• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Let's all invade Syria!

I would hope that the U.S. intelligence services by definition know more than I do about what's going on in Syria. Or what is known by anyone on this thread. I want the government to have information I don't have. The alternative is pretty scary.

If the U.S. arm rebels solely because Assad crossed a (fairly arbitrary) line we drew 2 years ago, that sounds simplistic. If it's one reason among several I'm reassured. But here's something I'm pretty sure of: No one can accurately predict what the consequences of arming rebels will be. And - no one can accurately predict the consequences of not intervening, either.

The NY Times seems to think adding more arms might just turn anti-U.S. rebels against pro-U.S. rebels, so they can wipe each other out, which is probably fine with Assad.

The escalating proxy war scenario scares the hell out of me.

Is Israel helping the rebels?
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
I would hope that the U.S. intelligence services by definition know more than I do about what's going on in Syria. Or what is known by anyone on this thread. I want the government to have information I don't have. The alternative is pretty scary.

If the U.S. arm rebels solely because Assad crossed a (fairly arbitrary) line we drew 2 years ago, that sounds simplistic. If it's one reason among several I'm reassured. But here's something I'm pretty sure of: No one can accurately predict what the consequences of arming rebels will be. And - no one can accurately predict the consequences of not intervening, either.

The NY Times seems to think adding more arms might just turn anti-U.S. rebels against pro-U.S. rebels, so they can wipe each other out, which is probably fine with Assad.

The escalating proxy war scenario scares the hell out of me.

Is Israel helping the rebels?
Click to expand...
If Israel is arming them it'd be just a dumb as the US doing it, for pretty much the reasons you noted.
 
LSSBB said:
If Israel is arming them it'd be just a dumb as the US doing it, for pretty much the reasons you noted.
Click to expand...

I figure they probably have better intelligence than us.

On a nearby thread it's brought up that the U.S. already has provided arms in a back-door way making me wonder what the big deal is about public pronouncements. I guess because it is politically dangerous to intervene publicly. But still - shouldn't we have military secrets? I'm on the fence.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
I figure they probably have better intelligence than us.

On a nearby thread it's brought up that the U.S. already has provided arms in a back-door way making me wonder what the big deal is about public pronouncements. I guess because it is politically dangerous to intervene publicly. But still - shouldn't we have military secrets? I'm on the fence.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion, it's all pre-election posturing in the US. Not enough arms to do much and definitely no boots on the ground, just enough action to look like you are doing something. Clinton was a master of this.
 
LSSBB said:
I disagree with painting all US administrations with the same brush. And FWIW, I am not a fan of Obama. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
Click to expand...

I don't think this has anything to do with this administration or that one. It has to do with fundamentals. Foreign policy is usually too complicated, cynical and devious for the likes of ordinary folk. It's easier to peddle a simple line to the masses. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in it (Assad = bad guy, for instance) but it's just a cover. Just guessing, I would imagine the fall of Qusair and the involvement of Hezbollah on Assad's side has more to do with this decision than chemical weapons. Don't you think so? There have been no recent alleged chemical attacks so why now?

The unusual thing about Iraq was not so much the nature of the asministration but that the lies were so blatant. A bit like the Brits and Suez.
 
anglolawyer said:
I don't think this has anything to do with this administration or that one. It has to do with fundamentals. Foreign policy is usually too complicated, cynical and devious for the likes of ordinary folk. It's easier to peddle a simple line to the masses. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in it (Assad = bad guy, for instance) but it's just a cover. Just guessing, I would imagine the fall of Qusair and the involvement of Hezbollah on Assad's side has more to do with this decision than chemical weapons. Don't you think so? There have been no recent alleged chemical attacks so why now?

The unusual thing about Iraq was not so much the nature of the asministration but that the lies were so blatant. A bit like the Brits and Suez.
Click to expand...

Obama is from Chicago, he knows how to present things in order to get elected, or to keep his friends in power. That does not necessarily involve the complete fabrication of chemical weapon test results.
 
MaGZ said:
Your argument that the US wants to invade Syria for its oil is leftist nonsense.
Click to expand...

I dont think that was his argument, its your straw one.

the correct argument would be that Qatar (& Saudi) would like a regime change so they (Qatar) can go ahead with the pipeline that Syria will currently not allow, and are funding mercenaries there for the "cause"

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/86e3f28e-be3a-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html#axzz2WJ7gzzif

The gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

For Qatar, owner of the world’s third-largest gas reserves, its intervention in Syria is part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region, following its backing of Libya’s rebels who overthrew Muammer Gaddafi in 2011.

Qatar’s intervention is coming under mounting scrutiny. Regional rivals contend it is using its financial firepower simply to buy future influence and that it has ended up splintering Syria’s opposition. Against this backdrop Saudi Arabia, which until now has been a more deliberate backer of Syria’s rebels, has stepped up its involvement.
Click to expand...

the US would ideally like this outcome and would like to help but need a really really good excuse because Russia & China are not happy about it.

Russia, in particular, via Gazprom, would be very unhappy about it.

and the chemical weapons BS is just tragically, utterly and laughably predictable farce.
 
Last edited:
kevsta said:
I dont think that was his argument, its your straw one.

the correct argument would be that Qatar (& Saudi) would like a regime change so they (Qatar) can go ahead with the pipeline that Syria will currently not allow, and are funding mercenaries there for the "cause"



the US would ideally like this outcome and would like to help but need a really really good excuse because Russia & China are not happy about it.

Russia, in particular, via Gazprom, would be very unhappy about it.

and the chemical weapons BS is just tragically, utterly and laughably predictable farce.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, I might well go along with intervention on one side or another if I had the facts. I might think this pipeline a great idea. I don't want to run out of gas or be blackmailed by some Russkie monopoly (that worked out well for The Ukraine). The trouble is it's contrary to international law to make war for such reasons. Hence the lies. Do we have to be so stupid in swallowing them?
 
Childlike Empress said:
The issue isn't socialism, it's independence. As long as they are puppets, nobody in power will complain about any nastiness some sick absolut monarch can come up with.

But of course we all knew that already.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Is any state ruled by an anti-Western dictator a non-puppet and therefore good?

Is Sweden a puppet? It isn't ruled by an anti-Western dictator dreaming of nuking the US.

If Sweden is a puppet, I think I prefer puppethood over your style of independence.
 
newyorkguy said:
One troubling aspect of the Syrian conflict -- from Assad's perspective -- is that despite having a huge Sunni Muslim majority (70%) the country has long been ruled by the tiny (12%) minority Alawites, a Shia Muslim offshoot. Most of Assad's senior political and military officials are Alawites. Link

I think even the thought of the Sunni majority taking over is probably very scary for the Alawites in command positions.
Click to expand...

This is all true, and therefore the war will go on even if Assad dies. The Alawites in the Assad government knows that for them the only possibility is military victory or death. Of the defectors from the regime, I think no high-ranking ones have been Alawites or Christians, and probably very few of the lower-ranking ones as well.
 
Humes fork said:
I don't get it. Is any state ruled by an anti-Western dictator a non-puppet and therefore good?

Is Sweden a puppet? It isn't ruled by an anti-Western dictator dreaming of nuking the US.

If Sweden is a puppet, I think I prefer puppethood over your style of independence.
Click to expand...


Sweden isn't full of brown people sitting on our resources.
 
LSSBB said:
Nor is North Dakota or Alberta. The equations of oil are changing, it does not fuel every debate. Tell me, CE, does Obama drop everything for every oil pipeline? He's a brown person, FYI...
Click to expand...


Resources == Oil, Russians == Soviets. You're well trained.

Oh, and Obama - he's an Uncle Tom.
 
anglolawyer said:
The funny thing is, I might well go along with intervention on one side or another if I had the facts. I might think this pipeline a great idea. I don't want to run out of gas or be blackmailed by some Russkie monopoly (that worked out well for The Ukraine). The trouble is it's contrary to international law to make war for such reasons. Hence the lies. Do we have to be so stupid in swallowing them?
Click to expand...

I think you'd find it difficult enforcing general population stupidity / gullibility levels, they are always going to outperform and exceed our wildest expectations.

and if lying didn't work so well over and over and over again, they might have to reconsider, but well, when something just works, just keep doing it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom