The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

Captain Kremmen said:
American foreign policy is committed to preserving American interests.
Anyone who thinks they are going round the world doing good deeds is naive.
They leave chaos in their wake, while fortunes go into the pockets of arms manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a bit of a broad brush.
While war solves some problems, it leaves in its wake, new ones.
The US needs to "look out" for its interests, but I disagree that that is the sole intent for getting involved in foreign conflicts.

What do you think the US should do with respect to the Syria situation?
 
wegs said:
Well, that's a bit of a broad brush.
While war solves some problems, it leaves in its wake, new ones.
The US needs to "look out" for its interests, but I disagree that that is the sole intent for getting involved in foreign conflicts.

What do you think the US should do with respect to the Syria situation?
Click to expand...
The US should invade and establish martial law until elections can be held.
 
..............and then, after there are a million dead, clear out and leave the country to bombers and extremists.
Same as last time, and the time before that, and the time............

3425437182_101310_cartoon_g_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg
 
What you say is true kremmen, but as it stands, it's too late to put the horse back in that barn. (And I'm not talking about this specific attack with Syria)

The elephant in the room that is being whispered about is will the US' strike again Syria, should we go that route, cause a major world war to follow?

It would be a horror show in so many ways.
And it begs the question...can the US even afford another war? :confused:
 
Between two and three weeks ago, the anniversary of two world changing events was not widely remembered or commemorated.
Would anyone at SciForum care to try to remember those world changing events and discuss why the events were not widely mentioned in the Mass Media.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
..............and then, after there are a million dead, clear out and leave the country to bombers and extremists.
Same as last time, and the time before that, and the time............

3425437182_101310_cartoon_g_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg
Click to expand...
A couple of things here:

1. Where do you think all that war money goes?

2. Logic for going into Iraq notwithstanding, both Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya and Yugoslavia) had regimes that needed to go. If we set aside the War on Terror and need to battle extremists on their turf, there is no reason we should be required to pick up the pieces after knocking-out those regimes (again: see Libya and Yugoslavia). Yes, there is no guarantee any revolution will make a country a better place, but with a criminal dictator at the helm, there is a guarantee that it won't get better without overthrowing him. So IMO, we should establish such a doctrine: we'll help you overthrow your dictator, but what happens next is up to you.

Also, this WWIII talk is pretty silly. In order to have a war, people have to show up to fight. The Chinese and Russians aren't going to start a war with the US, UK and France because of Syria. They aren't that dumb. And there isn't anyone else on the planet who can wage a meaningful war against us. Heck, besides nuclear weapons (again, not that dumb), neither Russia nor China (nor any other potential adversary) have the capability of projecting power beyond their borders except by land. You can always roll tanks and infantry across a border, but that isn't enough to invade anyone but your neighbors and the US owns the air and sea like no other nation in the history of the world.

In other words: since no one is capable of bringing a meaningful war to us, no one will try.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Between two and three weeks ago, the anniversary of two world changing events was not widely remembered or commemorated.
Would anyone at SciForum care to try to remember those world changing events and discuss why the events were not widely mentioned in the Mass Media.
Click to expand...

Apparently, they don't carry quite the significance you think they should.
 
"Logic for going into Iraq notwithstanding, both Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya and Yugoslavia) had regimes that needed to go. "

I wonder why there isn't a George Orwell writing today, who could convey the madness behind this kind of thinking.
"They needed to go." The arrogance is incredible.
Who do you people think you are, dictating to the peoples of the world who should stay and who should go?
Sort your own country out. Sweep your own back-yard clean.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Between two and three weeks ago, the anniversary of two world changing events was not widely remembered or commemorated.
Would anyone at SciForum care to try to remember those world changing events and discuss why the events were not widely mentioned in the Mass Media.
Click to expand...

And the moral alternative would have been for the US to abandon the Pacific to Japan? The Syrian conflict is already internationalized. If the US and its allies are going to stand by and watch Russia, Iran and Hezbollah pouring troops and weapons into a sovereign nation without lifting a finger, eventually Syria will be back under Assad's control even if Russia has to send the Spetznaz to do it themselves; at that point, naturally Syria won't really be under Assad's control anymore, but rather the religious extremists and foreign imperialists who support him. You think if this outcome is allowed to occur, and gas becomes a legitimate military weapon like in WWI, do you really think the hostilities are going to die down, the region will resume normality and all the Shia factions in Syria will go back to slaying their own protesters instead of Syrians?

If the US doesn't want to be involved in another war, I won't blame them one bit, it's their sovereign choice. All the same, an American failure to act will be duly noted by its opponents and will be taken into account when US interests and allies are ultimately next in line, and in the meanwhile the gas attacks in Syria will likely reach increasing levels of audacity, just as this latest attack occurred after Obama failed to honour his previous "red lines" when smaller scale attacks were conducted. Whatever the outcome, based on the existing rhetoric, I'm completely convinced that at some point Israel and possibly other regional powers will come under assault, either as retaliation for a strike on Syria's chemical weapons, or as an unprovoked attack timed for some imagined political-military convenience. If that's going to happen, and Western powers decide they don't want to get involved, then don't try to get the UN involved either to the benefit of Russia and its Shia extremist allies. Unlike the inconclusive low-intensity fighting of Lebanon 2006, Israel has openly stated that it will be forced to level any and all towns and villages used to fire rockets at its citizens prior to any ground assault (much as Assad and Hezbollah are doing to their own opponents), rather than sending its troops into pre-planned ambushes while Shia "civilians" relay all of their movements via cellphone. If you don't want to try and prevent this scenario, then don't try to stop those who fall victim to it from properly defending themselves.
 
from Post #92
By CptBork ; quote - "And the moral alternative would have been for the US to abandon the Pacific to Japan?"

The two separate but similar events that I referred to had nothing to do with "...the US...abandon(ing) the Pacific to Japan".
That was not a possible outcome even if these two events did not occur.

Do you know of these events?

They relate to a question that I first asked p-brane, in Post #63 :

"What is the one country that has, beyond the shadow of any doubt and in full view of the rest of the world, been factually proven to have actually used WMD's on another country's civilian population?"
 
dumbest man on earth said:
from Post #92
By CptBork ; quote - "And the moral alternative would have been for the US to abandon the Pacific to Japan?"

The two separate but similar events that I referred to had nothing to do with "...the US...abandon(ing) the Pacific to Japan".
That was not a possible outcome even if these two events did not occur.
Click to expand...

So then how else do you tie the moral lessons from those events to the present conflict in Syria? Is the US threatening to nuke Damascus?

dumbest man on earth said:
Do you know of these events?

They relate to a question that I first asked p-brane, in Post #63 :

"What is the one country that has, beyond the shadow of any doubt and in full view of the rest of the world, been factually proven to have actually used WMD's on another country's civilian population?"
Click to expand...

And 70 years later this is supposed to exclude America from playing any role in settling international conflicts? America never wanted to enter that war in the first place, nor was it given a choice of terms on how it was to be conducted. Japan created orders of magnitude greater casualties in that war, probably more casualties than any of the other powers and perhaps even more than all of them combined, so they shouldn't have any clout either? The reality is that doing nothing is only going to make the problem worse, just as it would have been if Japan and Germany had been left to ultimately carve up Eurasia. If you don't believe military involvement can lead to a favourable resolution, then you need to come up with a drastic change in the way America functions as a nation in order to deprive trade and assistance to those who do believe in military involvement and openly threaten to expand their aggression to US allies once they're done in Syria.

Captain Kremmen criticizes US relations with Saudi Arabia, I don't see how he could be faulted. But I think a consistent and effective policy would also mean applying the same treatment to nations such as China which use US trade dollars to promote political models which run completely contrary to the US notion that all human beings have certain fundamental equal rights regardless of ethnicity, creed or social status. Europe should not be importing Russian fossil fuels, period. If Americans don't want to stand up to the autocratic aggressors of the world for fear of paying the necessary price, then they need to work much, much harder to isolate and contain these aggressors lest they increase their power and control to pose ever more serious threats.
 
Well whatever is happening in Syria, it is not a farce. It’s a bloody and nasty civil war.

It seems everyone is looking to The United States to get involved. My question is why? Why should the US care enough about Syria to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice hundreds of American lives to instill a government that will likely be slightly more effective than the current government?

Aside from the humanitarian arguments, I am really struggling with why the US should get involved in Syria. Why should Americans spend their tax dollars and shed their blood toppling and replacing Syria’s government and rebuilding the Syrian?

It seems to me the arguments boil down to the latest incarnation of the Domino Theory – just replace communism with al-Qaeda. Given how well the Domino Theory has worked out for the US in the past, it fails to motivate me to support another military intervention in another foreign land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/world/syria-why-care

So please, would someone explain to me why the US should get militarily involved in Syria? Why should the average American care what happens in Syria. There are plenty of failed states around the globe. Is it the obligation of the US taxpayer to fund all of them and build scores of mini Americas across the world – as if we could? If you are up to it, make the cost-benefit analysis for US military intervention in Syria.
 
joepistole said:
Well whatever is happening in Syria, it is not a farce. It’s a bloody and nasty civil war.

It seems everyone is looking to The United States to get involved. My question is why? Why should the US care enough about Syria to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice hundreds of American lives to instill a government that will likely be slightly more effective than the current government?

Aside from the humanitarian arguments, I am really struggling with why the US should get involved in Syria. Why should Americans spend their tax dollars and shed their blood toppling and replacing Syria’s government and rebuilding the Syrian?

It seems to me the arguments boil down to the latest incarnation of the Domino Theory – just replace communism with al-Qaeda. Given how well the Domino Theory has worked out for the US in the past, it fails to motivate me to support another military intervention in another foreign land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/world/syria-why-care

So please, would someone explain to me why the US should get militarily involved in Syria? Why should the average American care what happens in Syria. There are plenty of failed states around the globe. Is it the obligation of the US taxpayer to fund all of them and build scores of mini Americas across the world – as if we could? If you are up to it, make the cost-benefit analysis for US military intervention in Syria.
Click to expand...

Because the US is the only one that can bring "justice" over what happened with the chemical attacks in Syria? And Iran will see us as soft if we don't strike?

Not necessarily my view, but to your question in your last paragraph, this is what I've been reading.
 
from CptBork, Post #94 : quote - "Europe should not be importing Russian fossil fuels, period." - unquote.

So this is the reason for conflict in syria?

Okay, I obviously am completely lost about these world events - I thought "assad" was the fear based bad guy flavor of the month like Noriega, Saddamn Hussain, Mahment Ahmidinajab, Mohumar Khadaffi...Ohsamma bin Ladden, I had no idea that he was making Europe import Russian fossil fuels.

I will have to look into that.
Do you have any links to that story or pages about it?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
from CptBork, Post #94 : quote - "Europe should not be importing Russian fossil fuels, period." - unquote.

So this is the reason for conflict in syria?

Okay, I obviously am completely lost about these world events - I thought "assad" was the fear based bad guy flavor of the month like Noriega, Saddamn Hussain, Mahment Ahmidinajab, Mohumar Khadaffi...Ohsamma bin Ladden, I had no idea that he was making Europe import Russian fossil fuels.

I will have to look into that.
Do you have any links to that story or pages about it?
Click to expand...
Russia will retaliate by turning off the gas in the middle of the winter. That won't be funny for all the Europeans dependent on Russian energy. So one way or other they have to keep Russia happy too. IMO.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
"Logic for going into Iraq notwithstanding, both Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya and Yugoslavia) had regimes that needed to go. "

I wonder why there isn't a George Orwell writing today, who could convey the madness behind this kind of thinking.
"They needed to go." The arrogance is incredible.
Who do you people think you are, dictating to the peoples of the world who should stay and who should go?
Sort your own country out. Sweep your own back-yard clean.
Click to expand...

We obviously need better brooms. Got any you can spare?:frust:


Better watch out
you better not pout
you better not cry, I'm telling you why
America is coming to town.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
from CptBork, Post #94 : quote - "Europe should not be importing Russian fossil fuels, period." - unquote.

So this is the reason for conflict in syria?

Okay, I obviously am completely lost about these world events - I thought "assad" was the fear based bad guy flavor of the month like Noriega, Saddamn Hussain, Mahment Ahmidinajab, Mohumar Khadaffi...Ohsamma bin Ladden, I had no idea that he was making Europe import Russian fossil fuels.

I will have to look into that.
Do you have any links to that story or pages about it?
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur. I was responding to Captain Kremmen's assertions that the US should be consistent in its stated policies by bombing the Saudi regime, arguing that what's needed instead is a complete re-alignment in Western economic and military policies to oppose tyrants and fundamentalists all over the globe. In the interim, ignoring conflicts such as the catastrophe in Syria will only encourage nations such as Russia and Iran to expand the conflict to target other impediments to their regional dominance. Again, I have no objection to US non-involvement, as long as the US has no objections to nations such as Israel utterly devastating their opponents on an unprecedented scale when the war inevitably spreads to their borders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top