Atrocities are probably inevitable. I don't think tabulating atrocities by each side will lead to a good conclusion regarding who to support. In the past you have indicated that it may be preferable to keep Assad in power because, although he is a violent, oppressive dictator, at least he is a known entity. Is that still your contention? Or is it simply that this is a conflict we should stay out of entirely?
Actually it's not. Your lack of understanding in this has made me understand why you are anti-semitic. You're just ignorant, or possibly stupid. Not sure which.
I think we have to look at two interests here that matter: - The interest of the Syrian population - The interest of the free Western world Is the Syrian population better off with Assad or with whoever would replace him? The answer is it is really unclear. Even if Assad is a dictator, will living conditions improve after him? My guess is: No. I don't think Egyptians are better off under Morsi than they were under Mubarak. On the contrary. Also, if the Sunni Islamists among the rebels come to power, I predict massacres against the Alevites in Syria. Are we (the West) better off without Assad? The answer is: Most probably not. The rebels are already totally infiltrated by Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood type militant Sunni Islamists. Giving these people weapons is like giving weapons to Al Qaeda directly. You are basically helping your worst enemy to enlarge their sphere of influence. Also, although Assad is an enemy of Israel, these guys would probably attack Israel next, which he would not. And then, all hell breaks loose. Therefore, I don't see a situation in which we should support either side.
Anti-semitic? That's a new one. And yes, it's bullcrap. You are trying to paint this picture that they "turned against the US because they didn't get any infrastructure". What? Did the US owe them infrastructure? The US already helped them with weapons, against the Soviets. "Give us infrastructure or we will kill you" You are not making any sense. The reason they turned against the US is that they used them to get weapons, but in their Islamist ideology, the US are infidels who are to be fought. They were useful idiots for them, so they didn't turn against them as long as they got weapons from them.
So the Syrian population is better off with someone who massacres it at will? Yea that makes a lot of sense
You can figure out my point very easily from simply watching Charlie Wilson's War. It's the same as if you use a girl for sex, then ditch her the next day. People do things when you hurt their feelings. It takes something to turn a friend into an enemy. Of course, you are an anti-semite who hates Muslims, so you don't understand how to think from the shoes of another person.
ATW? Anti-semite? Uh, what? And the thing that's funny about your whole "Afghanistan didn't work out because we didn't stay around to build infrastructure"...is that you're implying we will or should in the case of Syria. Are you?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TE1lifYefsM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
the greatest foreign policy success America has ever acheived was turning West Germany and Japan from genocidal war-states to reliable allies. Now, America was forced to do so as a proxy against Soviet influence, but I think it's a great lesson in what could happen if America chose to play a bit nicer, and help build, when all is said and done. You can weigh the future implications of the humiliation of Versailles with the building of Western Europe. Maybe if those people who are selfishly inclined towards the intrests of their nation and no further realized the construction of other states is an investment in their own prosperity and security, the world would already be a better place.
as for the Taliban redux---I think it's abundantly clear that Administration officials are well-versed in history as well. The support you see has been tentative because of that fear. There's no way of ensuring radicals don't get some arms, but to not get involved was to risk letting the world know that there is no risk to slaughtering your own people in the most brutal of ways, a lesson the Assad family was imparting by their continued power, considering the terrible crimes they have committed.
You mention the Soviet thing, which is really critical, but we didn't deal with Germany and Japan by say, allying ourselves with the Valkyrie plotters or the White Rose, which would be closer to what you're doing in Syria, and would have created a real mess if we had done something like that. We did it, essentially, by killing all of them. And then, with a continued American occupation which is not going to end anytime soon and comes with an implied threat of "Try your imperial dreams and we will actually use the Morgentheau plan this time." And Versailles is a terrible example because contrary to what is taught, the Allies were far too lenient on Germany - Germany was in fact in a SUPERIOR geopolitical position after the war because now there were no empires in the east to contest their supremacy once they regathered their strength, and the Allies not burning Germany to the ground helped to create the stab in the back myth. Hence the Allies being far nastier to them, and demanding unconditional surrender in the next round.
This is very different. Japan wasn't at war with itself. They didn't have strong political or religious fractions among them. They were completely defeated. In this case, not only do you have a civil war, you got all kind of very different interests within the rebel. Once they win, it's far from settle and the us is not going to be able to unite them. We won't have the money nor the political will to make a strong commitment to another nation building of this sort.
I would have examined the rest of your arguments, but this one struck me as very odd. Why would have allying with the White Rose, of all people, have been a real mess, especially considering how the Allies successfully allied and supported many armed resistance groups throughout WW2? This speaks to me of a fundamental clash of worldviews, if you think supporting the White Rose, a non-violent intellectual movement, would have led to a "real mess". It leads me to believe, as your signature seems to suggest, that you believe no resistance to power can be legitimate, since I cannot think of a purer resistance group than the Scholls, and the White Rose. It would be cool if you could enlighten me with regards to this, since there's not really a point of debating someone who regards the White Rose as something akin to an armed resistance group in Syria. Our worldviews would just be too far apart.
Oh, I don't know about rebuilding the entire nation of Syria, and I'm not proposing a point-by-point action plan with that regards with all of the contigencies and what have you, but it certainly would be nice for the same zeal to be spent on building things rather than destroying them.
