Why would we want to help Syria?

[Circe]

I saw a statistic in the news today that startled me -- the claim that there have so far been 60,000 people killed in the civil war in Syria. I was surprised because Assad's father killed 10,000, mostly Palestinians, some decades ago and that was often used as an argument point that no one liked Palestinians, or huge death toll by Mideast dictators, etc.

The 60,000 figure appeared in an article about Obama backing off from a claim that neither side better use Assad's chemical weapons "or else." Apparently our military is not enthusiastic about this threat and now the back-off is "no boots on the ground."

I don't see the point in "helping" Syria at all and hope we don't get into yet another quagmire there. Syria is an Iranian client state and has attacked Israel many times; Israel bombed out the nuke factory they were building with North Korean help a few years ago. Syrians are our enemies and the more they go to pieces, the better for our national interest, IMO.

In addition, how has it ever helped anyone for us to go in there and shoot the place up? Anyone who supposes it "helped" Iraq to be turned into a blown-up mess of shattered stone with mass-murder bombs going off each and every day is just propagandizing. No place we "helped," like Afghanistan or Libya, is better off ---- they are all much worse off, and tens of thousands more are dead than would have died if we had stayed out.

I hope we stay completely out of Syria. Any opinions on that?

 

[Swagger]

Personally speaking, the whole Arab Spring smells very fishy to me. I'll even go so as far as to say that I suspect that it's being orchestrated by the American, British and other European governments to create a more hospitable trading and exploration environment for oil companies. Except they didn't anticipate al-Qaeda trying to exploit the vacuums left in the wake of previous dictatorships to their advantage.

I can accept that supplying rebels and pro-democracy movements will create a more stable environment and that such a course will make life harder for al-Qaeda and their sympathisers. But that view's outweighed by my suspicion of the people we're supposedly helping. From where I'm sitting they're only saying they want democracy because they know there's a proven chance powerful western countries will supply them with arms, only for them to use those arms and international support to put the leaders of these uprisings in power, putting us firmly back to square one.

 

[Circe]

Personally speaking, the whole Arab Spring smells very fishy to me. I'll even go so as far as to say that I suspect that it's being orchestrated by the American, British and other European governments to create a more hospitable trading and exploration environment for oil companies. Except they didn't anticipate al-Qaeda trying to exploit the vacuums left in the wake of previous dictatorships to their advantage.

I can accept that supplying rebels and pro-democracy movements will create a more stable environment and that such a course will make life harder for al-Qaeda and their sympathisers. But that view's outweighed by my suspicion of the people we're supposedly helping. From where I'm sitting they're only saying they want democracy because they know there's a proven chance powerful western countries will supply them with arms, only for them to use those arms and international support to put the leaders of these uprisings in power, putting us firmly back to square one.

Square one wasn't so bad! Indeed, we spent many a billion on square one over the decades and it was working out pretty well. We paid "our SOBs" lots of money and weapons and they kept the crazy Muslim terrorist types well suppressed.

There was a lot of nonsense talked here and there by young optimists about how it was all going to be democracy and freedom after the revolution; but actually it just let the fundamentalist Muslims out of the pot and here they are, taking over every country. Even Tunisia is now going back into harsh Islam, I read. I suppose we should have realized from Iran that this would be the pattern all over the Mideast --- and they aren't going to give these countries back, either. No, I don't agree that any of this has anything at all to do with First World oil interests or government machinations. We already had all we wanted in that regard, this is a catastrophe!

It was caused by food prices going up. Most revolutions are, I read: the French Revolution certainly was. People always SAY it's about Liberty, Equality, Fraternity --- but it's about food prices and scarcities. Egypt has no economy. And is grossly overpopulated. They are the biggest grain importer in the world, per capita, but Egypt provided the grain used in Rome during most of the Roman Empire, so what a come-down. They have no economy, and only a crazy person would go there as a tourist at this point. So food prices are STILL going up: and here we have the anniversary riots and the country on the brink of collapse.

If Saudi Arabia goes, we're in trouble.

 

[1Templar]

We don't.

 

[Circe]

We don't.

We don't want to "help" Syria?

Maybe you are right, and it's like Clinton and his crocodile tears about wishing he had "helped" Rwanda, yeah, sure, next time no doubt.

After Mogadishu, Clinton would NEVER have helped any country in Africa, and quite right, too. It was simply not in our interests.

It may be that the same thing is going on here --- oh, poor Syrians, oh, how sad. And how far away we will stay from it all.

Well, if it's that simple, good. The more Syria tears itself up, the better for the USA. Egypt is bad for us, Tunisia didn't matter, Libya was bad for Europe, but Syria? Who cares? They're doing all the destroying by themselves and don't need us to "help."

 

[Intense]

That kind of killing isn't good for anyone. Destabilization is not good for anyone.

 

[Circe]

That kind of killing isn't good for anyone. Destabilization is not good for anyone.

It's not good for Syrians in general; it's certainly good for Assad, since his life depends on it.

Destabilization is not good for anyone? I'm not sure. I'm not sure it matters much since it is Syria: they have no oil, they import oil. They have been troublemakers for a long time, including trying to nuke up. If they have to recover from a violent civil war it might clip their wings for a long time.

On the other hand, if we go in there, Syria is a client state of Iran's, and Iran just said explicitly that an attack on Syria would be viewed as an attack on Iran. Maybe so, maybe no, but war there COULD spread if we become involved. I'm not sure destabilization matters in the case of Syria. Stability of any oil nation is a serious matter: that's why we may well intervene in Nigeria, but we don't care much about Syria. And we cooperated with European attacks in Libya --- because Libyan oil doesn't come to us, but oil is fungible. Oil is all that really matters, oil and Israel. If Israel is attacked by Islamist Egypt, that could be a problem. Syria destabilized as drastically as it is now cannot possibly attack Israel, so that's another plus. A destabilized Syria can't effectively support Hezbollah.

"Confusion to our enemies."

 

[Connery]

We are part of NATO as is Turkey. The more Turkey gets involved the more Russia is intervening. "Russia’s steadfast support of the Bashar Assad regime seems to be hardening in recent weeks, as NATO started to deploy Patriot anti-missile systems in Turkey to prevent Assad’s last minute desperate attack on Turkey."
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/01...-mediterranean-to-counter-nato-role-in-syria/

Stabilizing the area appears to be the main concern.

 

[Circe]

NATO started to deploy Patriot anti-missile systems in Turkey to prevent Assad’s last minute desperate attack on Turkey."

Stabilizing the area appears to be the main concern.

Hmmmm.....missiles in Turkey, anti-missiles in Turkey, this seems to come up every few decades. Russia never likes it.

I'm not sure it matters in 2013. Russia is mainly concerned with getting its citizens out of Syria at the moment, from what I read.

 

[blackhawk]

I saw a statistic in the news today that startled me -- the claim that there have so far been 60,000 people killed in the civil war in Syria. I was surprised because Assad's father killed 10,000, mostly Palestinians, some decades ago and that was often used as an argument point that no one liked Palestinians, or huge death toll by Mideast dictators, etc.

The 60,000 figure appeared in an article about Obama backing off from a claim that neither side better use Assad's chemical weapons "or else." Apparently our military is not enthusiastic about this threat and now the back-off is "no boots on the ground."

I don't see the point in "helping" Syria at all and hope we don't get into yet another quagmire there. Syria is an Iranian client state and has attacked Israel many times; Israel bombed out the nuke factory they were building with North Korean help a few years ago. Syrians are our enemies and the more they go to pieces, the better for our national interest, IMO.

In addition, how has it ever helped anyone for us to go in there and shoot the place up? Anyone who supposes it "helped" Iraq to be turned into a blown-up mess of shattered stone with mass-murder bombs going off each and every day is just propagandizing. No place we "helped," like Afghanistan or Libya, is better off ---- they are all much worse off, and tens of thousands more are dead than would have died if we had stayed out.

I hope we stay completely out of Syria. Any opinions on that?

I doubt Obama will get involved in Syria that would be a much harder fight than Libya was the problem is we now have Al-Qeada types involved in Syria and Assad does have chemical weapons and unlike Iraq no one is disputing this. If Assad falls you have a failed state with chemical weapons and terrorist groups inside it not a good thing for anyone. I don't see any outside involvement from anyone unless Assad uses them the sad thing is now the best outcome we could get would be for Assad to retain control in Syria.

 

[Connery]

NATO started to deploy Patriot anti-missile systems in Turkey to prevent Assad’s last minute desperate attack on Turkey."

Stabilizing the area appears to be the main concern.

Hmmmm.....missiles in Turkey, anti-missiles in Turkey, this seems to come up every few decades. Russia never likes it.

I'm not sure it matters in 2013. Russia is mainly concerned with getting its citizens out of Syria at the moment, from what I read.

Russia has been an ardent supporter of Assad. I do not believe their citizens are their only concern, they do not want to give up their presence in the area.

 

[MHunterB]

You mean their warm water port on the Med......

 

[Connery]

You mean their warm water port on the Med......

Exactly

 

[Circe]

... the sad thing is now the best outcome we could get would be for Assad to retain control in Syria.

That's what I think, too! We supported these dictators for a reason, after all.

 

[High_Gravity]

I saw a statistic in the news today that startled me -- the claim that there have so far been 60,000 people killed in the civil war in Syria. I was surprised because Assad's father killed 10,000, mostly Palestinians, some decades ago and that was often used as an argument point that no one liked Palestinians, or huge death toll by Mideast dictators, etc.

The 60,000 figure appeared in an article about Obama backing off from a claim that neither side better use Assad's chemical weapons "or else." Apparently our military is not enthusiastic about this threat and now the back-off is "no boots on the ground."

I don't see the point in "helping" Syria at all and hope we don't get into yet another quagmire there. Syria is an Iranian client state and has attacked Israel many times; Israel bombed out the nuke factory they were building with North Korean help a few years ago. Syrians are our enemies and the more they go to pieces, the better for our national interest, IMO.

In addition, how has it ever helped anyone for us to go in there and shoot the place up? Anyone who supposes it "helped" Iraq to be turned into a blown-up mess of shattered stone with mass-murder bombs going off each and every day is just propagandizing. No place we "helped," like Afghanistan or Libya, is better off ---- they are all much worse off, and tens of thousands more are dead than would have died if we had stayed out.

I hope we stay completely out of Syria. Any opinions on that?

I'm pretty much with you, we just need to stay out of it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I saw a statistic in the news today that startled me -- the claim that there have so far been 60,000 people killed in the civil war in Syria. I was surprised because Assad's father killed 10,000, mostly Palestinians, some decades ago and that was often used as an argument point that no one liked Palestinians, or huge death toll by Mideast dictators, etc.

The 60,000 figure appeared in an article about Obama backing off from a claim that neither side better use Assad's chemical weapons "or else." Apparently our military is not enthusiastic about this threat and now the back-off is "no boots on the ground."

I don't see the point in "helping" Syria at all and hope we don't get into yet another quagmire there. Syria is an Iranian client state and has attacked Israel many times; Israel bombed out the nuke factory they were building with North Korean help a few years ago. Syrians are our enemies and the more they go to pieces, the better for our national interest, IMO.

In addition, how has it ever helped anyone for us to go in there and shoot the place up? Anyone who supposes it "helped" Iraq to be turned into a blown-up mess of shattered stone with mass-murder bombs going off each and every day is just propagandizing. No place we "helped," like Afghanistan or Libya, is better off ---- they are all much worse off, and tens of thousands more are dead than would have died if we had stayed out.

I hope we stay completely out of Syria. Any opinions on that?

I got a question for you.


Would you like to buy front row seats to a special event?

We bring in 1000 Syrian newborns, and a score of men with blades.

The winner is the man that kills the most babies.

Would you like those tickets?

If not, rethink us not helping in Syria, b/c It's a daily event.

 

[Katzndogz]

I saw a statistic in the news today that startled me -- the claim that there have so far been 60,000 people killed in the civil war in Syria. I was surprised because Assad's father killed 10,000, mostly Palestinians, some decades ago and that was often used as an argument point that no one liked Palestinians, or huge death toll by Mideast dictators, etc.

The 60,000 figure appeared in an article about Obama backing off from a claim that neither side better use Assad's chemical weapons "or else." Apparently our military is not enthusiastic about this threat and now the back-off is "no boots on the ground."

I don't see the point in "helping" Syria at all and hope we don't get into yet another quagmire there. Syria is an Iranian client state and has attacked Israel many times; Israel bombed out the nuke factory they were building with North Korean help a few years ago. Syrians are our enemies and the more they go to pieces, the better for our national interest, IMO.

In addition, how has it ever helped anyone for us to go in there and shoot the place up? Anyone who supposes it "helped" Iraq to be turned into a blown-up mess of shattered stone with mass-murder bombs going off each and every day is just propagandizing. No place we "helped," like Afghanistan or Libya, is better off ---- they are all much worse off, and tens of thousands more are dead than would have died if we had stayed out.

I hope we stay completely out of Syria. Any opinions on that?

I'm pretty much with you, we just need to stay out of it.

Exactly as I said on day one. The United States started out supporting the same kind of terrorists that took over Libya and Egypt. Our idiot presidebt didn't even think about Russian support for Assad. obama's king of the world, why would he consider some other country. We should never have helped anyone. Assad would have put down the rebellion long ago and it would have been over by now.

 

[Connery]

I'm pretty much with you, we just need to stay out of it.

It is a NATO issue rather than solely a US issue. "The first of six Patriot missile batteries being deployed to Turkey to protect against attack from Syria was declared operational and placed under NATO command, the international organization said. The United States, Germany and the Netherlands are providing two batteries each of the latest version of the U.S.-made Patriots. The other five Patriot batteries are expected to be in place and operational in the coming days in Adana, Kahramanmaras and Gaziantep.

"This is a clear demonstration of the agility and flexibility of NATO forces and of our willingness to defend Allies who face threats in an unstable world," Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, said in a statement."

NATO missile defense battery on Syrian border operational

 

[Circe]

I got a question for you.


Would you like to buy front row seats to a special event?

We bring in 1000 Syrian newborns, and a score of men with blades.

The winner is the man that kills the most babies.

Would you like those tickets?

If not, rethink us not helping in Syria, b/c It's a daily event.

Naaaaah, all I have to do is avoid your strange event.

It's nothing to me if strange people in faraway lands kill each other: they WILL do it, no one has ever been able to stop them. As long as it doesn't affect American interests, it's SEP: Somebody Else's Problem.

 

[Circe]

It is a NATO issue rather than solely a US issue. "The first of six Patriot missile batteries being deployed to Turkey to protect against attack from Syria was declared operational and placed under NATO command, the international organization said. The United States, Germany and the Netherlands are providing two batteries each of the latest version of the U.S.-made Patriots. The other five Patriot batteries are expected to be in place and operational in the coming days in Adana, Kahramanmaras and Gaziantep.

What do you think the Turks are worried about, Connery? Putting up several Patriot anti-missile batteries is a strong hint someone is worried about Syria attacking Turkey, duh....

Are they worried that Syria will shoot missiles with that poison gas? I'm trying to think what is the geopolitical rationale for this concern: Syrian rebels take over and then decide fighting Turkey and NATO is somehow a GOOD idea? This is a puzzle.