Syria

[Mohamed2001]

Yes, stability is needed. Much needed.

 

But, (I don't know about other countries, the following does apply to Egypt) you can't have stability, when there are terrorists, brainwashing kids, to suicide bomb themselves AND attack Gov't vehicles, without anybody doing anything.

 

You can't also have stability, when there's a country (That we all know and... "love") sticking it's nose in ALL Middle Eastern countries. (Which seems to be ruled by someone who just wants to start a war)

 

Honestly, I highly doubt the Middle East will become stable at all. Sure, the US might collapse one day, and it will be like Russia (or worse) but by then, everything will be already ruined.

 

 

 

 

-Mohamed

[Lisnpuppy]

@Suki

 

I have to agree with your assessment of the concept of he Nation-State. It is largely a western idea that has been forced on many areas. Half the issues we have today are by in large because after WWI and II the "superpowers" on the winning sides carved up the world in a way in which they saw fit. In ways that in many cases ignored what the population identified themselves as or with. Look at the former Yugoslavia for example.

 

Just because the US has been able to put separate identity aside and form under a national flag does not mean this is the best way for the world. Much of the world still identifies itself with a smaller tribe or group, religion or what have you. How the economic market today is used it is all but impossible for a nation that would agree to separate into smaller bits (should it be able to work out that land grab anyway.) Then Nations that have groups that view themselves as a nation behind whatever else gets into issues when one group or another comes into power because they may get their throats cut after that.

 

Also America sees getting a group of people as a "Nation" to see itself as such and vote as a magical ideal that will allow all these wonderful things to happen. That could be true but the people in those Nations need to see and decide that is what THEY wish to do, and not have it imposed onto them. If that doesn't happen...well....you see what has happened in other areas. It is all well and good to tout freedom and democracy....but one needs to realize that those people will ultimately decide what flavor of nationalism, democracy and freedom they have. Sometimes safety and consistency and knowing you can feed your children and not walk down the street and get blown up beats going to the poles to vote. It is easy for us in the Western world to say freedom before all...but then we don' t live in such bad places for however much we might complain.

[MajKrAzAm]

There is a simplistic worldview that exists in the Western world, that there are two kinds of governments: democratic ones and undemocratic ones. The first kind are good and the second kind are bad. And that history is the progress from bad, undemocratic government to good, democratic government. With this worldview the failings of democracy are overlooked, or sometimes convoluted sophistic explanations are created to explain its inadequacies. Most people who believe in democracy see it as a mechanism, or a remedy for misgovernment, ie the process of holding elections which are basically free and fair in a multiparty state with a free press and all the rest, is a remedy for misgovernment.

 

Perhaps it's not that elections create good governments, but that good governments are more likely to hold elections. If we can define good government, why can’t we then take a top down approach to designing a system that ensures it? Instead the modern Westerner starts with the conventional proposition that democracy is a mechanism which produces good government. By compiling the facts of history and expecting some objective algorithm to magically arrange them in the most plausible narrative, Westerners think they are being methodical and rational. Instead they promote a system that is dysfunctional in even the most basic tasks of governance.

 

Kuwait has a democracy, and Dubai doesn't, but the Kuwaitis realize that Dubai seems to be rather better off for it. Not that Kuwait has much democracy. It's a constitutional monarchy. But Dubai is an absolute monarchy, and the difference is, remarkable. Especially since Kuwait has way more oil than Dubai. Democracy has not exactly worked out perfectly in Iraq or various other post-colonial states. Countless sophistic, squared reasoning explanations are given for this: You can’t impose democracy; they were brutalized by colonialism; Iraq is a heterogeneous region and the Iraqis must overcome their tribal conflicts before they can embrace Western democracy; human rights violations; Iraqis hates us; Iraq will never develop as long as it’s people remain Muslim/stupid. And on and on. All these reasons presuppose that democracy should produce good government. Democracy is seen as being the mechanism that improves governance. But that certain factors make it difficult to establish in that particular region e.g. sectarianism, instability, economic weakness etc etc. This reminds me of Condeleeza Rice’s stupid description of the violence in Iraq as ‘birth pangs’ comparable to the US revolution. What no one ever says is that democracy is dysfunctional through and through, that it can’t produce a functional system of governance for even the most basic tasks. So why then if we can outline what good governance looks like, why can’t we impose that upon society without democracy?

[TRoaches]

So why then if we can outline what good governance looks like, why can’t we impose that upon society without democracy?

 

We could, but it would require that the people who are in a position to impose their will upon society were altruistically motivated. This, unfortunately, is an unlikely scenario. People rarely, or perhaps never, rise to power by being nice to others. An altruistic dictator is not an impossibility, but it is a very unlikely.

 

To illustrate the concept: imagine a race being run between two competitors. The first competitor feels morally compelled to run a fair and honest race, and is opposed to any form of cheating that would give him an unfair advantage. He wants to win honorably, but is willing to lose if necessary to maintain his sense of honor. The second competitor is not hindered by any desire for honorable victory, plans to murder his opponent when the judges are not looking, and is very skilled at murdering people. Who is more likely to win?

 

Applying that metaphor to the imposition of governance, imagine two potential dictators: One is altruistically motivated and wants to lead his people to greatness by imposing just and fair government for the benefit of all. The other yearns for power and wealth, and is not hindered by any sense of morality or altruism. Who do you think is more likely to rise to power, and to maintain that power after achieving it?

 

That said, an altruistic elected leader is also an uncommon thing, but it is more plausible than an altruistic dictator. More importantly, and elected leader holds power temporarily. If an elected leader demonstrates that they lack any concern for their constituents or enforces policies that their constituents are opposed to there is the strong probability that they will be removed from office against their will through some form of civil action such as election or impeachment. The only way to remove a dictator from office against their will is with force. I would rather vote against a bad leader than participate in a violent uprising, and that is why I prefer a democratic system over totalitarian leadership. Democracy is, in my opinion, the less flawed option with greater potential to benefit the society and less potential for mass violence.

[Lisnpuppy]

I think we are probably straying from the topic some...I am partially at fault for that. I realize this conversation has risen from its relation to what kind of government Syria may end up but lets try to get it back to that. A philosophical argument about types of government we could probably have fun with elsewhere? :)

[HeyYou]

In my view, the US can't do any good in Syria. If we attack, we annoy Russia, Iran, and probably a few other folks. (Syrians, for example...) If we don't, then the world clamors for 'action' on someones part, to 'retaliate' for percieved war-crimes. This is a no-win situation. Doesn't matter what we do, someone is going to be mad at us. As I see it, we are backing the wrong side in any event. Assad held the legitimate government, distasteful as it may seem to western powers. (but, mainly because they are allied with Eastern powers....) We seem to be operating under the delusion that overthrowing the current regime will install a "US Friendly" regime in its aftermath, when we have three prime examples that that is just NOT the case. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt....) Why is it our government absolutely REFUSES to learn anything at all from past mistakes? What makes them think that "This time, it will be different."???? Are we really that stupid? Are we so deluded by our values that we think that everyone shares the same values? (which has also been proven multiple times simply NOT to be the case.)

 

I would hope that congress takes its cue from the american population, the folks that they are supposed to actually represent.... and decline to participate in military action in Syria. The one-upmanship being played between the US, and Russia, at this point, isn't helping either. Just piling more stupidity on top of the huge pile we already have.

 

The only LASTING solution for the middle east, is letting THEM decide what the solution is going to be, not simply imposing one on them. Democracy at gunpoint, simply does not work.

[Nintii]

"Western military action in Syria would be a "satanic intervention against a satanic regime", a

leading Syrian opposition figure has warned.

Speaking to the Huffington Post UK, Haytham al-Manna, the Paris-based spokesman of the

National Coordination Committee (NCC), said: "Our position is against any [western] aggression

against Syria. There is no [option of] military aggression against the regime, it will be against.. the

population."

 

And

 

"Manna added: "We are against the intervention in Syria of Hizbollah [and] of foreign fighters

from al Qaeda. We cannot build democracy in Syria with others."

Criticising the United States, Turkey, Israel and other regional powers, he said: "We are not

In favour of a satanic intervention against a satanic regime."

 

Quotes from the Huff Post UK Edition

 

These are the words from a Syrian living in the satanic Western city of Paris.

So why on earth is he there ... in the satanic West ?

Why not go back to his fantastic Syria ?

I'll tell you why not ... it's because the "satanic" westerners are the only people who are (dumb enough) in

his eyes to grant him a place to stay and give him aid.

 

That's pretty much how it always goes, the West is looked down upon but they're the only ones foolish

enough to help.

The "We hate you but will you please help us for now", type of attitude seems to be a constant ... and

the West continuously falls for this type of rubbish.

Let Manna and his ilk go back to "paradise" and fight their own "demons".

 

Why on earth help them ... so that they can turn Syria into another Morsi-styled Egypt ?

I wouldn't give the Syrian opposition the time of day.

The West should stamp out all aid in any form to any nation that would harbour or foster any future

springboards for terrorism against them.

 

However, I'm not that callous to ignore Assad's use of chemicals against his own people and that needs

to end.

Also it should be noted that the opposition has pretty much done the same by using chemical warfare

against the population of Syria as well.

 

Let Syria sort out Syria.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Nintii

[HeyYou]

Mainly because, it seems, western governments are uniformly stupid. They keep repeating the same actions, getting the same results, and wondering why things didn't turn out how they wanted 'this time'. One would think, that if you beat someone over the head often enough, they will come to the conclusion that they don't care for it. Not so with goverment. They appear to actually TRY to make the same mistakes over and over again. No amount of head-beating seems to get the message thru.

 

My theory is, there is a radiation field in Washington DC, undetectable, harmless to most residencts, but, severely compromises the IQ of anyone in elected office....... Or, maybe part of the swearing in process for our representatives, is a lobotomy....... I just can't quite get a grasp on how that many people, can be so stupid. It boggles the mind.

[Beriallord]

Regardless of whether or not attacking Syria is justified, or even a good idea; Obama doesn't have the balls to go against the Russians on this. So he is looking for a way to back down while saving as much face as possible.

[HeyYou]

Annoying the russians won't serve any good purpose. Attacking Syria won't either. Does anyone think Assad is going to care that some of his blown up real estate gets blown up some more? All we would accomplish is pissing off some folks.

 

Apparently though, it is only governments that want 'something done'. The people that those governments ostensibly represent are loudly telling their governments "NO". Rumor has it that congress is going to vote no on the measure here as well. That really won't hurt my feelings. I don't think the USA has any real crying need for yet another military involvement in the middle east. Our record so far flat out sucks. I don't see that changing any time soon either.

 

Quite honestly, I really don't give a rat's behind if Obama ends up with egg on his face. Not like the US has that good of standing with the world anyway. Granted, he did do some good in his first term, but, of late, he has been a woefully ineffective leader. I am sure that the republicans have at least partial responsibility for that, as they won't let him pass much of anything. (which in some cases, I am perfectly fine with.) We shall see what actually happens though.

Edited September 16, 2013 by HeyYou