I understand your position, and really sympathize with the view that we need to engage militarily against Syria given the stories that are coming out. For the record, I support the Syrian people against the Assad regime, but am apprehensive about the prospect of US intervention and what could potentially materialize in its aftermath. As history has shown, we really dont understand that part of the world very well. There are internal sectarian divisions that could well manifest in substantive ways following a revolution, along with all sorts of political/cultural intricacies of which most politicians and strategists are hopelessly unaware. American intervention is rarely seen as humanitarian, regardless of its intents, and people in that part of the world have understandable reasons to be suspicious of US intents, particularly given the way neocon warhawks have been pushing military action. An important note about US intervention is the commitment it requires from the US in comparison to its purported 'allies'. These allies continue to look to the US to resolve issues, even when those issues bear little to no national interest to the US and directly impact the interests of those nations. At the moment, the key stakeholder that needs to be convinced of the need for intervention is Russia, and absent Russian consent, I dont see surrounding nations independently invading Syria in support of the rebels, including the US, and maybe thats for the best.
I'm surprised we're not more proactive in this, unlike the other Arab Spring countries, Syria's an ally of Iran (which is why Russia doesn't want intervention). I have a friend of mine living in Syria, so I can't objectively argue about intervention.
da_juice, very little profit to be made in Syria. It's only utility is that Syrian co=operation can be vital to the Iran Project.
CoolStoryBro:in the early 60s (i believe, perhaps late 50s) my uncle ran for the presidency of Syria.The papers called him "Abu Faraj" (father of hope).
At some point Russia needs to step up on the world stage. Syria is their problem not the US's. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_VrFV5r8cs0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
By Iran project, I assume you mean putting in a government we like? I would also say the Syrian project involves putting in a Syrian government that will not try to assert their rights in the Golan Heights conquered and annexed by Israel in 1967.
I don't particularly advocate for an American intervention for some of the reasons you cited, but something has to give. The law is there, someone just has to have the teeth to enforce it. I think the ideal is that the FSA manages to win somehow, but I think more direct support from powers in the region such as Turkey would help. An international intervention need not be an American-led one---nor even one where America participates.
I think Golan is the least of their worries since it is in Israel's control with or without Assad. What is clear is that any sovereign nation with self-determination would conclude that the Golan heights belong to the Syrian people and that may be worrisome as a spill-over. The Iran project is just like the Iraq project: military strength + rich resources = potential new power. That's not allowed. For example in N Korea, military strength is somewhat tolerated because resources = 0. But in other countries, such as Iran, resource wealth is tolerated since the proceeds are pocketed by a select few and as long as the military is capped. It's also this formula which defines who the biggest enemies are, they are the ones closest to having successful domestic economies and a military to protect it. People don't realize that the purpose of nukes in Iran is not for Israel. Iranians want nukes because any country engaged in free technological progress will ultimately want nukes. Their aspiration is to be the best country in the world, and in a world where nukes are like cajones, the Iranians want cajones. That's not exclusive to the mullahs, who are a minority in Iran. All Iranians want nuclear technology - a free, self-determined Iran would be disinterested in Israel and still pursue nuclear technology. But this isn't allowed, as the freely elected Mr Mosadegh found out very quickly at the hands of Kermit Roosevelt Jr and the stakeholders of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The sad thing for Iranians is the knowledge that the most powerful country in the world is waiting for Iranians to sacrifice lives to achieve freedom only to use the resultant chaos to pick a new supreme council. Easy to mask this - let Iranians pick who they want, as long as that person reports to the person who is told "if you make him do what we want, we will give you tons of aid, tons of weapons, tons of technology and the miracle of free trade". Of course, I have a hunch that they are not counting on the fact that Iranians are uber-experienced with revolutions and are unlikely to fall for another supreme council, having already been duped by khomeini in the past. That's just optimism - an unpleasant side effect of having friends and family in a country that IMO is on the brink of demise with their lives at stake for a government that they never wanted.
We can't do anything militarily in Syria because of Russia -- it's either pure diplomacy or secretly helping to arm the rebels. We have too many unique partnerships with the Russians to sour that relationship (ISS/ etc). If it was just China opposing us I think the gloves would already be off and the situation in Syria would be very similar to Libya.
Bullcrap. Germany doesn't have or want nukes. Bullcrap. Bullcrap. Victim card. Bullcrap. Blaming the USA again for everything. Bullcrap. Self-glorification.
The US, UK, France, etc. would never allow Germany to develop and have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. I agree with the rest of your post though.
King Cheetah, Has and desperately wanting to keep: Here is the full RAND National Defense Research Institute findings, showing that almost all respondants (Iranians obviously) support peaceful nuclear technology. It also shows that more Iranians oppose nuclear weapons than support it, and this is especially the case with more educated Iranians. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html In case you won't believe the declassified CIA documents regarding Operation Ajax (feel free to google it), here is someone special talking about it:
Desperate googling on Mathloom's part. These are not Germany's nuclear weapons. These are US weapons. FAIL by Mathloom once again.
Thank God we got rid of that Saddam guy. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/us-iraq-syria-assad-idUSBRE86M0LX20120723 Btw, Bashar said today he would use chemical weapons on foreign invaders - which is the same terminology he has uses to describe the Syrian opposition. I wonder how many Iraqis instantly turned their attention to American troops after hearing this. True or not, most Iraqis see Maliki as an American tyrant. Maliki has already brutally repressed opposition last year and this year. Wonder if round three is coming up after his inexcusable comments.
Well, it may all be over but the crying for the "opposition" forces. They can't agree on who should be represented at peace talk meetings. Meanwhile, Assad is making steady gains and has the backing of Russia to deter Turkish involvement. [rQUOTEr]U.N. seeks Syrian peace talks this week, opposition threatens boycott[/rQUOTEr] [rQUOTEr]Syrian army seizes strategic town in Deraa province: monitor[/rQUOTEr]
It looks like it's coming to an end. [rQUOTEr] Thousands flee as Russian-backed offensive threatens to besiege Aleppo Tens of thousands of Syrians fled an intensifying Russian assault around Aleppo on Friday, and aid workers said they feared the city which once held two million people could soon fall under a full government siege. Iran reported one of its generals was killed on the front line assisting government forces, direct confirmation of the role Tehran is playing along with Moscow in what appears to be one of the most ambitious offensives in five years of civil war. The government assault around Aleppo, and advances in the south of the country, helped to torpedo peace talks this week in Geneva. President Bashar al-Assad's forces and their allies are making a new bid to achieve victory on the battlefield after Russia's intervention ended months of stalemate. ...[/rQUOTEr]
If the people in Syria had known the current outcome, would they have still protested against the government a few years ago?
