Latest Arab Spring thread
Syrian protesters burn Iranian, Russian and Chinese flags...
[YOUTUBE]EwQia0Bz7VQ[/YOUTUBE]
...while a massive barrier of armed cops watch from half a block away. It's a little electrifying.
It's rumored that Syria has a quota on killing protesters - not a minimum quota, but a maximum, so that they don't kill too many in one day and make too much news.
I saw another video where a protester gets half his face shot off, but I didn't link it. But that's what these people are risking, out in the streets.
...no American flag-burning?
Now I'm a little hurt.
We're either getting some love here or American flags are not generally available...
...no American flag-burning?
Now I'm a little hurt...
...and annoyed.
We're either getting some love here or American flags are not generally available...
Always the first to run out. :D
Seriously, though, no. Right now, those protestors are not our* enemies, they do not hate us*, and actually appreciate the gestures of support we* are making. Setting aside the 5% who are dogmatically anti-western religious nutters, the vast majority of the rebellious Arabs want human rights, honest law, and a government answerable to the people, i.e. Western values.
Played correctly, this is an opportunity on a scale not seen since the velvet revolution of 1989.
ETA * our, us and we are in reference to The West rather than the USA specifically.
One of our teachers leaves at the end of this term for a teaching job in Abu Dhabi.
I know the UAE is one of the most stable countries in the region, politically and economically, but it is still ruled as an absolute monarchy - or a federation of them.
I'm not sure I would want the risk. But then the rewards are great and Westerners get out unscathed when there is trouble after all.
I don't think Indonesia can be compared to countries in what is officially the Middle East as things are pretty relaxed here and this is by far the easiest place I have ever lived o/s (or maybe I'm just more relaxed), but it's weird here seeing the travel advisories-we got another one on Friday from the embassy-advising Australians to seriously reconsider their need to travel to Indonesia as intelligence has uncovered hard evidence of groups that engage in blowing up things in a number of parts of the country. In spite of this, people are just going about their business. A couple of weeks ago on the day of the Royal Wedding when a package was found outside the British Embassy, we got an email which said, package found, traffic jams likely, avoid area and that's about as much as anyone seems to say or worry about. At this stage, it seems like an alternate reality.
Syrian protesters burn Iranian, Russian and Chinese flags...
It's rumored that Syria has a quota on killing protesters - not a minimum quota, but a maximum, so that they don't kill too many in one day and make too much news.
As long as we don't export American style Democracy Obama will keep our hands clean. This is Arab style Democracy don't cha know.... Isn't it great!
Wow. That just goes to prove that merc can turn any thread into an anti-Obama swipe.
Wow. That just goes to prove that merc can turn any thread into an anti-Obama swipe.
One trick pony likes to do his one trick.
The people of Syria are the victims of the geopolitics of the Region.
Unlike Egypt where the US and the west had influence as a result of strong ties to Mubarak and the military leaders and unlike Libya where Ghaddifi has no friends among the Arab League.
In addition to its relationship with Iran (and by proxy, Hamas and Hezbollah), Syria also has its ally Russia on the UN Security Council, assuring a veto of any UN mandate to respond to the massacres.
Yemen might be sliding into a civil war. A tribal leader has started shooting back at the government troops.
Yemen 2011 is a lot like Somalia 1989. And it is just on the other side of the mouth of the Red Sea. :(
Do they have anything the US or its allies wants? If not they'll get about as much help from us as Syria. :/
Off the top of my head, they assert control over the Gulf of Aden. In conjunction with Somalia and Djibouti. Which is kind of a big deal.
Do they have anything the US or its allies wants? If not they'll get about as much help from us as Syria. :/
It might not be "what can they offer us" but a more Pakistan style "there could potentially be serious damage to the US if Yemen falls into a civil war". Yemen is a terroristic hotspot right behind Af-Pak.
It might not be "what can they offer us" but a more Pakistan style "there could potentially be serious damage to the US if Yemen falls into a civil war". Yemen is a terroristic hotspot right behind Af-Pak.
Agreed.
Both strategic issues and the different geo-political issues for each country in the Middle East that come into play, as much or more than "what they can offer us."
So what you are saying is that the US will be calling for the leaderships ouster or resignation and then bombing soon after they decline?
Color me skeptical.
That is not what I said at all.
We have been bombing al Queda targets in Yemen for the last two years, but that is not really issue regarding the current crisis over the removal of Saleh.
The US strategic interest as well as the geo-politics in Yemen should guide our further actions. Yemen is the poorest and probably the most tribal country in the region, where we have little influence.
Our strategic interest is that the popular movement in Yemen not become just a front for al Queda, which many indicators suggest is the case.
As to removing Saleh, it is in the US interest to let Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council lead in that effort in a way that does not threaten the region. It is in their interest that al Queda does not gain a greater foothold, something they dont want to see either.
Do they have anything the US or its allies wants?
Sand?
exactly - all they'll get from the US is a lot of talk.
See post #19 for confirmation.
exactly - all they'll get from the US is a lot of talk.
See post #19 for confirmation.
Or we could be more aggresive in forcing the president of Yemen out of office and strengthen al Queda, which already has considerable influence in the "populist" movement, in which the US is not very popular. :rolleyes:
I find it rather interesting that the situation in Libya has gotten virtually ZERO press as of late.
Zero press means fewer massacres taking place. A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).
While at the same time more goverrnment leaders defect (5 more generals yesterday) and more pressure is put on Ghaddafi to leave, including from the president of South Africa who was in Libya yesterday.
All with the US in a background role which is in everyone's best interest.
Zero press means fewer massacres taking place.
Not necessarily. One would hope so, but less coverage doesn't necessarily equal fewer massacres.
A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).
I dunno - A stalemate doesn't seem ideal to anyone.
While at the same time more goverrnment leaders defect (5 more generals yesterday) and more pressure is put on Ghaddafi to leave, including from the president of South Africa who was in Libya yesterday.
didn't see that anywhere.
All with the US in a background role which is in everyone's best interest.
Agreed
Zero press means fewer massacres taking place. A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).
No press also means very important and necessary actions are taking place among Libya's future leaders. They are learning what is necessary to create a democratic type government. And to respect legitimate authority.
Many Libya rebel units had no leadership. Or had multiple leaders who gave contradictory orders. The previous supreme military commander (a former Libyan general and American college professor) has been replaced by a civilian equivalent of a Secretary of Defense.
As stated earlier, a long and tortuous rebellion is one the best things that could happen to the rebels. So that necessary respect and structures so important for 'planning for the peace' can be established and appreciated. So that so many factions that once only had one thing in common (a hate for Kaddafi), will now have respect for their current allies and once former adversaries.
A year long war could be a good thing for long term Libyan health. Those important accomplishments (ie nation building) would not be front page stories.
or they might be pissed at those who may have offered assistance "behind closed doors" they didn't deliver... Who knows. certainly none of us. Fun postulating though.
It has been interesting following the national conservative response to US policy and actions in Libya.
For the most part, Obama has either done too little (the McCain,William Kristol camp) and the US should always take the lead with a greater military presence rather than ceding it to NATO and we should be bombing more aggressively or we should never have gotten into Libya in the first place (the Scarborough, George Will camp).
The few who support the policy (Romney camp) do so but question Obama's leadership. Evidently, leadership requires greater personal visibility rather than a more nuanced behind the scenes approach by influencing both the military and political response by remaining in the background and letting NATO lead the military response and the Arab League and African Union lead the political response.
Do they have anything the US or its allies wants? If not they'll get about as much help from us as Syria. :/
Maybe they will form a unified Pirate Navy, then they may have our ships.
Zero press means fewer massacres taking place.
:lol: Really? How'd that work out for Rawanda and subsequently The Congo in the years afterwards?
:lol: Really? How'd that work out for Rawanda and subsequently The Congo in the years afterwards?
Putting aside the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion of Libya or the Arab spring uprisings, we knew about massacres in Rwanda and the Congo because of the press.
Try to stay on topic, please.
Putting aside the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion of Libya or the Arab spring uprisings, we knew about massacres in Rwanda and the Congo because of the press.
Try to stay on topic, please.
Actually it was quite unreported in the press. And the follow on massacres in the Congo hardly made the press at all. Don't try to deflect your failure to keep the facts straight.
Sure, if you say so and if you believe it is relevant to the Arab spring uprisings.
Sure, if you say so and if you believe it is relevant to the Arab spring uprisings.
It is relevant to your false statement: "Zero press means fewer massacres taking place."
It is relevant to your false statement: "Zero press means fewer massacres taking place."
Only if you want to be argumentative, given that my response was directed at Libya.
You have evidence that more massacres have taken place in Libya in recent days?
Do you have evidence that no massacres took place in Libya in recent days?
I'M KIDDING!
Do you have evidence that you're kidding?
I do. I saw it in the press! ;)
Only if you want to be argumentative, given that my response was directed at Libya.
You have evidence that more massacres have taken place in Libya in recent days?
It matters not, the statement was utterly false.
Actually few true massacres have taken place in Libya. Troops firing on selected crowds and killing them hardly amounts to a massacre, an atrocity certainly. Unlike when the UN failed to act in Bosnia and a true massacre did occur. NATO had to step in without a UN mandate and get the job done when the EU should have dealt with the whole issue independently.
I can't find a definition for the threshold for massacre.
Do you have evidence that you're kidding?
I do. I saw it in the press! ;)
We've long had the discussion of calling out someone to prove the negative...
And I FUCKIN' SAID SO in the post.
[SIZE="1"]
Yes I know you were being sorta humorous as well...[/SIZE]
Umm...I was listening to and watching the news reports of the massacres in Rwanda pretty much as they were happening. There was lots of news coverage.
[eta] Just saw on tonight's news an estimated 40 people have been massacred by government troops in Syria.
We've long had the discussion of calling out someone to prove the negative...
And I FUCKIN' SAID SO in the post.
[SIZE="1"]
Yes I know you were being sorta humorous as well...[/SIZE]
I was being completely humorous.
Umm...I was listening to and watching the news reports of the massacres in Rwanda pretty much as they were happening. There was lots of news coverage.
[eta] Just saw on tonight's news an estimated 40 people have been massacred by government troops in Syria.
Syria continues to spiral downward and a soft EU-sponsored draft resolution at the UN this week that simply condemned the actions of the government was opposed by Russia and China before even coming to a vote.
I dont know a reasonable way to prevent further violence unless Russia or Iran pressures Assad.
Umm...I was listening to and watching the news reports of the massacres in Rwanda pretty much as they were happening. There was lots of news coverage.
Me too. Lots of it.
Maybe it depends on
which news sources people were watching. And if you think your news sources weren't reporting Rwanda properly, maybe you should broaden your news sources.
[eta] Just saw on tonight's news an estimated 40 people have been massacred by government troops in Syria.
Tha's just
today right? Because I see running totals in the several hundreds, maybe over a thousand, for the total in the recent troubles, for Syria alone.
Yes, that was one attack on a town.
I can't find a definition for the threshold for massacre.
As a point of reference, the
Boston Massacre was when the Redcoats killed 5 colonists. That was enough to be called a massacre in America, but the British thought it was a riot.
They still call it the Kent State Massacre. 4 people.
So I'm not sure where the line between "true massacre" and "just some killins'" is. ;)
('true massacre' is a registered trademark of TheMercenary.)
('true massacre' is a registered trademark of TheMercenary.)
Shit! does that mean we have to send him royalties every time we use that term? :rolleyes:
Yep! Crud. Now I owe.
Send me a bill. :bolt:
@ Dana and Zen -
I use a multitude of news sources... I really haven't been seeing that much in the press.
It seems like a 30 sec blip here and there on occasion. not exactly a top news story like
Wiener's wiener, Sara Palin's (waste of air/space/time/ bus tour or Ahhhnold's ugly mistress.
They still call it the Kent State Massacre. 4 people.
So I'm not sure where the line between "true massacre" and "just some killins'" is. ;)
('true massacre' is a registered trademark of TheMercenary.)
But they don't count being as they were drug induced, anti-American, socialist agitators. :eek:
And probably zero-liability voters as well.
Umm...I was listening to and watching the news reports of the massacres in Rwanda pretty much as they were happening. There was lots of news coverage.
[eta] Just saw on tonight's news an estimated 40 people have been massacred by government troops in Syria.
And what did you read about the follow on massacres in the Congo? Did that make the news too?
They still call it the Kent State Massacre. 4 people.
So I'm not sure where the line between "true massacre" and "just some killins'" is. ;)
('true massacre' is a registered trademark of TheMercenary.)
Well that would be a bit of a reach. But the killing of a few protesters everyday in the current unrest of the Middle East could hardly be compared to what happened to the Jews in WWll, the Cambodians in the Killing Fields, or the 100,000 people hacked to death in 100 days in Rawanda, hell, it can't even come close to what happened in Serbia as the UN sat on their asses as men, women and children were slaughtered. And how about the events in Iraq where Saddam gassed the Kurds?!?!? or how about the Armenians, if you want to go back a bit further. Where was the press???? No press, but the events still happened....None of that compares to anything that has happened anywhere in the current unrest in the Middle East. Nothing. Yea, so far, there have been no "true massacres"... well unless you have something else to put up.
The fact that you are evidently so consumed with proving me wrong over what is simply a matter of semantics (
in this post) rather than focusing on the issue of the Arab spring uprisings is really quite amusing.
Meaningless, but amusing nonetheless. :D
The fact that you are evidently so consumed with proving me wrong over what is simply a matter of semantics( in this post) rather than focusing on the issue of the Arab spring uprisings is really quite amusing.
Meaningless, but amusing nonetheless. :D
That is silly. You have been proven to have lied and you pass it off as a matter of "semantics".... sorry Refulx, that dog won't hunt.
That is silly. You have been proven to have lied and you pass it off as a matter of "semantics".... sorry Refulx, that dog won't hunt.
Just another outbreak of Mercenary Madness to hit a discussion. Fortunately, it is not contagious and reasonable people are immune to it. ;)
Just another outbreak of Mercenary Madness to hit a discussion. Fortunately, it is not contagious and reasonable people are immune to it. ;)
Cool. Compare and Contrast Libya and Syria. How's that working out fer ya? Cite and explain... Thanks.
Cool. Compare and Contrast Libya and Syria. How's that working out fer ya? Cite and explain... Thanks.
I have explained that several times.
There was a UN mandate for military action in Libya along with support of the Arab League. The UN wont even adopt a resolution condemning Syria, because Russia and China will veto it and the Arab League would oppose any resolution or action as well.
Libya has no allies among the other Arab powers. Syria has Iran.
A military action against Syria could have backlash against Israel, led by Hezballah and Hamas, both under the Syrian/Iranian influence.
A simple understanding of the geopolitics of the region.
I have explained that several times.
There was a UN mandate for military action in Libya along with support of the Arab League.
So far failed. Supported by a well known terrorist organization.
The UN wont even adopt a resolution condemning Syria, because Russia and China will veto it and the Arab League would oppose any resolution or action as well.
Citation please. Proves how inept the UN is as an organization we should stop throwing taxpayer dollars into......
Libya has no allies among the other Arab powers. Syria has Iran.
citation please.
A military action against Syria could have backlash against Israel, led by Hezballah and Hamas, both under the Syrian/Iranian influence.
Citation?
The first signs of Mercenary Madness creeping in to the discussion was identified
here and
here.
This is just more of the same.
Carry on, pony!
The first signs of Mercenary Madness creeping in to the discussion was identified here and here.
Carry on, pony!
Cool, so you can't back up your propaganda! Ride 'em Cowboy!
Oh, and Pelosi is still a Cunt, REDUX.
And what did you read about the follow on massacres in the Congo? Did that make the news too?
Of course it made the news. I didn't 'read' a great deal about it, but I listened to an awful lot of radio news and investigative journalism. The BBC World service runs through the night. I listen to it when I can't sleep, have done for years and years. It's how I know what's going on in the world.
I listened to the reports of the two presidents (Rwanda and Burundi) being killed whne their helicopter ws shot down. I listened (and watched on tv) as the violence grew. I also listened to the reports that followed, as the violence spread into the Congo. Just like I listened to the ongoing tragedy of Afghanistan, with the women of that country being brutalised and effectively enslaved, whilst the world did nothing, for years. And the unfolding horror of Darfur and the brutality of the Janjaweed.
Not much of note happens in the world without a mention on the BBC World Service. Not much happens without a mention on TV news. Very little happens without coverage in the Guardian and The Times.
I don;t know what news service you are watching, but seriously, this stuff should all be there.
I am more curious about who the
"well known terrorist organization" is that is supporting Ghaddafi.
Or that he and the Libya government are supporting, given that the Bush administration removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2006.
I am more curious about who the "well known terrorist organization" is that is supporting Ghaddafi.
Why so much silence? Every informed dweller needs to know what this
"well known terrorist organization" is that is supporting Ghaddafi. Why so many accusations without relevant facts or citations? Why so much silence?
It's more than 1000 dead in Syria so far, but what happens now?
The fearless people respond by announcing that Friday is in memorial of all the children killed,
calling it "Children's Friday", and they go to the streets again. It takes aljazeera 12 windows to show all the protests around the country:
[YOUTUBE]FTAkqtVUqxU[/YOUTUBE]
That 13-year-old Hamza Ali al-Khatib, who I mentioned in
this post,
has become a symbol:
One video showing the mutilated body of 13-year-old Hamza Ali al-Khatib, who was arrested and murdered by security forces, has horrified the world and inspired more protests across Syria. Activists insist he was tortured and killed by security forces, while the latter deny he was tortured.
Khatib, like the market-seller Mohamed Bouazizi who set himself alight in Tunisia and Neda Agha Soltan whose dying moments were filmed and distributed in Iran, has become a potent symbol to protesters demanding more freedom.
The rest of that story is Human Rights Watch, documenting what happened in one city. They call their report "We've Never Seen Such Horror" and report on random killing, mowing down of protesters, torturing people and terrorizing the city.
It's more than 1000 dead in Syria so far, but what happens now?
The fearless people respond by announcing that Friday is in memorial of all the children killed, calling it "Children's Friday", and they go to the streets again. It takes aljazeera 12 windows to show all the protests around the country:
[YOUTUBE]FTAkqtVUqxU[/YOUTUBE]
That 13-year-old Hamza Ali al-Khatib, who I mentioned in this post, has become a symbol:
The rest of that story is Human Rights Watch, documenting what happened in one city. They call their report "We've Never Seen Such Horror" and report on random killing, mowing down of protesters, torturing people and terrorizing the city.
It is horrific.
But what should be done or how should the US and the world community respond?
Given that the UN is being held hostage by Russia and China.
And given the nature of the relationship between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas that most observers other than Mercenary understand and that could easily lead to a broader conflict in the region.
I don't know. My only answer is to have the
editors at Vogue provide sanctuary for Assad and his wife.
This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.
This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.
I think that is a little simplistic and completely ignores the other external factors in the region.
Particularly, Iran which has an interest in keeping Assad in power. Or potentially having Hezbollah start shooting Syrian-supplied scud missiles into Israel from Lebanon as retaliation for any Western intervention and then Israel, responding in kind. Not saying it would happen, just that it could happen.
What, we the countries that could help, dont want is to have the region blow up.
From last April:
Israeli claims Syria has supplied Lebanon's Hezbollah with Soviet-era Scud missiles have fueled already high tensions and heightened fears of a new Middle East war.
If the Israeli assertion is correct, Damascus has boosted the Iranian-backed Hezbollah's already vast arsenal of missiles with the short-range ballistic Scuds, which can reach just about every corner of the Jewish state.
That would mark an ominous shift in the regional balance of power against Israel...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/04/21/Hezbollah-Scuds-spread-Mideast-alarm/UPI-60521271865746/
I am not suggesting it would happen, but is it beyond reasonable to believe that Iran and Syria would direct Hezbollah to fire those scuds if the US or NATO respond militarily in Syria? I dont think so.
Then what happens?
...the other external factors in the region.
The "what they can offer us" that you've been ignoring :hedfone:
Alter the situation to one where Syria is an oil supplier or offers us some other valuable, to us, resource. Do you really think the US would be taking the same non-action? Nor do I.
The "what they can offer us" that you've been ignoring :hedfone:
Alter the situation to one where Syria is an oil supplier or offers us some other valuable, to us, resource. Do you really think the US would be taking the same non-action? Nor do I.
I am not ignoring it; I just dont think it is that simple or that black and white. But evidently, you do, unless I am reading you wrong. You seem to dismiss or ignore the big elephant in the room (Iran) that did not exist with respect to Libya, Egypt or Yemen, and the potential for a far greater outbreak of violence throughout the region if its its proxy Hezbollah were to jump into the fray.
You dont think a greater Mid East war could erupt if this happened?
Do I think the US would take same non-action?
Yes, under the current administration, based largely on the limited role the US has played in the Libyan action, getting a UN mandate first and then, after the initial action. letting NATO lead.
No, under an administration with a rigid neo-con foreign policy that has to demonstrate US global leadership by being the big dog in every fight.
No, under an administration with a rigid neo-con foreign policy that has to demonstrate US global leadership by being the big dog in every fight.
Like it or not, the US
IS the big dog.
Like it or not, the US IS the big dog.
That doesnt mean it has to jump into every battle and be the face of the battle w/o wider support or understanding the potential adverse consequences of its actions.
Iraq had resources we wanted, but you didnt see GHW Bush act w/o a UN mandate after Iraq invaded Kuwait or exceed the mandate by invading Iraq after driving Iraq out of Kuwait. You didnt see GHW Bush or Clinton exceed the UN mandate and act independently with excessive force when Saddam was killing Kurds in the North.
I like the fact that the US did not feel a need to be the "big dog" in Libya after the initial action.
It is now the brits and the french conducting apache helicopter attacks against Ghaddafi, not the US, and Qatar and other Muslim nations having a presence as well. With the US role now pretty much limited to intel, logistical support, search and rescue assistance and perhaps an unmanned drone if necessary.
That doesnt mean it has to jump into every battle and be the face of the battle ..............
Don't put words in my mouth. That is not at all what I said nor intended.
Don't put words in my mouth. That is not at all what I said nor intended.
I didnt put words in your mouth any more than your suggestion that I shared your opinion that the US would have acted in Syria if there were important resources at play....so lighten up. :)
You did ignore my central point. That Iran and Hezbollah could create much more havoc in the region if we were to respond in Syria militarily. Agree or disagree?
In addition to what they have that we want, its also the assholes like Iran and Hezbollah... point not ignored. It didn't need a reply. Did you want an "attaboy" for stating the obvious?
In addition to what they have that we want, its also the assholes like Iran and Hezbollah... point not ignored. It didn't need a reply. Did you want an "attaboy" for stating the obvious?
I'm still not clear where you stand. Sure, Iran and Hezbollah are assholes.
But, the question is...should the US act, with or w/o a UN mandate, recognizing that Iran and Hezbollah could make matters worse in the region?
BTW, there was "nothing it" in for the US when they were part of the NATO/UN response in Bosnia.
There was "something it" in for GHW Bush to invade Iraq after tossing them out of Kuwait, but he did not do so, because he had no mandate and understood that their could be bad unintended consquences.
added:
It comes back to this:
This displays the fallacy of the UN. Comes back to "Why did we help in Libya and not there? Money, Oil, power, control. The poor people being slaughtered in Syria aren't getting helped because they have nothing we, the countries that could help, want.
IMO, it comes down to more than just having something that we want (money, oil, power, control), including having a legitimate mandate and a broad coalition of support as well as considering other strategic factors (like if/how other powers in the region might react).
It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives?
It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives?
If that is what you believe, fine.
I dont share that opinion.
I think foreign policy decisions are not that simple. Is it a good thing that it involves more than the value of one life over another? Probably not, but it is reality.
It is a question that remains unanswered.
It is a question that remains unanswered.
I agree.
You didnt answer any of my questions and simply dodged every issue I raised and stuck to your simplistic assertion. :D
I raised a question, you kept spinning it into something else. I kept TRYING to stay with my original question and here we are ...
Perhaps not a simplistic assertion, but it is a simple question that you refuse answer because it apparently doesn't fit into your political ideology.
[Paraphrase]I think foreign policy decisions involve more than the value of one life over another? [/Paraphrase]
That's as close as you managed to come. Its virtually what I have been saying all along, but you really just can't do it. That's fine. I don't see any point in furthering this part of the discussion. Ugly truths aren't always convenient, are they?
The next point is simply ... WHY?
I'm just glad our foreign policy is not that simple minded given that an effective, thoughtfuil policy involves more than "whats in it for us" and more than "why help country a vs country b."
"simple minded" - thank you.
It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives?
:corn:
Still trying to get a straight answer on that one as well.
Simple minds are unwilling or unable to consider the complexity of foreign policy, particularly if an Obama policy might actually be working with little or no cost to the US in $ or boots on the ground at risk.
They might agree that Iran and Hezbollah are assholes but not a potential threat if there were to be a US or NATO military intervention in Syria.
They certainly dont understand that it is not in US interest to act w/o a mandate and broad support within the region.
Or they claim that Libya is supported by a major terrorist organization.
Or they suggest that US actions are ALL about money, oil, power, control but cant explain how Bosnia fit into that scenario or why GHW Bush didnt invade Iraq for the oil and control when he had the chance.
Simple minds are satisfied with simple solutions.
Say it without attack please
It would be nice to be able to use the forces of the US to prevent atrocities everywhere, and to promote the positive change in human rights that can come from booting out totalitarian rulers. However, just as the US protects its interests and projects its power, every other nation on the planet also protects its interests and projects its power. This makes the world a very complex chess game.
Unfortunately, at the bottom line of this utterly complex chess game are always human beings. And when a world of different interests starts playing the game, some pawns are not only undervalued, but sacrificed on purpose.
Say it without attack please
Yeah! And that goes for all y'all! :rolleyes:
It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives?
The worth of the life is only one side of the equation. The other side is the cost of saving it.
The worth of the life is only one side of the equation. The other side is the cost of saving it.
Thank you HM. Simple answer to a simple question.
The political spin and the other crap THEY keep spewing just boils down to one thing.
Lives are NOT equal in value.
Syrian Lives are not as valuable in this situation - Period.
I'm confused Classicman? First, do you disagree with the United States' decision to not intervene in Syria? Second, are you stating that the US chose that Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's or are you stating that the current political environment dictated that intervention in Syria could potentially bring about large consequences to the United States, consequences that were not present with Libya, and the US responded to that, making it appear as if Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's?
The political spin and the other crap THEY keep spewing just boils down to one thing.
Lives are NOT equal in value.
Syrian Lives are not as valuable in this situation - Period.
IMO, to continue to insist on framing the issue solely in those terms –
it comes down to why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives or
its all about money, oil, power, control – is simplistic and demonstrates an unwillingness to consider the numerous other factors that go into the decision making process, many of which I presented.
Factors that are not
"political spin and other crap," but issues of strategic consideration.
At the very least, to continue to insist that
"Syrian Lives are not as valuable in this situation" certainly doesn't demonstrate any level of strategic or analytical thinking that should and does determine broad foreign policy goals and objectives as well as any specific actions within that policy.
It may sound harsh and it is not a personal attack, but one does not need to be a foreign policy expert to understand that concept.
First, do you disagree with the United States' decision to not intervene in Syria?
My opinion matters not. I'd rather discuss the original question. being "simple minded" and all.
[COLOR="Blue"] (this is the point)[/COLOR]
the current political environment dictated that intervention in Syria could potentially bring about large consequences to the United States, consequences that were not present with Libya, and the US responded to that
US analysis determines: Getting involved in Syria is not worth the potential risk. Therefore Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's.
No matter how it is spun, the end result in
this equation is that
Syrian Lives < Libyan Lives.
I also believe this may change drastically for any number of reasons. It is a fluid situation.
No matter how it is spun, the end result in this equation is that Syrian Lives < Libyan Lives.
Only if you start with fuzzy math.
It may sound harsh and it is a personal attack, but
Cut the crap and boil it down to the simplest parameters. Without all the peripheral crap, fluff and spin.
Foreign policy boils down to getting what is best for the US. That is the bottom line, always has been always will be. Same for every other country.
There may be layers and layers of other issues and concerns, but in the end it will be about getting what is best for us. To believe otherwise is worse than being simpleminded - Its flat out stoo-pit.
I get it now.
Strategic thinking is stoo-pit, while a singular focus on only of one of many considerations (characterized as political spin and other crap) before acting is wiz-dum.
US analysis determines: Getting involved in Syria is not worth the potential risk. Therefore Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's.
No matter how it is spun, the end result in this equation is that
Syrian Lives < Libyan Lives.
I think Happy Monkey explained it well. Syria is not worth the risk. Libya is worth the risk. Not because the lives are worth less, but because the risk in Syria is greater. If the risk was the same, then you could argue that the lives are worth less in Syria, but it's the lives that are worth the same and the risks are different.
EDIT: And this is my understanding of US policy, not what I actually think. I don't think we should be involved in either country.
I understand that glatt. But Mr. Unbalanced cannot seem to grasp that basic concept.
Syria is not worth the risk for a multitude of reasons, correct?
Therefore, the lives that are being lost in Syria are not worth getting involved.
For WHATEVER REASON(s) (not important)
it has been determined that Libya IS worth the risk.
Therefore, the lives in Libya ARE worth getting involved.
I think Happy Monkey explained it well. Syria is not worth the risk. Libya is worth the risk. Not because the lives are worth less, but because the risk in Syria is greater. If the risk was the same, then you could argue that the lives are worth less in Syria, but it's the lives that are worth the same and the risks are different.
EDIT: And this is my understanding of US policy, not what I actually think. I don't think we should be involved in either country.
I think that is pretty much what I said about the risks being different
here and
here.
But thanks to you and Happy Monkey for putting it in terms that Classicman could understand.
Wait...he still doesnt really get it and is still trying to force feed the conclusion that the "lives arent worth the same" as opposed to the the risks being different, not the lives being worth less.
I'm not certain you do get it. You seem to follow each claim that you get it with something that is directly counter to it.
The political spin and the other crap THEY keep spewing just boils down to one thing.
Lives are NOT equal in value.
Syrian Lives are not as valuable in this situation - Period.
No, the lives are as valuable, but the costs are higher.
My opinion matters not. I'd rather discuss the original question. being "simple minded" and all.
[COLOR=blue](this is the point)[/COLOR]
US analysis determines: Getting involved in Syria is not worth the potential risk. Therefore Syrian lives are not worth as much as Libyan's.
No matter how it is spun, the end result in this equation is that
Syrian Lives < Libyan Lives.
I also believe this may change drastically for any number of reasons. It is a fluid situation.
No, Syrian lives = Libyan lives, but the cost of intervening in Syria is higher.
I understand that glatt. But Mr. Unbalanced cannot seem to grasp that basic concept.
Syria is not worth the risk for a multitude of reasons, correct?
Therefore, the lives that are being lost in Syria are not worth getting involved.
For WHATEVER REASON(s) (not important)
it has been determined that Libya IS worth the risk.
Therefore, the lives in Libya ARE worth getting involved.
"worth getting involved" is not a constant. The cost of getting involved is different in each case, so WHATEVER REASON
is important.
Let's say that we get involved if the value is
a "worth units (WU)". And let's say that the value of saving Syrians is equal to the value of saving Libyans, at
b WU. The cost of saving Syrians is
s WU, and the cost of saving Libyans is
l WU.
If
b-
s >
a, we save Syrians.
If
b-
l >
a, we save Libyans.
Libyans and Syrians are worth the same, but the circumstances can still result in different outcomes.
Just because one thing is "worth it", and another isn't, doesn't mean that they have different worths, they could have different "its".
It comes back to: Why are Libyan lives worth more than Syrian lives?
They aren't, neither one is worth jack-shit... neither is yours, or mine.
We're talking about nations and their actions.
If a foreign nation kills you, do you think the US would react? Probably, but not because they give a rat's ass about you, only because the US has been insulted.
If the US kills you, would other nations do something about it? Not a chance, not just because they'd get their ass kicked, but because they don't care.
No, Syrian lives = Libyan lives, but the cost of intervening in Syria is higher.
Oh, I see, since it is easier to bomb the shit out of the easy target go for them. Would hate to piss off Iran by bombing the shit out of Syria. That is a bullshit excuse.
Maximum effective range of an Excuse is Zero Meters....
He wasn't offering it as an excuse. He was just demonstrating that the decision to intervene in Libya and not intervene in Syria does not mean that Syrian lives are worth more than Libyan lives, but that the 'cost', in whatever terms that is measured, of saving them is not equal.
thanks HM - It was fun while it lasted.
Period.
That's a shame. It says "I'm not willing to concede my position no matter how right you are".
Syrian Lives < Libyan Lives.
Not according to
this
Nation Value
Algeria 6
Bahrain 14
Egypt 249
Iran 3
Iraq 22
Lebanon 1,456
Libya 87
Oman 43
Qatar 192
Syria 99
UAE 222
Yemen -46
He wasn't offering it as an excuse. He was just demonstrating that the decision to intervene in Libya and not intervene in Syria does not mean that Syrian lives are worth more than Libyan lives, but that the 'cost', in whatever terms that is measured, of saving them is not equal.
How does the differ from what I stated?
That's a shame.
And you, of all people, have given a shit about my opinions since when?
And you, of all people, have given a shit about my opinions since when?
Stop stalking me.
Please, gentlemen.
A little adult restraint please? Are you sowing what you wish to reap? The golden rule applies equally in both directions.
.... equally in both directions.
ORLY? I've been in this discussion for quite some time - He comes in at the end, avoids the topic and comments on my post ... Spare me.
Welcome back to Romper Room.
I don't know how you read my remark, but I meant it in this way. The golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated. If you treat others with disdain, you are asking to be disrespected. Of course, it works in a *positive* direction, too.
Naturally, the other interpretation of "both directions" meaning applying to both parties equally is also valid.
The conversation was clearly exhausted in post #110.
DH wants to stir shit up with nothing to offer on the topic and then the "stalk shit starts. . .followed with "humor"... too predictable. Spare me...
BigV your intentions may be in the right place, but this ones not mine.
Amnesty International reveals to Channel 4 News that it has the names of 77 children killed in the recent violence, plus reports of a third child tortured to death.
The human rights group Amnesty International has revealed to Channel 4 News that they have the names of 77 children killed during 3 months of unrest in Syria.
Senior Syria researcher Neil Sammonds said out of 1060 known deaths of civilians in Syria, nearly ten per-cent were children, more than doubling UNICEF's previous estimate of 30 on June 1st.
"We have definitely seen a pattern of increased brutality recently, we've documented around 20 cases where there are signs of torture, and those cases are coming out more frequently now. It seems security forces are now willing to use violence without provocation at all," he said.
The details emerged as new video footage was released showing the mutilated body of 15-year-old Thamer al-Sahri, who was arrested at a protest in April in Saida near Deraa. He was detained alongside his friend 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb. Video images of Hamza's mutilated body caused international outrage when they became public last week.
LinkNothing to see here, Syria is not as important as Libya! :lol:
Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.
An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/defense-africom-air-force-navy-flying-libya-missions-063011/"despite the Obama administration’s lies"
FTFY
The White House report to Congress last month stated that since turning over the lead to NATO, the US has "assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no fly zone; and, since April 23, conducted precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets."
So where's the lie?
As the article noted and the White House report stated, the US role since April has been mostly intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance, while also assisting in the suppression of air defenses.
I can understand disagreeing with the White House interpretation of the War Powers Act, but I dont see anything in this article that wasnt common knowledge.
Syrian government supporters smashed windows at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus on Monday, raised a Syrian flag and scrawled graffiti calling the American ambassador a "dog" in anger over the envoy's visit last week to an opposition stronghold, witnesses said.
Photos posted on Facebook show demonstrators climbing a fence at the compound and raising a Syrian flag.
American officials said the residence of U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford was also attacked by a mob shortly afterwards. The officials said no one was injured on the attack on Ford's home, which is not part of the embassy compound, but that there was some damage to the residence. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Protesters also took part in demonstrations outside the French Embassy in the Syrian capital, just days after the U.S. and French ambassadors visited the opposition stronghold of Hama in central Syria.
One witness, Hiam al-Hassan, said about 300 people had gathered outside the French Embassy, where protesters smashed embassy windows and shattered the windshield of a diplomatic SUV outside the compound. The French flag was removed and replaced with a Syrian one.
Link
Looks like the Syrian lives just went up a bit.
Has the tide turned in Libya?
Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi is sending fresh signals through emissaries that he is ready to discuss stepping down, Western diplomats said Tuesday, as new intelligence assessments pointed to worsening conditions among his troops.
The overtures by aides close to Gaddafi appeared to reflect a deepening pessimism inside a government that is under assault on two fronts and faces shortages of critical supplies, according to U.S. and European analysts and government officials.
New U.S. intelligence assessments conclude that government forces, already beset with morale problems and a steady stream of defections, are now hard-pressed to find fuel for military vehicles after rebel troops shut down a key pipeline. If current trends continue, loyalists troops will run out of fuel by summer’s end, and the Gaddafi government will face a worsening cash and credit shortage because of international sanctions, the reports say.
While the momentum has generally favored the rebels for weeks, Western analysts are seeing troubles escalate on the loyalist side, possibly explaining the surge of interest in finding a negotiated end to the fighting, according to two senior U.S. officials who have seen the assessments.
“There has been a shift,” said one of the officials, who insisted on anonymity in discussing the classified reports. “The situation is looking much better [for the rebels] than it was just a month ago.”
This official, who said he had been generally pessimistic about rebel prospects since the start of the fighting in February, said he was “starting to be slightly optimistic” about the chances for either a political solution or a complete collapse of the Gaddafi government in the coming weeks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gaddafi-forces-struggling-us-reports-say/2011/07/12/gIQA0sSQBI_story.html
Not one US life lost, not one NATO life lost.
No push back against the US by Libyans.
No worries about Iran intervention or Hamas or Hezbollah retaliation.
Little or no risk to the US with potential for significant rewards for the Libyan people.
But some obviously still dont see or refuse to acknowledge the difference between Libya and Syria.
NYTimes has it too. If this goes off it will be a great success.
NYTimes has it too. If this goes off it will be a great success.
There is reason to be optimistic, but a tempered optimism with the expectation that what will follow is not likely to be a smooth transition to a more democratic and representative government.
Much like Egypt where the people appear to be getting impatient with the military controlled transition.
In both cases, US (and NATO) financial/economic support will be necessary or extremely helpful at a time when many here are suggesting that we cut all foreign aid.
One other US policy that I think makes sense is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic Movement for Change in Libya, each of which will expect to have some role in a transition and new government in the respective countries. We can and should talk to these groups, despite the rhetoric from the right about these groups.
[un-UG]This was much smarter and better focused than previous interventions but it is still an intervention and as such should be opposed on principle.[/un-UG] Why is it we always have money for this kind of militaristic nonsense even with a debt limit? I understand that this is Obama finding a middle way, but it is a big strike against him in my book... not that the GOP will put forward a less blood-stained alternative.
Politically, I am as far from the Guerrilla guy as anyone here and on this issue, I would disagree with you.
IMO, opposing all intervention on principle is too sweeping. There are levels of intervention, the least reactionary or aggressive of which should be considered (or at least on the table) as part of our broad foreign policy options, even if only as a potential deterrent.
If the intervention is to protect civilians from the real possibility of massacre by a govt responding to a populist movement AND has a UN mandate, AND is not unilateral, AND has the support of the civilians of the country as well as the leaders of other countries in the region, AND does not include US boots on the ground, AND if the cost in US lives and dollars is low (by DoD standards), AND if there is little risk of a response that could cause greater harm to the country and the region, then I think it is appropriate, given the risk/rewards to both the civilians and the US.
I support this action or this limited intervention. My disagreement with Obama is in the manner in which he is trying to fudge the War Powers Act to continue the action w/o Congressional approval.
We also need to be able to afford it. I'd rather have my mother's SS and MC untouched than improve the quality of life for Libyans. On the other hand, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans would allow us to accomplish both.
We also need to be able to afford it. I'd rather have my mother's SS and MC untouched than improve the quality of life for Libyans. On the other hand, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans would allow us to accomplish both.
I agree that needs at home should come first.
But we dont have to raise taxes on the wealthiest to pay for a limited foreign policy action. Keeping it defense related, not awarding defense contracts to companies that move offshore to avoid paying taxes (eg Halliburton et al) would easily cover the cost of this one.
Or take a knife to wasteful, outdated or unnecessary DoD programs.
I don't know. My only answer is to have the editors at Vogue provide sanctuary for Assad and his wife.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/175149-pr-firm-worked-with-syria-on-controversial-photo-shoot
The Syrian government hired an international public-relations firm to help coordinate a Vogue magazine profile for Asma al-Assad, Syria’s first lady.
Brown Lloyd James agreed to a $5,000-per-month contract with the presidency of the Syrian Arab Republic in November 2010 to help with the interview and photo shoot for a glowing profile of al-Assad by the high-profile fashion magazine.
The piece has been criticized heavily due to its publication in Vogue’s March issue, which coincided with the Syrian government’s crackdown on anti-regime protesters.
Here we go, application of "soft power" on Assad, as the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, the EU foreign policy head all demand in unity that he step down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14577333Here we go, application of "soft power" on Assad, as the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, the EU foreign policy head all demand in unity that he step down.
That ignores something far more important. Turkey demanded Assad step down and to stop attacking civilians. Turkey also threatened consequences if ignored.
The US is not involved! Already! Read the papers! not a word.... right?
Here we go, application of "soft power" on Assad, as the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, the EU foreign policy head all demand in unity that he step down.
Yeh, after other countries have already done so, Obama then commits. Never in the lead, only seems to be following.
None of us know what happens behind closed doors, but still many were clamoring for this a long time ago and before many innocent lives were lost.
That ignores something far more important. Turkey demanded Assad step down and to stop attacking civilians. Turkey also threatened consequences if ignored.
Really? Do you have any citations for that claim? Aside from the US press saying that the US is pushing them to do so, they still have not and have, from all indications, refused to do so, so far. In fact, everything I've found seem to specifically say the opposite, for example:
Russia and Turkey rejected Western calls for the Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down.
Turkey calls for change in Syria, but not Assad's resignation
Turkey is reluctant to follow the United States and European powers in calling for ... to follow US President Barack Obama's call on Assad to step down
Russia, Turkey stand by Assad
A Russian Foreign Ministry source said Russia opposes U.S. and European calls for Assad leave power and believes he needs more time to implement promised reforms, while in Turkey.
An official source told AFP Turkey also believes it is “too soon” to call for Assad’s departure.
“We are not there yet. First and foremost the people of Syria must tell Assad to go. This has not been heard in the streets of Syria,” the Turkish official said.
“The Syrian opposition is not united and we haven’t seen yet a collective call from Syrians to tell Assad to go, like in Egypt and Libya.”
Turkey’s National Security Council (MGK), which brings together top civilian and military officials, discussed Ankara’s strategy on Syria Thursday but fell short of making an open appeal for Assad to resign. It instead repeated calls for an immediate end to violence.
“It has been emphasized once again that the use of violence and force against civilians must be stopped immediately,” the MGK said in a statement, released late Thursday.
It said a democratic change must take place in compliance with the “legitimate demands of the friendly and brotherly Syrian people,” according to Anatolia news agency.
A Russian official, quoted in Interfax news agency said: “We do not support such calls and believe that it is necessary now to give President Assad’s regime time to realize all the reform processes that have been announced.”
Read more: The Turks don't like waves of refugees - especially Kurds. It destablises their more sensitive areas.
The Turkish foreign chief threatened Assad a few days ago:
But he seems to have walked back from this.
Exactly. The things I saw seemed :confused:
There are reports of fighting on the outskirts of Tripoli.
Good time to pull the US out.
Good time to pull the US out.
TheMercenary keeps making a claim that is proven by nothing but his accusations. If Americans are in combat, TheMercenary proves his claims with facts and numbers. Necessary for political handlers (ie Limbaugh) to brainwash their disciples. They just believe what they are told rather than always demand facts.
One of us knew Saddam's WMDs were not proven by facts. The other knew it must be true because he automatically believed what George Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al (extremists from the Project for a New American Century) told him what to believe. A responsible person demands supporting facts - the reasons why - before making such claims. TheMercenary keeps making those combat claims (even back on 2 July) without any proof other than Limbaugh who says, "Trust me".
Word is Kaddafi is hours from being drive from Tripoli. Now some far more important questions will be answered. First, where will he and his peers go? Second, and more important, was this war long enough for the various rebel factions to build a unifying structure and relationships? To be honest, I fear not. But we have little reasons to answer with certainty either way.
BTW, this may result in a ten cent (or larger) reduction in gasoline prices by late fall. It will take some months to restore oil production.
It destablises their more sensitive areas.
And they hate when their nutsacks get destabilised.
1832: Paul Wood BBC News, Benghazi
Jubilant crowds in Benghazi celebrated the passing of Col Gaddafi's rule with volleys of automatic fire. But later, here in the birthplace of the revolution, there was a more sober warning of the dangers posed by the victory unfolding in the capital. The leader of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, said he was worried there could be revenge attacks. If military commanders ignored him and carried out reprisals, he said, he would resign - a threat which gives a glimpse of the tensions within a movement now on the brink of forming a new government.
![this]("http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wycMovPZ3cw/S-1cY-dQ4DI/AAAAAAAAAAg/03QglNTYsic/s1600/moron.jpg"){kind=link}