the original Al Qaeda, work. These ideas, at their core, are popular with a lot of people throughout the Muslim world and their adherents bounce around between the organizations and allegiances that propagate those radical beliefs all the time. A kid might be a "member" of Lashkar-e-Islam, "the Taliban" and "Al-Qaeda" all at the same time depending on who asks him, when and how. "Terrorism" is (and has been for a while) a franchise operation. It's all farmed out. Give young men these ideas, some money and a little bit of training and motivation and they act. The specific organization isn't really important.

 

2. The Syrian Civil War, as we all know, is a very complicated conflict. I feel like you're implying that all, or at least most, rebels subscribe to the belief set I mentioned above. It's a concern of mine as well and it's why I want to stay out of it but I really don't think that this is Assad v. Al Qaeda. I think that it's more or less Secular/Moderate Sunni Syrians and Kurds and Islamic Militants (in an awkward working alliance) v. Assad. The proportions on the left side of the equation are important and I don't think anybody has a solid sense of how they breakdown but this and this (I know its reddit, sorry) gives a decent generalized view of it. I'd venture to say that most people fighting Assad are not "Al Qaeda" types but my fear is that we'd see something like we saw in Mali where the more moderate (in Mali it was the ethnic Tuaregs) groups initiate the revolt and then get pushed aside by the stronger and more violent Islamists. This war has been going on too long and I think we're already seeing that radicalization process happening so my fear, which you probably share, is that even if we just support the Moderate Rebels and they do overthrow Assad the radical Islamists will win out. Maybe we completely agree and I'm just taking issue with your wording...oh well.

 

On what I think we should do? Stay the hell out.

 

Syria is an upside down Iraq.

 

Iraq: Secular Baathist Dictator, Oppressed Shia Majority, Sunnis with a few Christians rule. Lots of Oil.

Syria: Secular Baathist Dictator, Oppressed Sunni Majority, Alawites with a few Shittes rule. Very little oil comparatively.

 

When I look at Syria I see an ethnic and religious conflict that's actually played out, quite violently, before. We see a Sunni population rising up against their Alawite rulers and this is where it gets really s***y: Whoever wins a lot more people are going to die. Sunnis win? They massacre the Alawites. Assad wins? Pogroms in major Sunni cities. Its going to be bad no matter what we do.

 

Even our "allies" are on different sides of it:

 

- The Turks: Want the Secular side to win out so they have a stable southern neighbor that can help them deal with the Kurds. Under no circumstances do they want that Kurdish population in NE Syria to gain any kind of confidence or freedom of action.

 

- The Saudis and all their rich Gulf buddies: Secretly pulling for the more radical ones to win. This may not be their Governments' positions but their rich nationals who enjoy exporting Wahhabism are definitely funding them. Where do you think the fighters we see blowing up SAA tanks with RPG-29's are getting those fancy things? We're not buying them those things, I can guarantee you that.

 

- The Israelis: They just seem to want Assad's world to burn as a way of undermining Hezbollah. This makes sense but it also lacks foresight as whoever replaces him could be even worse...then again this may explain why they're so quiet. They're probably content to just sit there and throw money at AIPAC until they can buy enough Congressional votes to have our Air Force bomb Assad.

 

- The French: I haven't figured Francois Hollande out yet. I think he's just drunk with the success of his intervention in Mali and probably feels he has to do something because of Syria's French Colonial past.

 

- The Brits: See America, that's how a Government is supposed to work. Your elected representatives tell the executive "no" and then he doesn't do it.

 

...and then there's us with our illustrious record of overthrowing dictators and installing lasting democracies like we did in Iran, Chile, Guatemala and Brazil. Also, we've never collaborated with or supported autocrats like Park Chung-hee, Teodoro Mbasogo, Saddam Hussein or the House of Saud so we have plenty of moral credibility…

 

We need to stay out of it. The best and safest time to intervene in this war was well over a year ago when it was still young and less of a mess...and even then it would have been a bad idea. Now we're just embarrassing ourselves on the world stage.

 

I apologize for the rambling, I'm typing this while fighting disgust with the UW game.

 

TLDR: Not "Al Qaeda" but still not ok to intervene.

 

Fantastic post! I think the shortest way to summarize it all is if Assad is removed from power we have absolutely no idea if Syria will be a better place. It could be better, it could be the same, it could be worse. I've seen nothing from Obama/US/the rest of the free world that they are going to make the kind of commitment needed if Assad is removed from power. Stay the hell out.

[husker_99]

we should just let the Syrians figure out their own problems. they will eventually solve it.

 

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776.

No it means we don't need to get in this mess. Just stay the f#*k out.

[BigRedBuster]

LINK

 

Oh goodiieee......

 

Now, we have Russia who is acting like the piece keeper and scolding America in our own media and their own finger prints are on the very weapons that killed all the people. Oh.....so, we should give weapons to terrorist groups so they can do the same thing.

 

Foreign policy VICTORY!!!!!!!

[carlfense]

LINK

 

Oh goodiieee......

 

Now, we have Russia who is acting like the piece keeper and scolding America in our own media and their own finger prints are on the very weapons that killed all the people.

Is this surprising to you?

 

Foreign policy VICTORY!!!!!!!

If it works, absolutely. An enormous foreign policy victory.

 

I'm baffled that anyone would even try to argue otherwise.

[Mavric]

Foreign policy VICTORY!!!!!!!

If it works, absolutely. An enormous foreign policy victory.

 

I'm baffled that anyone would even try to argue otherwise.

What has the US gained in this "victory"?

[carlfense]

What has the US gained in this "victory"?

It's only a victory if it works. If it works, I'm sure that you understand the benefits.