How the hell have I missed all this? I am currently at work so I can't read up quite yet. What do you think about all this and what are some good articles to get informed?
Printable View
How the hell have I missed all this? I am currently at work so I can't read up quite yet. What do you think about all this and what are some good articles to get informed?
I'm glad someone finally opened this can of worms.
I feel like someone needs to send a message to the world that using chemical weapons against civilians is not okay.
In a world where respect for the laws of war are minimal, it would set a dangerous precedent if this incident were to go unpunished.
While it doesn't necessarily need to be the US meting out the punishment (as usual), it's looking like no one else is going to step up to the plate.
That being said, I think we need to be careful not to put ourselves in the same situation as we were in Iraq.
However, I do think there are some big differences between this situation and the one that led to our invasion of Iraq.
We have much better (virtually indisputable) evidence this time around, we aren't planning a boots-on-the-ground invasion, and I honestly think that the various powers aligned with Syria recognize how foolish it would be to try to retaliate against us if we do strike.
The Russians are probably quietly holding the Syrians in contempt for their actions right now, as the Russian-Syrian alliance is one of maintaining regional balance-of-power; not out of any love for the Syrians.
Iran on the other hand, quite the opposite. They stand to lose their pipeline for supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza if the Syrian regime is toppled.
The loss of that pipeline would be a boon for Israel and US interests in the region. But will Iran fight to protect that pipeline? Probably not.
To do so would be construed as showing open support for Syria's use of chemical weapons, something that much of the Arab world has already condemned.
I don't think Iran wants to set themselves at odds against that much of the Arab world. If the Syrian regime were to be toppled, Iran is more likely to bargain with the usurpers to maintain the status quo.
If we do strike, Russia and Iran's leaders will probably do some grandstanding, but they both (Russia in particular) will probably want to forget about the whole circumstance pretty quickly.
Why is no one talking about this? A black kid gets himself shot and everyone turns into a wannabe reporter nearly 15 hundred people are killed and nearly 2 weeks go by without it appearing on my news feed.
Google News is my starting point for news articles, and the story has been plastered at the top for over a week now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SUCCESSOR
I have a lot of military friends too, so it has been a primary topic of discussion on my Facebook as well.
Many people have certainly not been very vocal with their opinions.
I don't think that's due to lack of opinion or awareness, it's just that many people are understandably holding off on casting their hats into the ring right now.
They don't want to appear how the George W. Bush supporters did if this turns into another Iraq or Afghanistan.
I think you'll see a lot more people step out into the open with their thoughts over the next week or two as the situation becomes more clear, or after a strike is made.
It's my fault for being lazy with keeping up n current news. I've been waiting till something pops up on FB then looking into it. Problem with that is I am also very lazy about checking my facebook.
I agree with a lot of what you have said, Glenn(without knowing much of the situation). I don't think the US should be alone in dealing out justice in world affairs. I also think rushing into action, especially when missiles are involved, leads to a lot of collateral damage. Obama seems to be seeking support from the Senate but shouldn't he be more concerned with the UN? What happens when other world powers get sick of the US illegally policing the world?
Ooh, politics. What fun.
Use of biological weapons ('chemical' weapons is such a misnomer to those of us who understand the physics of modern munitions) are supposed to be the one thing everyone agreed was intolerable under any circumstances. I find it unconscionable that the UN is dragging their feet in responding. This is setting a bad precedent but it may just result in being a big arrow pointing out how ineffectual the UN has become in the global community.
The Russians do not have a tight enough leash on Syria yet Putin, of course, is acknowledging no weakness. I suspect there is some stalemate between Russia and Assad's regime going on in back rooms as this looks like the Russians are stalling for time, not concessions, from the UN. Once they find another strong, malleable-ish horse to back amongst Syrian opposition groups suitably appreciative of Russian support, Putin will toss Assad to the wolves. Unless the wolves get to Assad first. 'Wolves' is new-speak for 'missiles', btw. It will get real interesting if it turns out Russia was the source of the Sarin. Not likely, but it would explain a few things.
Israel does not appear worried about Iran and they are the ones with the most at risk from that contingent. With the OPEC nations backing punitive action against Assad's regime, it is likely they will remind Iran why it is in their best interests to keep cool on this issue. Hezbollah and Hamas are becoming liabilities to the more stable nations in the region while their abilities to harass Israel is diminishing. I pity Jordan in the middle, geographically, of all this. Or rather, I would pity them if they did not have a history of being petty bastards like their neighbors.
Unfortunately there is no clear "good" side for us to back in Syria so we face the looming question of what comes after dragging Assad and Co. to the Hague or Hades. This was also a fundamental problem in Iraq but even then we thought we were dealing with a modern, democratically inclined populace who would embrace bureaucracy over bombs once the big bad Saddam was gone. Most of the identifiable opposition groups in Syria are some form or other of repressive zealots. There is also the bigger picture of the region which is fast resembling the times of the fourth fitna. Too many ethnic and theological feuds amongst people who have not moved much beyond the philosophies of feudalism. Personally, I am for giving Syria to the Palestinians. Maybe they can use some of it to trade with Israel for some of their Balfour-given land back. Probably not the best solution but so far, not the worst of current alternatives.
What I would like to see happen: the UN grows a pair, or borrows ours as usual, and we pound a few key Syrian regime targets and drag out Assad and some other top officials under the UN banner. Then the UN steps in with Peacekeepers to maintain the peace with an iron fist until enough cooperatively minded Syrians get their shite together to assemble a reasonable government.
While I agree with standing up for principles, I just don't think any good (good meaning lasting, permanent, and improved) effects can come from a limited strike.
I don't have a regular news feed online in a while so this is news to me. I do agree with Mercy,though.
Unfortunately, if the Syrians do overthrow Assad, he'll just be replaced by some insane, woman hating Muslim bullshit. That whole region is going to be power-fucked until western culture gradually trickles in and gets young men more interested in titties and rock music than in rebuilding some stupid caliphate from the medieval ages.
@Beldaran for president!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beldaran
My first sentiments tend to echo Jeanine Pirro.
Chemical weapons are bad, m'kay, but at the same time, I'm not too keen on supporting terrorists, either. I hate to say it, but at the end of the day, I'd rather back Assad than the rebels. Cruel dictator or not, he's not driven by the same religious zealotry that the rebels are. He simply wants to retain his power over his country. Have we not learned our lesson or something? I don't know why we keep taking stances that help Al Qaeda. Though really, the only stance we should be taking on anything regarding the Middle East is no stance, but if we're gonna choose sides, I think we should at least side against the people who caused 9/11.
So you are saying we should put our support behind the lesser evil? Because that has never failed. Not to Godwin the whole discussion but there was another militaristic dictator who was simply trying to retain his power but of course el-Assad is no Stalin. In the end, it is the nations run by religious nuts from which we have the most to fear. Something, something, religious fundamentalist Chinese and their silly religious fervor.Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_nog
Well, if one has to take sides, I'd say take the lesser of two evils. The problem from my perspective is that both sides are evil. This is why I'd rather we not be involved in the first place. It seems to me that too many people think that whenever there's a conflict, there's a "right" side and a "wrong" side. From the evidence I've seen, though, this is a struggle between a fascist dictator and a bunch of religious fanatics. How do you choose which side to support in that situation?