We need a new political board contrarian...

weso1

weso1

<B>Clique Leader</B>
First it was Crumpfly and then it was sturg. I feel like we're all agreeing too much lately on this Syria thing.

F it. I'm now for bombing Syria.
 
So how do those on the left who claim to be such humanitarians not get involved in the Syrian conflict? Many innocents are being slaughtered whether by chemical or more conventional weaponry... and by the way chemical weapons are not the first international illegal weapon used by the Syrian government. So how do you justify standing on the sidelines with the most powerful military in the world that could help prevent the death of thousands of innocent women and children? I mean you argue that you don't want the US involved in directly killing innocent civilians with bombing, but at the same time are we not indirectly allowing thousands of innocent people to die while we wait on the sidelines.

In Obama's defense, I'm not convinced this is a dick measuring thing or some sort of nonsensical sturg conspiracy. Maybe it really is a case of Obama doing what he thinks is best.
 
There are other ways to oppose without cranking up the war machine and besides, why would anybody anywhere believe America's involvement in Middle East politics could affect a positive result? Drone Assad if you can find him but otherwise stay out.

It's hard for me to get fired up about politics one way or the other. The electorate just isn't intelligent enough to govern itself and Congress is filled with incompetents. Today 30% of responders, meaning they can at least read, believe it's a big deal that Obama put his feet up for a few seconds on an old table.
 
I don't trust Assad. I don't trust the rebels. weso, I agree on the humanitarian angle and if we do anything, it should be to cripple the ability to use weapons on indiscriminate killing. But that might be pie in the sky.

From someone on the left, I have no problem saying Obama has dithered here. He did a somewhat Woody Wilson thing in making these broad statements after becoming President that were so idealistic that they only exist in a sterile world. Trying to promote moderate Islamist governments that believe in religious pluralism (and some separation between church and state) may be a contradiction in terms. All indications are that's the case, whether in Egypt, Iraq, or Syria. And we've learned the hard way.

I suppose the neocon (and that's not McCain and Graham) lesson of recent vintage is to figure out what you're going to do and do it decisively (with no real calculation of long term effects) or do nothing at all. I caught John Bolton on Fox (who is certainly no Obama fan and has been highly critical of his foreign policy) about a month ago and he stated then that while Obama had clearly dithered, he didn't have any real problem with us staying on the sidelines.

I haven't read much on where Israel is in all of this. I believe I read early on they were on the side of the rebels and my guess that's for the sole reason that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't see any long term friendship developing between a rebel-sponsored government and Israel, but my guess is that the Israeli government fears a stable set of opponents as opposed to chaos (pretty non-Bismarckian) and if Syria is allied with Iran and Hamas (Are they? I can't keep the players straight.), Israel would just as soon see Assad out of there.

I've rambled. I guess if the US were to get involved, it should have done it much sooner and given Assad the same ultimatum they gave Mubarak. As far as the moral angle goes (and it pains me to say this), can any foreign policy be truly based on morality instead of state interests? As it stands right now, we'll likely do something and Assad will be gone and the world will live with the results. And I fear the results of that will be as graphically horrifying as what is going on right now. I would guess every Christian in Syria will either be dead or out of the country within a week of the establishment of a new government.
 
50PoundHead said:
I don't trust Assad. I don't trust the rebels. weso, I agree on the humanitarian angle and if we do anything, it should be to cripple the ability to use weapons on indiscriminate killing. But that might be pie in the sky.

From someone on the left, I have no problem saying Obama has dithered here. He did a somewhat Woody Wilson thing in making these broad statements after becoming President that were so idealistic that they only exist in a sterile world. Trying to promote moderate Islamist governments that believe in religious pluralism (and some separation between church and state) may be a contradiction in terms. All indications are that's the case, whether in Egypt, Iraq, or Syria. And we've learned the hard way.

I suppose the neocon (and that's not McCain and Graham) lesson of recent vintage is to figure out what you're going to do and do it decisively (with no real calculation of long term effects) or do nothing at all. I caught John Bolton on Fox (who is certainly no Obama fan and has been highly critical of his foreign policy) about a month ago and he stated then that while Obama had clearly dithered, he didn't have any real problem with us staying on the sidelines.

I haven't read much on where Israel is in all of this. I believe I read early on they were on the side of the rebels and my guess that's for the sole reason that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I don't see any long term friendship developing between a rebel-sponsored government and Israel, but my guess is that the Israeli government fears a stable set of opponents as opposed to chaos (pretty non-Bismarckian) and if Syria is allied with Iran and Hamas (Are they? I can't keep the players straight.), Israel would just as soon see Assad out of there.

I've rambled. I guess if the US were to get involved, it should have done it much sooner and given Assad the same ultimatum they gave Mubarak. As far as the moral angle goes (and it pains me to say this), can any foreign policy be truly based on morality instead of state interests? As it stands right now, we'll likely do something and Assad will be gone and the world will live with the results. And I fear the results of that will be as graphically horrifying as what is going on right now. I would guess every Christian in Syria will either be dead or out of the country within a week of the establishment of a new government.
Click to expand...

Good ramble 50.

I think the connections are Iran-Assad-Hezbollah and then sometimes, at least a few years ago, Hezbollah and Hamas would have connections which were of course just anti-Israel. I think Israel has tended to have back connections with Sunnis in Jordan, SA and the Gulf Emirates. Christians have been somewhat stuck in the middle and depending on which country they've found themselves in have sought to be supportive of whatever bloc provided them the most protection and/or liberty. In the West Bank for instance I remember having a conversation with an Arabic Christian over dinner and he, no fan of Israel (my group was eating in his restaurant in sight of the walls around Bethlehem), but he feared/despised Iran more (due in part to Arab/Persian animus I am sure but more so to the then saber rattling against Israel by Ahmadinejad). If I were having a conversation with an Arabic Christian brother in Syria then I suspect the greater fear would have been of jihadist-Sunnis (being sponsored by the likes of SA).

Syria is such a complex place, with the various ethnic and religious groups. We are seeing a couple of things, imho, taking place there. One, it's just another example of the Sunni-jihadist attempts to spread their form of Islam. Two, it's something of an inevitable battling over lines that were drawn by Europeans when modern Syria was formed. It seems like it would actually make more sense to have a country comprised of Lebanon and western portions of present Syria, and another country that was either a part of Iraq or a Sunni controlled Eastern Syria. In other words, maybe this is chiefly a Balkanization of the upper part of the Levant that needs to happen and we should keep our Western, know-it-all, selves out of it.

I am sure the Israelis and their supporters here in the US are trying to get us to go against Assad, due to their, "who is our main enemy at the moment" mentality. I understand their angst at the battles they've had with Iran's proxy via Assad - Hezbollah, and have cautiously appreciated any help they've gotten through Sunni Arab states. But I wonder if they ought to be more concerned - long term with some of those same Sunni "friends"? Particularly, Saudi Arabia. Dunno...
 
[video=youtube;UdK3ZImjPsY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdK3ZImjPsY[/video]
 
weso1 said:
So how do those on the left who claim to be such humanitarians not get involved in the Syrian conflict? Many innocents are being slaughtered whether by chemical or more conventional weaponry... and by the way chemical weapons are not the first international illegal weapon used by the Syrian government. So how do you justify standing on the sidelines with the most powerful military in the world that could help prevent the death of thousands of innocent women and children? I mean you argue that you don't want the US involved in directly killing innocent civilians with bombing, but at the same time are we not indirectly allowing thousands of innocent people to die while we wait on the sidelines.

In Obama's defense, I'm not convinced this is a dick measuring thing or some sort of nonsensical sturg conspiracy. Maybe it really is a case of Obama doing what he thinks is best.
Click to expand...

look at you trying to step up to the plate

i am proud of ya
 
My understanding is that Israel may support a limited and essentially punitive strike on the government in response to the chemical weapon use, but not intervention that would tip the scales toward the rebels. They're content to see stalemate and both sides bleeding, figuring that while the belligerents are focusing on each other, they and their sponsors will not be focusing on making trouble for the Israelis.
 
Gary82 said:
[video=youtube;UdK3ZImjPsY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdK3ZImjPsY[/video]
Click to expand...

Classic.

I don't know who the actor is, but I love his delivery of the line where he tells Joker to get on over to Phu Bai. It's just dripping with **** you.
 
Speaking of all of this why the hell do we support israel? They do some pretty ****ty things.
 
Julio3000 said:
Classic.

I don't know who the actor is, but I love his delivery of the line where he tells Joker to get on over to Phu Bai. It's just dripping with **** you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a very underrated line (with a great delivery) in a very quotable movie.
 
yeezus said:
Speaking of all of this why the hell do we support israel? They do some pretty ****ty things.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't do ****ty things?

That aside, it isn't hard to imagine several reasons. Here are a few:

1. They have been the most Western-styled nation of the region which, whether we like it or not, has been strategic for our national interests.

2. We, like other Western nations, have felt a historical responsibility (i.e., the holocaust) for supporting a Jewish state.

3. They are very, very, very good at spying.

4. Typically to our left politically, they were nevertheless a Cold War ally for us in that geo-political game (which continues to some extent).

5. We have large constituencies that have ethnic/religious concerns that are tied directly to Israel.

Agree or disagree as to whether any of these ought to merit the sort of support we've traditionally given Israel, there are plenty of reasons for understanding why we've supported them as we have.
 
BedellBrave said:
Who doesn't do ****ty things?

That aside, it isn't hard to imagine several reasons. Here are a few:

1. They have been the most Western-styled nation of the region which, whether we like it or not, has been strategic for our national interests.

2. We, like other Western nations, have felt a historical responsibility (i.e., the holocaust) for supporting a Jewish state.

3. They are very, very, very good at spying.

4. Typically to our left politically, they were nevertheless a Cold War ally for us in that geo-political game (which continues to some extent).

5. We have large constituencies that have ethnic/religious concerns that are tied directly to Israel.

Agree or disagree as to whether any of these ought to merit the sort of support we've traditionally given Israel, there are plenty of reasons for understanding why we've supported them as we have.
Click to expand...

1. Agree.

2. We may FEEL it, but we don't have it (fits the list, though).

3. Eh. True or not, I don't think it fits in this list. Plenty of countries are 'very, very, very' good at spying.

4. Valid. Not sure how much, at this point.

5. This, unfortunately, is the biggest reason. A person can't be elected president without telling anyone who will listen that they support Israel.

Israel continues to take advantage of the support. It is getting old.
 
#3 is on my list because I suspect we benefit from that ability immensely. Though their ability also means we can be - are the target as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top