List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

[BigBallinStalin]

Some brave group needs to invade the US in order to resolve this problem!

That was my reaction when I read oVo's post. I wonder if that was the basis for the invasion in Red Dawn (at least from the Soviet side).

I'd hope so. We all know that rambunctious teenagers need discipline in order to learn how to lead civil lives.

[BigBallinStalin]

Then Organisation of islamic countries need to be involved, like African Union involve in Somalia? This its for me very logical solution, after all this its hes neigbours,, so US and UN can also be out ,like they out of Somalia.
Sudan war are finished, when one country dissolute ,and create two independent states,, are you want to say that Syria also need to be separate?
Also notice that you realy belive that in Syria fight two side >Goverment vs FSA
Well i read many things that on rebels side are Al-Quaida and other very religious islamic groups who are for Syria to be Very islamic country.

I agree with you that some sort of coalition of neighboring countries would be the best to intervene in Syria, but in practical terms it's not possible*. That's why Syria's neighbors put pressure on us to do it*.
Turkey and Jordon are trying to avoid a regional conflict*, and have given temporary asylum to refugees. It's a similar situation in Lebanon, I think*. Fights have already spilled across into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan anyway.
Obviously the Israelis can't enter Syria, because literally everyone there hates them.
Iraq has never had a good relationship with Assad, but is in no shape to fight anyone*. Nevertheless, Syrian rebels have been crossing the border there pretty regularly*.
Egypt is still struggling with the aftermath of it's own Spring. It can't even set up it's own government.
And finally Iran is supporting Assad, but they don't share a border so luckily military intervention is impossible for them*.

This leaves NATO, Russia, and the United States* [no, there's more players involved]. . As for Russia, they have a military base in Syria, and they hold $150billion of Assad's personal wealth in private bank accounts*. They also sell something like a gazillion dollars worth of weapons to Syria every year*. I don't feel that their motivations for supporting the Syrian president-for-life are good ones. It's usually a bad sign when your partner has a title like "President-for-life.*[works well for other autocrats, like the ones the US supports]"
But if your country wants to do the right thing [warning: moral rhetoric], and broker/force peace in Syria, then I would cheer you guys on instead of my government.

This is the price we pay for being the only superpower[oooo!! haha, what rhetoric. such nonsense!.


Yes, I do really believe the fight is two-sided[you'd be wrong to believe that cuz there's more than two sides].
The FSA outnumber Assad's army, and they outnumber all of the various Islamic groups.[what exactly is the FSA, JB? Each of the groups are cooperating, because they have the same goal, and that is to remove Assad from power[it's not "we all have one goal," they share common goals and particular group goals, which come into conflict with your presumed One Goal. Once that happens, then the various factions with start negotiating with each other or fighting.[What are you talking about? That's already happening.]
Here's the hitch; we've all sat on our asses watching Assad murder his people. The FSA never had enough weapons or training to stop him*, so they were stuck heplessly watching Assad murder his people too* [Yeah, no one had guns before Duh Bad Guys showed up.. So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them*[Oh no, not duh good guys!. This is because these other groups were better funded*, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight*. It's our fault that we did not defend the Syrian people when they needed us[The Syrian People. That includes Duh Bad Guys too, JB., and our inaction allowed these religious nutters to co-opt the fight*[And 'our' Action prevented such fighting! And 'our' Action prevents any fighting anywhere cuz 'our' Action would otherwise allow fighting! (/end reductio ad absurdum)

But the Syrian people themselves are still moderates* [however many that is, and whatever you mean by moderate. And the FSA still outnumbers everyone else.*[try calculating how often elements within the FSA switch to other groups' command There's no reason to believe that al-Qaeda will come to power in Syria, if we aid the FSA*[wasn't that similar to argument for intervention in the 1980s AFG?]. Remember on page one of this thread that Kuwait1961 warned us that if we did not get involved, things would get worse. [Yeah, he knows everyone. Where's your fake PhD source?]This is sort of what he was talking about. You do not want the FSA to have to share victory with al-Qaeda[Whoever the FSA are, and whichever internal group dominates post-victory. JB can't see this possibility because to him the FSA is a homogenous blob of freedom-loving patriots fighting to overcome the Evil Assad and his Evil Forces. Everyone is on the same page now*, but after Assad falls that could change. al-Qaeda will never win over the Syrian people*, but they could make things impossible for the new Democratic Syrian government and it's neighbor, Israel.


Syria should never be split apart. Assad should not be allowed to rule anywhere.

This link belongs here.

http://news.yahoo.com/rocket-trajectory ... 50347.html

I think that the evidence clearly shows that a single one of Assad's generals did order the strike, but also that Assad was not consulted. So Assad was responsible, and he's a damned liar, but he did not personally order the attack. His strategy at the time was to sit tight, because the rebels did not have any global support.

*[citation needed]

[saxitoxin]

Then Organisation of islamic countries need to be involved, like African Union involve in Somalia? This its for me very logical solution, after all this its hes neigbours,, so US and UN can also be out ,like they out of Somalia.
Sudan war are finished, when one country dissolute ,and create two independent states,, are you want to say that Syria also need to be separate?
Also notice that you realy belive that in Syria fight two side >Goverment vs FSA
Well i read many things that on rebels side are Al-Quaida and other very religious islamic groups who are for Syria to be Very islamic country.

I agree with you that some sort of coalition of neighboring countries would be the best to intervene in Syria, but in practical terms it's not possible*. That's why Syria's neighbors put pressure on us to do it*.
Turkey and Jordon are trying to avoid a regional conflict*, and have given temporary asylum to refugees. It's a similar situation in Lebanon, I think*. Fights have already spilled across into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan anyway.
Obviously the Israelis can't enter Syria, because literally everyone there hates them.
Iraq has never had a good relationship with Assad, but is in no shape to fight anyone*. Nevertheless, Syrian rebels have been crossing the border there pretty regularly*.
Egypt is still struggling with the aftermath of it's own Spring. It can't even set up it's own government.
And finally Iran is supporting Assad, but they don't share a border so luckily military intervention is impossible for them*.

This leaves NATO, Russia, and the United States* [no, there's more players involved]. . As for Russia, they have a military base in Syria, and they hold $150billion of Assad's personal wealth in private bank accounts*. They also sell something like a gazillion dollars worth of weapons to Syria every year*. I don't feel that their motivations for supporting the Syrian president-for-life are good ones. It's usually a bad sign when your partner has a title like "President-for-life.*[works well for other autocrats, like the ones the US supports]"
But if your country wants to do the right thing [warning: moral rhetoric], and broker/force peace in Syria, then I would cheer you guys on instead of my government.

This is the price we pay for being the only superpower[oooo!! haha, what rhetoric. such nonsense!.


Yes, I do really believe the fight is two-sided[you'd be wrong to believe that cuz there's more than two sides].
The FSA outnumber Assad's army, and they outnumber all of the various Islamic groups.[what exactly is the FSA, JB? Each of the groups are cooperating, because they have the same goal, and that is to remove Assad from power[it's not "we all have one goal," they share common goals and particular group goals, which come into conflict with your presumed One Goal. Once that happens, then the various factions with start negotiating with each other or fighting.[What are you talking about? That's already happening.]
Here's the hitch; we've all sat on our asses watching Assad murder his people. The FSA never had enough weapons or training to stop him*, so they were stuck heplessly watching Assad murder his people too* [Yeah, no one had guns before Duh Bad Guys showed up.. So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them*[Oh no, not duh good guys!. This is because these other groups were better funded*, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight*. It's our fault that we did not defend the Syrian people when they needed us[The Syrian People. That includes Duh Bad Guys too, JB., and our inaction allowed these religious nutters to co-opt the fight*[And 'our' Action prevented such fighting! And 'our' Action prevents any fighting anywhere cuz 'our' Action would otherwise allow fighting! (/end reductio ad absurdum)

But the Syrian people themselves are still moderates* [however many that is, and whatever you mean by moderate. And the FSA still outnumbers everyone else.*[try calculating how often elements within the FSA switch to other groups' command There's no reason to believe that al-Qaeda will come to power in Syria, if we aid the FSA*[wasn't that similar to argument for intervention in the 1980s AFG?]. Remember on page one of this thread that Kuwait1961 warned us that if we did not get involved, things would get worse. [Yeah, he knows everyone. Where's your fake PhD source?]This is sort of what he was talking about. You do not want the FSA to have to share victory with al-Qaeda[Whoever the FSA are, and whichever internal group dominates post-victory. JB can't see this possibility because to him the FSA is a homogenous blob of freedom-loving patriots fighting to overcome the Evil Assad and his Evil Forces. Everyone is on the same page now*, but after Assad falls that could change. al-Qaeda will never win over the Syrian people*, but they could make things impossible for the new Democratic Syrian government and it's neighbor, Israel.


Syria should never be split apart. Assad should not be allowed to rule anywhere.

This link belongs here.

http://news.yahoo.com/rocket-trajectory ... 50347.html

I think that the evidence clearly shows that a single one of Assad's generals did order the strike, but also that Assad was not consulted. So Assad was responsible, and he's a damned liar, but he did not personally order the attack. His strategy at the time was to sit tight, because the rebels did not have any global support.

*[citation needed]

[Juan_Bottom]

If the stated point of intervening in Syria is for humanitarian reasons, then my question would not be limited to Sudan vs. Syria? I know one cannot generalize one internal conflict over another; I'm sure there are reasons why we would or would not be involved in a conflict in Indonesia or Liberia. What I want to understand is why the humanitarian intervention in Syria is more important or less risky than in another country. This has not been explained to me in any way (satisfactorily or not).

According to the United Nations, the following are current conflicts in which there are more than 1,000 deaths per year:
- Colombia
- Afghanistan
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Pakistan
- Mexico
- Sudan
- Iraq
- Egypt

Of these, it appears that Syria has had the most fatalities so far this year. In 2012, the list was led by Mexico (the drug war) and Syria.

President Obama has been president since 2008. The Sudanese conflict has been active since 2009. The Somali wars continue. The Syrian conflict began in 2011. It is currently 2013 and, to my knowledge, we have not been actively involved in any of these conflicts, including Syria (which begs the "why now?" question on Syria, but I'll defer on that).

I'd like to see some discussion from the president or his supporters (with respect to his particular issue) on why Syria and not elsewhere or some acknowledgement from the president that Syria is more important because of its location the world. If the president does acknowledge that Syria is more important because of location, then I'd also like him to indicate some walkback of his critique of President Bush's war in Iraq given the adamant nature in which he criticized that war.

Was the stated point for intervening in Syria Humanitarian? I think it was that Assad was using chemical weapons and that our Allies that border Syria want us to.


- Colombia - The US has always been involved in Columbia, sometimes with special forces operations, sometimes with drones, or intelligence gathering. But always with financial aid to the government. There's no reason really that I can see to invade Columbia or whatever, but we've totally screwed up there. Ending the War on Drugs would all but stop the FARC. Their members are true believers though, they hate imperialists and the corporations that buy their forests and natural resources.

- Afghanistan America totally screwed this up. I cannot see a way to fix it.

- Somalia This place is f*cked. There are all these different militant groups who each control sections of the country, and all have probably equal chances of seizing power, at least temporarily. The government is being propped up by the AU, but like all the various other factions, the Somali government wants Sharia Law. In the meantime the country is being raped by the international community. All of the groups are funded by big oil, who use unprotected pipes to ship oil across the country. These militants will cut holes into the pipes and take all the oil they please. They refine it in the jungles and sell the fuel that they get out of it. But if you go into the Jungles of Somalia, you can find whole acres of forest that are gone, because the jungle floor is feet-deep with the black tar by-product of the refining process. I think that Shell is the most responsible for this quagmire, and that's a Dutch company.
And then the coastline of Somalia is known as an international dumping ground.

- Yemen The US is involved in fighting in Yemen, the whole thing is ridiculous. The government there has asked the US for aid, mainly with drones, and we've complied.
I do not in anywise support the government of Yemen, as all law is Sharia. Judges there are also religious scholars, and although women over the age of 18 may vote, child marriage is still legal there. An 8 year old girl just died there after being raped on her wedding night.

- Pakistan Relatively stable, and we do cooperate with their military. Yet if the Pakistani government falls, we're in trouble.

- Mexico Obama is f*cking up here. Just legalize weed.
And remember who this is coming from, I do not even drink alcohol.

- Sudan War has ended.

- Iraq IMHO, the country is better off than it was under Saddam. However, it's also more dangerous in general.

- Egypt I don't see a reason to get militarily involved here either. The country is relatively stable, and even though the military holds the power, it's because they are trying to prevent the wrong kind of people from taking power. Morsi was democratically elected, yes, but then gave himself unlimited power and suspended judicial and legislative review of his decisions. So the army removed him, and now they are targeting the Muslim Brotherhood.

- Syria There's already an 80,000 member army there, so we don't need to go in. We just need to ground Assad's planes and prevent him from deploying other assets like chemical rockets.

Syria's location is pivotal here, not because this is the Middle East, and not because Putin has a base there, but because we have allies on it's border. A regional conflict could destabilize half a dozen friendly countries or more.

[Juan_Bottom]

Then Organisation of islamic countries need to be involved, like African Union involve in Somalia? This its for me very logical solution, after all this its hes neigbours,, so US and UN can also be out ,like they out of Somalia.
Sudan war are finished, when one country dissolute ,and create two independent states,, are you want to say that Syria also need to be separate?
Also notice that you realy belive that in Syria fight two side >Goverment vs FSA
Well i read many things that on rebels side are Al-Quaida and other very religious islamic groups who are for Syria to be Very islamic country.

I agree with you that some sort of coalition of neighboring countries would be the best to intervene in Syria, but in practical terms it's not possible*. That's why Syria's neighbors put pressure on us to do it*.
Turkey and Jordon are trying to avoid a regional conflict*, and have given temporary asylum to refugees. It's a similar situation in Lebanon, I think*. Fights have already spilled across into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan anyway.
Obviously the Israelis can't enter Syria, because literally everyone there hates them.
Iraq has never had a good relationship with Assad, but is in no shape to fight anyone*. Nevertheless, Syrian rebels have been crossing the border there pretty regularly*.
Egypt is still struggling with the aftermath of it's own Spring. It can't even set up it's own government.
And finally Iran is supporting Assad, but they don't share a border so luckily military intervention is impossible for them*.

This leaves NATO, Russia, and the United States* [no, there's more players involved]. . As for Russia, they have a military base in Syria, and they hold $150billion of Assad's personal wealth in private bank accounts*. They also sell something like a gazillion dollars worth of weapons to Syria every year*. I don't feel that their motivations for supporting the Syrian president-for-life are good ones. It's usually a bad sign when your partner has a title like "President-for-life.*[works well for other autocrats, like the ones the US supports]"
But if your country wants to do the right thing [warning: moral rhetoric], and broker/force peace in Syria, then I would cheer you guys on instead of my government.

This is the price we pay for being the only superpower[oooo!! haha, what rhetoric. such nonsense!.


Yes, I do really believe the fight is two-sided[you'd be wrong to believe that cuz there's more than two sides].
The FSA outnumber Assad's army, and they outnumber all of the various Islamic groups.[what exactly is the FSA, JB? Each of the groups are cooperating, because they have the same goal, and that is to remove Assad from power[it's not "we all have one goal," they share common goals and particular group goals, which come into conflict with your presumed One Goal. Once that happens, then the various factions with start negotiating with each other or fighting.[What are you talking about? That's already happening.]
Here's the hitch; we've all sat on our asses watching Assad murder his people. The FSA never had enough weapons or training to stop him*, so they were stuck heplessly watching Assad murder his people too* [Yeah, no one had guns before Duh Bad Guys showed up.. So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them*[Oh no, not duh good guys!. This is because these other groups were better funded*, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight*. It's our fault that we did not defend the Syrian people when they needed us[The Syrian People. That includes Duh Bad Guys too, JB., and our inaction allowed these religious nutters to co-opt the fight*[And 'our' Action prevented such fighting! And 'our' Action prevents any fighting anywhere cuz 'our' Action would otherwise allow fighting! (/end reductio ad absurdum)

But the Syrian people themselves are still moderates* [however many that is, and whatever you mean by moderate. And the FSA still outnumbers everyone else.*[try calculating how often elements within the FSA switch to other groups' command There's no reason to believe that al-Qaeda will come to power in Syria, if we aid the FSA*[wasn't that similar to argument for intervention in the 1980s AFG?]. Remember on page one of this thread that Kuwait1961 warned us that if we did not get involved, things would get worse. [Yeah, he knows everyone. Where's your fake PhD source?]This is sort of what he was talking about. You do not want the FSA to have to share victory with al-Qaeda[Whoever the FSA are, and whichever internal group dominates post-victory. JB can't see this possibility because to him the FSA is a homogenous blob of freedom-loving patriots fighting to overcome the Evil Assad and his Evil Forces. Everyone is on the same page now*, but after Assad falls that could change. al-Qaeda will never win over the Syrian people*, but they could make things impossible for the new Democratic Syrian government and it's neighbor, Israel.


Syria should never be split apart. Assad should not be allowed to rule anywhere.


*[citation needed]

lol
The FSA isn't in-fighting. When War Crimes have happened, the responsible commanders have been kicked out of the FSA. At least since the command restructuring. In Assad's Army, those responsible for war crimes like bombing civilians in bread lines, or using rocket attacks against hospitals, those guys are PROMOTED.
but
WHY, OH GOD WHY,
WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE VARIOUS REBEL GROUPS ARE FIGHTING EACH OTHER? If the FSA is fighting al Nusra/al Qaeda, AND THEY ARE, then why the f*ck would you bring that up? Shouldn't that be a reason why we should support the FSA?

FSA members -Approximately 80,000
Goal - to hold democratic elections

al Nusra/al Qaeda members -Approx 7,000
goal - pan islamic state of Syria



Well done BBS, thanks.

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.voanews.com/content/un-commi ... 50981.html

GENEVA — The Commission of Inquiry on Syria calls the use of chemical weapons a war crime and says their alleged use is triggering a new urgency to bring an end to Syria’s 30-month-long civil war. The Commission has just submitted its latest findings of widespread violations in Syria to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The Commission of Inquiry says it hopes the U.S.-Russian agreement will result in Syria joining the Chemical Weapons Convention in mid-October, and will lead to a broader political resolution to the war.

In the meantime, commissioners say they are continuing to investigate 14 alleged chemical weapons attacks - four in March and April of this year - that may have occurred since the conflict broke out in March 2011. They acknowledge their investigations are limited because the government will not grant them access to the country.

The commission says it recognizes the seriousness of the August 21 chemical attack in a Damascus suburb, which the United States says killed more than 1,400 people. Commission chairman Paulo Pinheiro noted that the vast majority of casualties, though, are the result of the unlawful use of conventional weapons.

Pinheiro told the U.N. Human Rights Council some of the worst atrocities were committed by both government and rebel forces. He accused government forces of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment. He said extremist rebel groups use methods of warfare to spread terror among the civilian population.

Pinheiro said there is evidence the government continues to drop cluster munitions on civilian areas. He said a government fighter jet dropped an incendiary bomb on a school near Aleppo last month, killing eight students and wounding 50 others.

“Many are not expected to survive. There is no evidence of any opposition or rebel fighters or lawful targets near the school... children make up a large proportion of civilian casualties. They have been arbitrarily arrested and tortured. Children have been unlawfully detained in cells with adult detainees," he said. "The government should take steps to release children from detention or to transfer them to a juvenile justice system consistent with both fair trial and children’s rights.”

Hospitals attacked

The commission accuses the government of deliberately attacking medical facilities and of denying treatment to the sick and wounded from opposition-controlled areas, but it says some opposition groups also have attacked medical personnel and hospitals.

Syrian Ambassador Faysal Khabbas Hamoui said the commission is exaggerating and relying on unverified reports. He said his government has sent more than 250 communications and documents to the commission, which it has ignored.

"It is deplorable for the commission to claim in its conclusions that the government is responsible for what it calls a number of massacres, and yet at the same time to say that the evidence and the circumstances around those massacres is not enough to determine the responsibility of the perpetrators," Hamoui said.

Pinheiro said the commission does not have the ability to refer the government of Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court. He said it is up to the U.N. Security Council to hold violators accountable for their actions.

GO TEAM SAXI

It's a race to see who is worse, al Qaeda or President-for-life Assad!

[BigBallinStalin]

lol
The FSA isn't in-fighting. When War Crimes have happened, the responsible commanders have been kicked out of the FSA. At least since the command restructuring. In Assad's Army, those responsible for war crimes like bombing civilians in bread lines, or using rocket attacks against hospitals, those guys are PROMOTED.
but
WHY, OH GOD WHY,
WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE VARIOUS REBEL GROUPS ARE FIGHTING EACH OTHER? If the FSA is fighting al Nusra/al Qaeda, AND THEY ARE, then why the f*ck would you bring that up? Shouldn't that be a reason why we should support the FSA?

FSA members -Approximately 80,000
Goal - to hold democratic elections

al Nusra/al Qaeda members -Approx 7,000
goal - pan islamic state of Syria

[youtube]XpoWRixzKoutube]

Well done BBS, thanks.

You're still missing citations and important clarifications from your previous post. If you wish to remain rational, then you'll have to redo your foundation before moving on. You can't build a strong castle on "US V. THEM" and "HOMOGENOUS BLOBS DO AS I SAY".

I already addressed the problems of (1) how you attribute goals to groups, and (2) your nonsensical goal of "democratic elections" and "democracy." Since you fail to learn, you can only demand ridicule.

You're amazingly similar to the religious/atheist people who do not think critically about the problems of their religion/metaphysical position. You're just like the people you love to hate, and this is really amusing. Maybe that's why you refuse to criticize yourself (i.e. critically think) because you'll slowly realize how similar you are to them. Either it's fear that keeps you ignorant, or you're too dense to know better. Which is it, JB?

[Juan_Bottom]

Why do I need them if I'm agreeing with you? If I need them, then don't you need them?


Actually, I knew that you would respond to the way that I wrote that. You're markedly predictable, because you'll take any opportunity to "get" me.

That post was essentially a repost from earlier in the thread.
I WAS THE ONE who said that the FSA was fighting al Nustra, not you. So I'm giving it to you. You posted an old article that they were working together. Are you now saying that the FSA is not fighting al Nustra, or are you saying that they are fighting al Nusra? Either way, you're sunk.

This is good.


The FSA is united, and their first goal is to oust Assad. They will bring democracy to Syria.
I WELCOME any counter-source to their claim. Last time you had one, you had the wrong general.

[Juan_Bottom]

-Assad's most recent approval ratings at 55%.

This is a ridiculous statement. This was not an approval rating poll. This was a poll on whether Assad should remain as leader. There's a critical difference because "[o]ne of the main reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the country." Or, as the Guardian's writer puts it, they are "motivated by fear of civil war." That poll was taken in January 2012. I don't think anyone doubts that civil war has, in fact, now happened in Syria. Please try again with statistics that aren't incredibly obsolete.

If you follow the link, it says that 91% of the people living in the region want Assad to step down. And over 80% of Arabs want him out. I feel like either Saxi is setting us up or he doesn't read anything outside of headlines.

[Qwert]

Then Organisation of islamic countries need to be involved, like African Union involve in Somalia? This its for me very logical solution, after all this its hes neigbours,, so US and UN can also be out ,like they out of Somalia.
Sudan war are finished, when one country dissolute ,and create two independent states,, are you want to say that Syria also need to be separate?
Also notice that you realy belive that in Syria fight two side >Goverment vs FSA
Well i read many things that on rebels side are Al-Quaida and other very religious islamic groups who are for Syria to be Very islamic country.

I agree with you that some sort of coalition of neighboring countries would be the best to intervene in Syria, but in practical terms it's not possible. That's why Syria's neighbors put pressure on us to do it.
Turkey and Jordon are trying to avoid a regional conflict, and have given temporary asylum to refugees. It's a similar situation in Lebanon, I think. Fights have already spilled across into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan anyway.
Obviously the Israelis can't enter Syria, because literally everyone there hates them.
Iraq has never had a good relationship with Assad, but is in no shape to fight anyone. Nevertheless, Syrian rebels have been crossing the border there pretty regularly.
Egypt is still struggling with the aftermath of it's own Spring. It can't even set up it's own government.
And finally Iran is supporting Assad, but they don't share a border so luckily military intervention is impossible for them.

This leaves NATO, Russia, and the United States. As for Russia, they have a military base in Syria, and they hold $150billion of Assad's personal wealth in private bank accounts. They also sell something like a gazillion dollars worth of weapons to Syria every year. I don't feel that their motivations for supporting the Syrian president-for-life are good ones. It's usually a bad sign when your partner has a title like "President-for-life."
But if your country wants to do the right thing, and broker/force peace in Syria, then I would cheer you guys on instead of my government.

This is the price we pay for being the only superpower.


Yes, I do really believe the fight is two-sided.
The FSA outnumber Assad's army, and they outnumber all of the various Islamic groups. Each of the groups are cooperating, because they have the same goal, and that is to remove Assad from power. Once that happens, then the various factions with start negotiating with each other or fighting.
Here's the hitch; we've all sat on our asses watching Assad murder his people. The FSA never had enough weapons or training to stop him, so they were stuck heplessly watching Assad murder his people too. So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them. This is because these other groups were better funded, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight. It's our fault that we did not defend the Syrian people when they needed us, and our inaction allowed these religious nutters to co-opt the fight.

But the Syrian people themselves are still moderates. And the FSA still outnumbers everyone else. There's no reason to believe that al-Qaeda will come to power in Syria, if we aid the FSA. Remember on page one of this thread that Kuwait1961 warned us that if we did not get involved, things would get worse. This is sort of what he was talking about. You do not want the FSA to have to share victory with al-Qaeda. Everyone is on the same page now, but after Assad falls that could change. al-Qaeda will never win over the Syrian people, but they could make things impossible for the new Democratic Syrian government and it's neighbor, Israel.


Syria should never be split apart. Assad should not be allowed to rule anywhere.

This link belongs here.

http://news.yahoo.com/rocket-trajectory ... 50347.html

I think that the evidence clearly shows that a single one of Assad's generals did order the strike, but also that Assad was not consulted. So Assad was responsible, and he's a damned liar, but he did not personally order the attack. His strategy at the time was to sit tight, because the rebels did not have any global support.

Now some words could be very dangerous:

So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them. This is because these other groups were better funded, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight.

Are this mean that in FSA have so many mercenaries, who will for money join Al-Nusra, or other islamic fund groups?

Dont get me wrong, but its have many examlpes all over the world in history, where US support Dictatorship

-Mobuto Sese seko-longtime dictatorship of Zaire,, withouth US support he will not take power and hold on this position for 30 years..
-Idi Amin Dictator of Uganda- he came to power with support of UK and Israel--8 years of hes rule make big atrocity
-Augusto Pinoche--Military Dictator of Chile,, he came to power after coup,, and US support this

This its only few examples, and they are come into power withouth democratic ellections.
Also in Afghanistan ,democracy are forced by US, and i think that with withdraw of US ,this country will collapsed.
So i doubt that will with Assad overthrow , democracy will win, consider that you have many etnnic groups who fight to defend hes teritories (Kurds-Allawites-Sunny arabs).

[thegreekdog]

If the stated point of intervening in Syria is for humanitarian reasons, then my question would not be limited to Sudan vs. Syria? I know one cannot generalize one internal conflict over another; I'm sure there are reasons why we would or would not be involved in a conflict in Indonesia or Liberia. What I want to understand is why the humanitarian intervention in Syria is more important or less risky than in another country. This has not been explained to me in any way (satisfactorily or not).

According to the United Nations, the following are current conflicts in which there are more than 1,000 deaths per year:
- Colombia
- Afghanistan
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Pakistan
- Mexico
- Sudan
- Iraq
- Egypt

Of these, it appears that Syria has had the most fatalities so far this year. In 2012, the list was led by Mexico (the drug war) and Syria.

President Obama has been president since 2008. The Sudanese conflict has been active since 2009. The Somali wars continue. The Syrian conflict began in 2011. It is currently 2013 and, to my knowledge, we have not been actively involved in any of these conflicts, including Syria (which begs the "why now?" question on Syria, but I'll defer on that).

I'd like to see some discussion from the president or his supporters (with respect to his particular issue) on why Syria and not elsewhere or some acknowledgement from the president that Syria is more important because of its location the world. If the president does acknowledge that Syria is more important because of location, then I'd also like him to indicate some walkback of his critique of President Bush's war in Iraq given the adamant nature in which he criticized that war.

Was the stated point for intervening in Syria Humanitarian? I think it was that Assad was using chemical weapons and that our Allies that border Syria want us to.


- Colombia - The US has always been involved in Columbia, sometimes with special forces operations, sometimes with drones, or intelligence gathering. But always with financial aid to the government. There's no reason really that I can see to invade Columbia or whatever, but we've totally screwed up there. Ending the War on Drugs would all but stop the FARC. Their members are true believers though, they hate imperialists and the corporations that buy their forests and natural resources.

- Afghanistan America totally screwed this up. I cannot see a way to fix it.

- Somalia This place is f*cked. There are all these different militant groups who each control sections of the country, and all have probably equal chances of seizing power, at least temporarily. The government is being propped up by the AU, but like all the various other factions, the Somali government wants Sharia Law. In the meantime the country is being raped by the international community. All of the groups are funded by big oil, who use unprotected pipes to ship oil across the country. These militants will cut holes into the pipes and take all the oil they please. They refine it in the jungles and sell the fuel that they get out of it. But if you go into the Jungles of Somalia, you can find whole acres of forest that are gone, because the jungle floor is feet-deep with the black tar by-product of the refining process. I think that Shell is the most responsible for this quagmire, and that's a Dutch company.
And then the coastline of Somalia is known as an international dumping ground.

- Yemen The US is involved in fighting in Yemen, the whole thing is ridiculous. The government there has asked the US for aid, mainly with drones, and we've complied.
I do not in anywise support the government of Yemen, as all law is Sharia. Judges there are also religious scholars, and although women over the age of 18 may vote, child marriage is still legal there. An 8 year old girl just died there after being raped on her wedding night.

- Pakistan Relatively stable, and we do cooperate with their military. Yet if the Pakistani government falls, we're in trouble.

- Mexico Obama is f*cking up here. Just legalize weed.
And remember who this is coming from, I do not even drink alcohol.

- Sudan War has ended.

- Iraq IMHO, the country is better off than it was under Saddam. However, it's also more dangerous in general.

- Egypt I don't see a reason to get militarily involved here either. The country is relatively stable, and even though the military holds the power, it's because they are trying to prevent the wrong kind of people from taking power. Morsi was democratically elected, yes, but then gave himself unlimited power and suspended judicial and legislative review of his decisions. So the army removed him, and now they are targeting the Muslim Brotherhood.

- Syria There's already an 80,000 member army there, so we don't need to go in. We just need to ground Assad's planes and prevent him from deploying other assets like chemical rockets.

Syria's location is pivotal here, not because this is the Middle East, and not because Putin has a base there, but because we have allies on it's border. A regional conflict could destabilize half a dozen friendly countries or more.

Okay, so the reason for involvement in Syria is because a regional conflict (which there is evidence of?) could destabilize half a dozen friendly countries or more (which countries?). Can you please provide some article, statement, or video where the president says this? I have yet to see anything regarding this; this is not a challenge, more of a question.

In any event, it sounds like you're pointing to U.S. hegemony in the region (or maybe not - it seems when you say "destabilize U.S. allies is bad" that means we want U.S. hegemony, but then you say that it's not because Putin has a base there, which seems to mean we don't want U.S. hegemony).

Related aside - When the president was elected in 2008 based upon, to an extent, his view on U.S. intervention in, among other places, the Middle East, some pundits opined that the Obama would have a bit of a wake-up call dealing with U.S. interests abroad and the projection of force to protect those interests. I kind of scoffed at those pundits at the time because I was looking forward to a more dove-ish president. I wonder if he's had that wake-up call.

[Metsfanmax]

That poll was taken in January 2012. I don't think anyone doubts that civil war has, in fact, now happened in Syria.

The Syrian "civil war" began in March 2011.

Way to be revisionist. In March 2011, there were localized protests and uprisings. The full-scale civil war didn't exist until mid-2012. Otherwise that poll would make zero sense chronologically.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why do I need them if I'm agreeing with you? If I need them, then don't you need them?


Actually, I knew that you would respond to the way that I wrote that. You're markedly predictable, because you'll take any opportunity to "get" me.

That post was essentially a repost from earlier in the thread.

Yes, JB, you're rehashing old arguments which have already been effectively countered. Argumentum ad Nauseam is not a laudable feat.

I WAS THE ONE who said that the FSA was fighting al Nustra, not you. So I'm giving it to you. You posted an old article that they were working together. Are you now saying that the FSA is not fighting al Nustra, or are you saying that they are fighting al Nusra? Either way, you're sunk.


The FSA is united, and their first goal is to oust Assad. They will bring democracy to Syria.
I WELCOME any counter-source to their claim. Last time you had one, you had the wrong general.

Oh good god. You keep thinking that these groups are homogenous blobs with clear collective goals that are perfectly enforced.

That's not how it works. Elements within groups coordinate and mingle and have their own goals distinct from each group's collective goals. They can temporarily switch from one group to another, or permanently do so, since there's very little punishment for doing so (other than being ostracized from a group which they've already left, or by threat of punishment... which is enforced how exactly? The FSA as a political force can barely maintain control within its own borders, and it's got bigger problems, e.g. the Assad government, robbing civilians, attacking other insurgent groups, or even groups within the 'FSA'. Occasionally, there will be infighting and occasionally not). It's not 'black-and-white' as you feverishly maintain.

Let's apply your reasoning to other groups. Americans all have common goal X. Russians all have common goal Y. African-Americans all have common goal Z. That's just stupid, and such claims ignore the various means which individuals within the various groups and subgroups use.

Also, membership into the FSA isn't difficult. You just say, "I'm in the FSA," and continue robbing people and/or killing other insurgent groups or government forces. With that in mind, we should pause to think about what those 'FSA' numbers actually are, and we should reconsider what the goals of the 'FSA' actually are. (You won't do this because it requires critical thinking).

And considering the fact that journalists will not maintain objectivity during this civil war, in areas of uncertainty over facts, they're more likely to attribute Good acts to their favored group (e.g. the FSA) while being more likely to attribute Bad acts to their despised group (e.g. Assad's, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, etc.). That's a huge problem which distorts the dissemination of information, so this should make you more skeptical of rabidly marketing one group as Duh Good Guys. Of course, you'll filter news articles which only confirm your interpretation (a.k.a. confirmation bias).

You've started from a position where Rueters, BBC, and whoever are part of some corporate conspiracy--except for NBC, or whoever is your favored news source, which is nonsensical).

You keep harping about one minor source while I've added plenty additional ones (several pages ago, which you've ignored), and you'll continue to overlook the fundamental problems of your positions, which I keep mentioning. You're not being reasonable to think you're in any way correct about your claims--unless of course you shut your eyes and pound your keyboard very loudly.

[saxitoxin]

FSA members -Approximately 80,000
Goal - to hold democratic elections

al Nusra/al Qaeda members -Approx 7,000
goal - pan islamic state of Syria

Here's what Juan_Bottom isn't willing to provide, BBS - a citation ...

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda. Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eport.html

-Assad's most recent approval ratings at 55%.

This is a ridiculous statement. This was not an approval rating poll. This was a poll on whether Assad should remain as leader. There's a critical difference because "[o]ne of the main reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the country." Or, as the Guardian's writer puts it, they are "motivated by fear of civil war." That poll was taken in January 2012. I don't think anyone doubts that civil war has, in fact, now happened in Syria. Please try again with statistics that aren't incredibly obsolete.

If you follow the link, it says that 91% of the people living in the region want Assad to step down. And over 80% of Arabs want him out. I feel like either Saxi is setting us up or he doesn't read anything outside of headlines.

Juan, you may not realize this with your limited grasp of geography, but Syria does not occupy "the region" and there is no such thing as "ZE ARABS!" The link says exactly this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

That poll was taken in January 2012. I don't think anyone doubts that civil war has, in fact, now happened in Syria.

The Syrian "civil war" began in March 2011.

Way to be revisionist. In March 2011, there were localized protests and uprisings. The full-scale civil war didn't exist until mid-2012. Otherwise that poll would make zero sense chronologically.

Nope. Wrong again.

More than 2,000 terrorists and Syrian troops were killed during the Battle of Rif Dimashq which erupted in November 2011 and involved use of heavy weapons (Rif Dimashq is a suburb of Damascus). The Siege of Homs began at the end of 2011. The terrorists launched a wave of suicide bombings in late 2011, including the attack on the AFI directorate that blew the arms and heads off nearby children and old women. I could go on and on ... your idea of "protests" is curious.

So now that that's settled - do you support the international community setting a deadline for Obama to quit and leave America, failing which free bazookas will be distributed to U.S. citizens by Russia?

[saxitoxin]

DELEGATION FROM THE U.S. PEOPLE MEET WITH PRESIDENT ASSAD!

In light of the bumbling of the Obama regime, former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark (D-TX) - author of the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Actand organizer of IndictBushNow.org - has led a direct delegation from the American people to meet with Syria's president Bashar al-Assad, a skilled eye surgeon who formerly practiced medicine in Britain.

A-G Ramsey Clark


The Obama regime is essentially irrelevant at this point, Clark explained, and discussions can bypass it and continue among civil society groups and nations who choose to operate according to the values of Reason and Logic.

Joining Attorney-General Clark to represent the view of the American people to the Syrian government was former congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OR) and former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

Rep. Dennis Kucinich


They were accompanied in the meeting by the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Alfred de Zayas (Cuba) and a representative of the Union of Arab Jurists, a group of progressive Arab lawyers and judges. Dr. Zayas and the UAJ joined the Americans in calmly and rationally dismissing the crazed Obamite war hysteria - which has thus far been as effective in rallying Americans as an asthmatic Pied Piper - and affirming support for the popular government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

[The SAR government is a coalition of 5 diverse political parties: the Syrian branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Socialist-Unionist Party, the Syrian Communist Party, and the Arab Socialist Union. Israel's bought-and-paid-for president, Obama, wants to stage a genocide against Syria because it supports Palestine (see also: Iraq).]

UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Dr. Alfred de Zayas - 2011 recipient of the Educator's Award from Canadians for Genocide Education - denounced Obama/Israel's plotting against Syria. Progressive voices are winning out over Chickenhawks irrational fear of "TEH ARABS."

[BigBallinStalin]

So now that that's settled - do you support the international community setting a deadline for Obama to quit and leave America, failing which free bazookas will be distributed to U.S. citizens by Russia?

Hey, I could use a bazooka. I'll create/join the Free American Army while robbing banks. Ask not what your government can do for you, ask me if you want to make a quick buck!

We can also tell the press how we're liberating our people from the clutches of big, bad government. Theft Taxation is the foundation upon which Democracy is built! That story will surely sell!

Then, whichever groups we don't like, we'll call them 'radical' (e.g. 'far-right, fascist, far-left, Marxist, Fundamental Christian, Radical Islam, etc.). That'll also sell! No time for thinking; just repeat after me! "Evil Radicals!"

Oh, and if some group within the FAA does something that isn't good for our marketing, we'll blame it on those Evil Radicals, who are merely posing as the FAA. They aren't the true FAA, which is The Force of Freedom and Liberty and Democracy and Whatever Else You Want!

We'll also need some chemical weapons to fire into a city and blame it on the government. Better yet: outsource that task to the 'non-FAA' group. Enough of the media should cover us since the FAA would never do such horrid acts, yet the Big Bad Government surely would.


[/FSA Playbook 101]

[saxitoxin]

BARACK MCCAIN PUBLISHES CORNERSTONE CASE FOR WAR IN UFO CONSPIRACY NEWSLETTER!

The right-head of the American hydra presidency, John, declared he was so MAD! at Putin's letter to the New York Times he would publish a letter in response in Pravda!

But he sent the letter to the wrong Pravda. Barack McCain is too stupid to realize there are multiple "Pravdas." His letter was published today in a UFO conspiracy newsletter with a circ. of 100,000 (not the Pravda he was thinking of which has a circ. of 2.1 million) ... which is where all racist, anti-Arab pro-war screeds belong anyway.

So, a 26 year old who lied about her Ph.D. and can't speak Arabic and has only been the Levant once is one of Barack McCain's experts on Syria, now Barack McCain can only get their pro-war posturing run in UFO zines. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark was right - the Barack McCain presidency really is irrelevant.

[Frigidus]

I don't understand how McCain can be angry over what Putin said. I feel as if he's trying to read some sort of anti-American bias into his words. Obviously the article is a calculated move rather than some idealistic plead for peace, but that's politics.

[Juan_Bottom]

Now some words could be very dangerous:

So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them. This is because these other groups were better funded, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight.

Are this mean that in FSA have so many mercenaries, who will for money join Al-Nusra, or other islamic fund groups?

Dont get me wrong, but its have many examlpes all over the world in history, where US support Dictatorship

-Mobuto Sese seko-longtime dictatorship of Zaire,, withouth US support he will not take power and hold on this position for 30 years..
-Idi Amin Dictator of Uganda- he came to power with support of UK and Israel--8 years of hes rule make big atrocity
-Augusto Pinoche--Military Dictator of Chile,, he came to power after coup,, and US support this

This its only few examples, and they are come into power withouth democratic ellections.
Also in Afghanistan ,democracy are forced by US, and i think that with withdraw of US ,this country will collapsed.
So i doubt that will with Assad overthrow , democracy will win, consider that you have many etnnic groups who fight to defend hes teritories (Kurds-Allawites-Sunny arabs).

No not mercenaries, but rather people who really believe in their cause. They aren't fighting for money. They'd rather fight with the Jihadists than sit on their asses in the Turkish refugee camp, like so many of the other FSA fighters. I really don't believe that if the FSA had been as well equip from the start as al-Nusra, that they would have lost so many fighters.

It's good to remember history and to be skeptical. In this case however, Assad is the dictator, and the FSA has no political goals. All they want is democracy. They are non-sectarian and non-religious, and have soldiers from every cast of Syria.

Besides, it's more noble to try to establish a Democracy and fail, than it is to support a tyrant because it's easier. Since the war started Assad has tortured to death over 600 people, and his army considers hospitals and food banks to be strategic targets for bombing. He's the bad guy here, and doing nothing will only help him. I cannot lie to my conscience and say that only a tyrant can control Syria. I'm an American, and I believe that everyone is born with the right to be free and happy. Slaughtering your own people until they submit to your will is not the way to establish legitimacy as a government.
What do people think about Assad where you live?

[Juan_Bottom]

Why do I need them if I'm agreeing with you? If I need them, then don't you need them?


Actually, I knew that you would respond to the way that I wrote that. You're markedly predictable, because you'll take any opportunity to "get" me.

That post was essentially a repost from earlier in the thread.

Yes, JB, you're rehashing old arguments which have already been effectively countered. Argumentum ad Nauseam is not a laudable feat.

I WAS THE ONE who said that the FSA was fighting al Nustra, not you. So I'm giving it to you. You posted an old article that they were working together. Are you now saying that the FSA is not fighting al Nustra, or are you saying that they are fighting al Nusra? Either way, you're sunk.


The FSA is united, and their first goal is to oust Assad. They will bring democracy to Syria.
I WELCOME any counter-source to their claim. Last time you had one, you had the wrong general.

Oh good god. You keep thinking that these groups are homogenous blobs with clear collective goals that are perfectly enforced.

That's not how it works. Elements within groups coordinate and mingle and have their own goals distinct from each group's collective goals. They can temporarily switch from one group to another, or permanently do so, since there's very little punishment for doing so (other than being ostracized from a group which they've already left, or by threat of punishment... which is enforced how exactly? The FSA as a political force can barely maintain control within its own borders, and it's got bigger problems, e.g. the Assad government, robbing civilians, attacking other insurgent groups, or even groups within the 'FSA'. Occasionally, there will be infighting and occasionally not). It's not 'black-and-white' as you feverishly maintain.

Let's apply your reasoning to other groups. Americans all have common goal X. Russians all have common goal Y. African-Americans all have common goal Z. That's just stupid, and such claims ignore the various means which individuals within the various groups and subgroups use.

Also, membership into the FSA isn't difficult. You just say, "I'm in the FSA," and continue robbing people and/or killing other insurgent groups or government forces. With that in mind, we should pause to think about what those 'FSA' numbers actually are, and we should reconsider what the goals of the 'FSA' actually are. (You won't do this because it requires critical thinking).

And considering the fact that journalists will not maintain objectivity during this civil war, in areas of uncertainty over facts, they're more likely to attribute Good acts to their favored group (e.g. the FSA) while being more likely to attribute Bad acts to their despised group (e.g. Assad's, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, etc.). That's a huge problem which distorts the dissemination of information, so this should make you more skeptical of rabidly marketing one group as Duh Good Guys. Of course, you'll filter news articles which only confirm your interpretation (a.k.a. confirmation bias).

You've started from a position where Rueters, BBC, and whoever are part of some corporate conspiracy--except for NBC, or whoever is your favored news source, which is nonsensical).

You keep harping about one minor source while I've added plenty additional ones (several pages ago, which you've ignored), and you'll continue to overlook the fundamental problems of your positions, which I keep mentioning. You're not being reasonable to think you're in any way correct about your claims--unless of course you shut your eyes and pound your keyboard very loudly.

I'm going to need to see some citations.

FSA members -Approximately 80,000
Goal - to hold democratic elections

al Nusra/al Qaeda members -Approx 7,000
goal - pan islamic state of Syria

Here's what Juan_Bottom isn't willing to provide, BBS - a citation ...

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda. Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eport.html

No this is fine, and generally supports what I've already said. The FSA was one of many groups, but in 2012, under international pressure to legitimize their struggle, they all bandied together under the title of the FSA. The FSA was chosen because they were already an established fighting force, and because they had so many defectors from the Syrian Army fighting with them. The leaders of the individual groups then held free elections to choose leadership, and they ousted Colonel al-Asaad, who was then the leader of the FSA. He's the guy BBS mistakenly quoted earlier, and in general he was an ok leader, but wasn't willing to punish those members of the FSA who committed War Crimes, so he had to be ousted. Since that time, members of the FSA have been held accountable for both corruption and war crimes. Their leaders are former officers in the Syrian Army, so they understand international law and the need to enforce it. For example, the militia leader that you picked on earlier, who appeared to eat a human heart, was discharged from the FSA before you ever shared the story.

The FSA is clearly a pro-democracy organization, and unified in their goal. If they were not, they would not have held free elections nor would the individual groups have allowed for the central authority which has discharged corrupt or violent leaders. And so I thank you.

Juan, you may not realize this with your limited grasp of geography, but Syria does not occupy "the region" and there is no such thing as "ZE ARABS!" The link says exactly this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

No it does not, you forgot to do your research. If you bothered to follow your web page's source, you would have found this:

That level of support is not mirrored elsewhere in the region, with 81 percent of Arabs wanting President Assad to step down. They believe Syria would be better off if free democratic elections were held under the supervision of a transitional government.

The poll’s finding support the result of November’s Doha Debate in which 91 percent of the audience called for President Assad to resign.

If President Assad resigns, Syria’s relations with Turkey, Lebanon and the United States are expected to improve while relations with Iran and Israel will worsen, according to the opinion poll findings.

The poll conducted by YouGov Siraj questioned more than 1,000 people in the Arab world between December 14 and 19.

The people who conduct polls don't typically ask a single question, so it's always a clever idea to see what else people have to say before you share them.
http://www.thedohadebates.com/news/item ... sp?n=14312

Also, fun fact, Syria has some of the most repressive controls of media in the entire world. And that's not a joke. You can be arrested for calling Assad a monkey on your facebook page.
So it's very important to look at how people in the region view Assad's leadership as well as the Syrian people, who are propagandized.

[Juan_Bottom]

Okay, so the reason for involvement in Syria is because a regional conflict (which there is evidence of?) could destabilize half a dozen friendly countries or more (which countries?). Can you please provide some article, statement, or video where the president says this? I have yet to see anything regarding this; this is not a challenge, more of a question.

In any event, it sounds like you're pointing to U.S. hegemony in the region (or maybe not - it seems when you say "destabilize U.S. allies is bad" that means we want U.S. hegemony, but then you say that it's not because Putin has a base there, which seems to mean we don't want U.S. hegemony).

Related aside - When the president was elected in 2008 based upon, to an extent, his view on U.S. intervention in, among other places, the Middle East, some pundits opined that the Obama would have a bit of a wake-up call dealing with U.S. interests abroad and the projection of force to protect those interests. I kind of scoffed at those pundits at the time because I was looking forward to a more dove-ish president. I wonder if he's had that wake-up call.

Well, like Kerry said, the US runs a global empire but has no hegemony. We're too stupid.
What I'm talking about isn't controlling anyone or anything like that, but rather that it's in our best interests to aid the Syrian people, because we're good people. And that's how you make real friends. These Syrians think just like we do, like we did, in 1775. They want freedom of thought, they want bread, and they want the right to make their own decisions. And that's not just what the Syrian uprising was about, but it's also what the entire Arab Spring was about... In the US we have had similar protests nationwide, and the Arab Spring was really part of a larger Global Spring. We all want the same thing, it's only that the people of Syria are starting further back.
We're mixed up in the world, in a very big way. Our culture is global, we also control the world's trade routes, and we control the world's dialogue by controlling the UN. But for all that, nobody in this country has half a brain, hence, no hegemony. People like patches believe in global conspiracy because we don't have intelligent discourse or discussions about what is happening in Syria, or Afghanistan, or Sudan. We just bomb the hell out of those places and move on. So patches is left wondering wtf,.... oil?
In Syria, fighting has spilled across borders; there's over 6 million Syrians displaced, with 2 million living outside of Syria. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have experienced fighting within their own borders. They are also costing these countries billions of dollars, Lebanon alone is expected to spend $11 billion on refugees. And essentially this financial cost and security erosion are the reasons Syria's neighbors, who are our friends, want us to intervene. If you look at our own country, the destabilization of the Mexican government by the international drug trade has made our own US-Mexico border a very dangerous place, even though we are easily the most powerful country in the world. And in Africa, real intervention may never be possible, at least partly because the most dangerous places have no stable borders. For these reasons protecting our allies borders from spillovers is important.
I do not agree, with the fictitious Saxi, or anyone else, that the future government of Syria will be a hot mess of sectarian or religious in-fighting. The Syrian rebels have a lot of different personal politics, like the rest of us do, but for the first time since colonialism ended in the Middle East, we are seeing a willingness from all these people with different perspectives to work together. Look at Tunisia or Egypt or Palestine, and you can see different sects that only 10 years ago were fighting to the death... yet today they are cooperating with each other.

Obviously I jumped into the ring before Obama did, and I've laid out different reasons. Turkey has called for an international coalition against Assad, Jordan has asked the US specifically for help with border security, and Israel is on the fence. Obama's red line seems like nonsense, but Russia's protection of the Syrian regime is more ridiculous. IMHO, what it boils down to for Obama is a few things.

First, Obama doesn't want the Middle East producing more chemical weapons or using them, because then terrorists may be able to get a hold of them. A chemical weapons arms race would be pretty damn unpleasant.
Second, Protesting the chemical weapons is a clumsy attempt at a signal of friendship to the rebels, and future Syrian government. He wants to openly aid them, like he sort-of-said in the presidential debates, but he can't. And the rebels reject Obama's red line en masse. Their position, which I posted in the video, is "GREAT THANKS. So Assad can do whatever he wants, so long as he doesn't use chemical weapons on me. Thanks Obama."
Third, taking away Assad's ability to deploy chemical weapons is a great boon to the rebels. Assad's generals showed a willingness to use chemical weapons when they get desperate.
Finally, the US really does want to set the tone, so to speak, that no one has the right to use Chemical Weapons.

Obama did organize the Friends of Syria to try to peacefully negotiate a ceasefire in Syria. It failed miserably. Obama has also denounced Assad's tyrannical government, but it was only his use of Chemical Weapons that brought Obama to my side of the argument. And it seems, if Assad had been more responsible we wouldn't be discussing intervention. IMO Obama is much more cautious than you all give him credit for. While I've been clamoring for true Syrian Aid, he's been talking strongly but acting more neutrally.

[patches70]

Keep on with your fiction, Juan, the FSA is now fighting a three front war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... sNewsForth

unless, by chance, you've never heard of the Wall Street Journal. Your idealized view of the rebel factions in Syria is not up to par with reality.


You may think that because the US is the only superpower, that it entitles us to decide who lives, who dies, who rules who doesn't, but that is dangerous thinking and the height of arrogance. Thanks, but no thanks. Do the dirty work yourself if you really believe in it, leave me and mine out of it. I don't want the US military being used as a mercenary force (remember, Kerry said that the Saudi's would pay for all our military expenditures in Syrian strikes, that makes us nothing more than mercenaries ourselves).
I don't want the US military being put in harm's way to make a rich Qatar Emir even richer.
That's what we would be doing, and all the while making sure that the Syrian people endure even more bloodshed and misery. Where is the democracy and freedom for the Saudi people?*
Where is the democracy and freedom for the Qatari people?*
They say they want to bring such things to the Syrian people, but for their own, nope. They spread the chaos with sweet words but plan monetary gain using the blood, treasure and prestige of the United States to get it. We do the killing, they reap the financial rewards.

Thanks but no thanks.

*As of 2013, the Freedom House rankings of Qatar, where a "1" is considered "free" and a "7" considered "not free", in political rights Qatar is rated "6" and in Civil rights is rated "5" and considered "Not Free".
Saudi Arabia is even worse, scoring a "7" in both civil and political rights, absolutely "not free". In fact, Saudi Arabia and Syria are both equal according to Freedom House on how "free" each nation is, that is, not free at all. Qatar is slightly better, so long as you aren't an immigrant, those who are in Qatar and not citizens are treated no better than slaves. In fact, if one were to send the FSA or the equivalent in Qatar, Qatar would treat them the same way as Assad. The Saudi's are even more vicious to any who would oppose the House of Saud, their secret police are legendary for their brutality. Luckily for them, they have the US watching their back, something Assad was not fortunate enough to have.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar--->Absolute monarchies.
Syria----->Dominant party presidential state.
All three are unitary. And Saudi Arabia and Qatar are up to their elbows in fomenting, perpetuating and escalating this civil war in Syria.


And the only reason we put up with Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not because we rely on them for oil, most of the US' oil imports come from Canada, Mexico and South America (and we certainly don't need OPEC for natural gas**). We put up with them because they are the foundation of the petro dollar. And guess who is bypassing the petro dollar? Iran (and Russia, China, India, Japan and more).

And since you've failed to understand anything I've tried to make you aware of, it's not about oil, it's about the petro dollar. The petro dollar which is the only thing that props up the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world (and all the benefits that come from such a status) which is vital to the US to maintain her "superpower" status. With out the petro dollar, we aren't a super power.
It's as simple as that, and it's no conspiracy, it's absolute fact.

Humanitarian, ha! JB's idea of "humanitarian" is lobbing missiles and killing people.
Yeah, that's real humanitarian.
And if lobbing missiles isn't enough, what then JB? Invasion? Contrary to your belief, the secular "good guys" you like to believe in aren't winning the war, they are getting their ass kicked, which is why they are begging for our help. The Jihadists on the other hand, are just setting themselves up to steal any of that help that may come. And if the US ever puts troops into Syria, the Jihadists will shoot Americans just like they shoot Syrian troops and FSA troops. They are equal opportunity killers with a particular zeal for killing Americans.

Thanks, but no thanks. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are big boys, let them deal with it since they are the one's with the ponies in the race.
The only dog we have in this is the petro dollar, and considering the harm it's done to the world, it's about high time that farce ended. We need not fear the ending of the petro dollar, if we truly believe in free choice, people and nations should not have to be required to us one nation's currency to engage in trade with one another. There are better ways, fairer ways.



**Did you know that the US has very strict export laws for our natural gas? We do this at the behest of the big US manufacturing companies (Dow being one of the biggest advocates for limiting Natgas exports) because our cheaper natgas gives us a competitive edge.
The New York Times (have you heard of them, JB?)-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4380,d.aWM
Guess who the biggest natgas exporters are in the world? Russia, Iran and Qatar.
Qatar wants a pipeline through Syria (absolute fact), Russia doesn't want Qatar to have that line through Syria (absolute fact) so if Qatar wants that line through Syria, then Assad has to go. Russia is not going to let that happen, and this puts the US into a dangerous position if we go getting involved in this energy war.

Qatar exports natgas mainly to Asia. They'd like to expand exports to Europe as well, but they need that pipeline to do so. They can't rely on oil, because Qatar is running out of oil, fast. That's why they've invested billions in their natgas infrastructure and want a greater share into the European market, which is the domain of Russia's energy companies. Qatar is also the #1 natgas exporter in the world. And this natgas bounty for Qatar is fairly recent.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4380,d.b2I
And Qatar can't sell their natgas in the US because they can't compete with the prices of our own domestic supply. They need to expand who they sell their natgas to, as Qatar has doubled their production in just the last two years.

But you, JB, fail to even recognize these facts and because of that, are unable to assess the risks. Where as you attempt to put forth the idea that getting involved in the Syrian civil war poses no risks to the US, the rest of us understand that we are indeed putting ourselves at serious risk.
Luckily, Obama seems to have recognized the risks and wisely backed the f*ck down. So the US got a little egg on it's face, it's not the end of the world.

[Qwert]

Juan, if you look carefull,you will see that all countries in middle east are totalitarian regimes.
Like patshes notice, Saudi Arabia are totalitarian monarchy,, where for small thief , they cut your hand( its this normal)
In bahrain people also protesting, but this its totaly isolated from world news,and US are blind.
Only what separate Syria from other Middle East countries, are that everybody are allies with US, and they can brake human right, how they want, has long they are in friendly relationship with US .

If Syrian want freedom, i think that Saudi,Bahrain,Qatar also need to get freedom.
So simple if US help that people in this countries overthrow this totalitarian regimes,, then US can attack Syria, and then all people will be "free"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahraini_u ... present%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... udi_Arabia

[BigBallinStalin]

Why do I need them if I'm agreeing with you? If I need them, then don't you need them?


Actually, I knew that you would respond to the way that I wrote that. You're markedly predictable, because you'll take any opportunity to "get" me.

That post was essentially a repost from earlier in the thread.

Yes, JB, you're rehashing old arguments which have already been effectively countered. Argumentum ad Nauseam is not a laudable feat.

I WAS THE ONE who said that the FSA was fighting al Nustra, not you. So I'm giving it to you. You posted an old article that they were working together. Are you now saying that the FSA is not fighting al Nustra, or are you saying that they are fighting al Nusra? Either way, you're sunk.


The FSA is united, and their first goal is to oust Assad. They will bring democracy to Syria.
I WELCOME any counter-source to their claim. Last time you had one, you had the wrong general.

Oh good god. You keep thinking that these groups are homogenous blobs with clear collective goals that are perfectly enforced.

That's not how it works. Elements within groups coordinate and mingle and have their own goals distinct from each group's collective goals. They can temporarily switch from one group to another, or permanently do so, since there's very little punishment for doing so (other than being ostracized from a group which they've already left, or by threat of punishment... which is enforced how exactly? The FSA as a political force can barely maintain control within its own borders, and it's got bigger problems, e.g. the Assad government, robbing civilians, attacking other insurgent groups, or even groups within the 'FSA'. Occasionally, there will be infighting and occasionally not). It's not 'black-and-white' as you feverishly maintain.

Let's apply your reasoning to other groups. Americans all have common goal X. Russians all have common goal Y. African-Americans all have common goal Z. That's just stupid, and such claims ignore the various means which individuals within the various groups and subgroups use.

Also, membership into the FSA isn't difficult. You just say, "I'm in the FSA," and continue robbing people and/or killing other insurgent groups or government forces. With that in mind, we should pause to think about what those 'FSA' numbers actually are, and we should reconsider what the goals of the 'FSA' actually are. (You won't do this because it requires critical thinking).

And considering the fact that journalists will not maintain objectivity during this civil war, in areas of uncertainty over facts, they're more likely to attribute Good acts to their favored group (e.g. the FSA) while being more likely to attribute Bad acts to their despised group (e.g. Assad's, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, etc.). That's a huge problem which distorts the dissemination of information, so this should make you more skeptical of rabidly marketing one group as Duh Good Guys. Of course, you'll filter news articles which only confirm your interpretation (a.k.a. confirmation bias).

You've started from a position where Rueters, BBC, and whoever are part of some corporate conspiracy--except for NBC, or whoever is your favored news source, which is nonsensical).

You keep harping about one minor source while I've added plenty additional ones (several pages ago, which you've ignored), and you'll continue to overlook the fundamental problems of your positions, which I keep mentioning. You're not being reasonable to think you're in any way correct about your claims--unless of course you shut your eyes and pound your keyboard very loudly.

I'm going to need to see some citations.

Ha, it's not like you'll bother reading anything theoretical, nor will you exercise basic logic to challenge your positions. Shall I recommend a book on logic?

The fact is that you've been wrong about a lot of things, but hey, 'stupid is what stupid does'.