International Relations Omnibus

[Nintii]

I chose - D - Syria/Arab spring ...

 

I fully support "the current Syrian government" ... let me explain ...

 

For a start as far as I'm concerned and as it's also abundantly clear, the so-called Arab Spring is now nothing more than

a Muslim extremist movement ... to take over through democratic means or as I like to refer to it as "Mobocracy" the

nations of northern Africa ... and to intimidate others to join them.

But they have obviously bitten off a lot more than they can chew when it comes to Assad and Syria.

While I deplore the violence against the people of the nation, it must be noted that those in opposition to Assad are

extremists ... the actions against those who wish to overthrow Assad will be nothing compared to the violence and oppression

that will be shown by the extremist should they come into power.

For once, I am in agreement with Russia.

The Minorities in Syria would suffer under the so-called freedom fighters ... amazing how they use those terms ... and so would Israel.

I do not think that the average person in the street has any idea or real and proper understanding of exactly who and what

the muslim Brotherhood is all about, and what their agenda is ...

Let me make it abundantly clear, I am NOT anti-Muslim, President Assad and the majority of people in Syria are Muslim and I AM NOT anti them.

The freedom that the Muslim Brotherhood espouses is no freedom at all ... they talk of democracy yet will implement "sharia" law

and talk of " ... liberating the Arab states from foreign imperialism".

Edited February 23, 2012 by Nintii

[Balagor]

I chose - D - Syria/Arab spring ...

 

I fully support "the current Syrian government" ... let me explain ...

 

For a start as far as I'm concerned and as it's also abundantly clear, the so-called Arab Spring is now nothing more than

a Muslim extremist movement ... to take over through democratic means or as I like to refer to it as "Mobocracy" the

nations of northern Africa ... and to intimidate others to join them.

But they have obviously bitten off a lot more than they can chew when it comes to Assad and Syria.

While I deplore the violence against the people of the nation, it must be noted that those in opposition to Assad are

extremists ... the actions against those who wish to overthrow Assad will be nothing compared to the violence and oppression

that will be shown by the extremist should they come into power.

For once, I am in agreement with Russia.

The Minorities in Syria would suffer under the so-called freedom fighters ... amazing how they use those terms ... and so would Israel.

I do not think that the average person in the street has any idea or real and proper understanding of exactly who and what

the muslim Brotherhood is all about, and what their agenda is ...

Let me make it abundantly clear, I am NOT anti-Muslim, President Assad and the majority of people in Syria are Muslim and I AM NOT anti them.

The freedom that the Muslim Brotherhood espouses is no freedom at all ... they talk of democracy yet will implement "sharia" law

and talk of " ... liberating the Arab states from foreign imperialism".

 

Where do you get your news? This is not the news we hear here in DK, but never mind this is not the place to discuss whos news media are the most trustworthy.

What we get here in DK are the refugees, not fleeing from Muslim extremists, but from the Assad regime. The stories, the wounds the we see first hand here does not lie.

The Syrian bloodshed has less to do with religion, but more with tribal nepotism, and of cause a dictator that is mentally ill.

[Tidus44]

@Nintii,

 

I am not in a position to dispute what you have posted, but I'm sort of along the same thoughts as Balagor as the information you have posted isn't exactly what the media here is reporting. If the protests are a part of an extremist take-over, then everything I have seen and read on the protests is pretty much wrong or there is a significant and successful conspiracy on going to coverup what is really happening in Syria.

 

I'd appreciate it greatly if you could direct me to where you are getting this information from as it would be pretty important to me to know.

[sukeban]

@Nintii,

 

I am not in a position to dispute what you have posted, but I'm sort of along the same thoughts as Balagor as the information you have posted isn't exactly what the media here is reporting. If the protests are a part of an extremist take-over, then everything I have seen and read on the protests is pretty much wrong or there is a significant and successful conspiracy on going to coverup what is really happening in Syria.

 

I'd appreciate it greatly if you could direct me to where you are getting this information from as it would be pretty important to me to know.

 

I remember seeing an article this week saying that many of the al-qaeda in iraq fighters were leaving iraq to join the syrian free army. Some other article mentioned the growing sectarian/religious flavor of the opposition. I shall try and find them.

 

Some things I can say for sure:

 

Assad is an alawite, a shia sect (couldn't tell you exactly what they believe) of some ~15% of syria's population. All the top members (gov't and military) of his regime are alawite. ~75% of syria is sunni, however. Another ~10 percent are christian. Assad, for all his (or his father's) tremendous faults, has managed to keep a lid on sectarian violence since he's been in control. Probably not hard to understand why, as he is precisely the sort of religious minority that might be targeted if the sunnis were ever so inclined. So his regime has been able to protect fellow alawites as well as christians from potential majoritarian persecution.

 

As a long-suffering majority, one can imagine that many sunnis might want revenge against their oppressors. Throw in some seasoned militants fresh from iraq and intensified repression by the Assad regime, and you could potentially have a nasty retribution brewing. Likely christians (and whatever other minorities exist in syria) will get caught up in this. Sunnis dislike alawites because they view them as heretical non-muslims, probably something like how many christians view mormons with suspicion (exhibit a: romney's poll numbers).

 

So you can see where all this potentially leads :ohdear:

 

IMO, Assad probably missed his chance to avoid anti-alawite retaliation when he ordered his goons to attack the initially peaceful demonstrations. He probably did this because he viewed the alternatives as either the permanent political marginalization (best case) or the wholesale liquidation (worst case) of his people. His regime thus fights like a cornered, feral cat... beset by hella dogs.

 

But, you can still argue anything and be right. Is it better for Assad to fall now... or later when he has killed thousands more? Will the degree of retribution be equal or greater in the latter case? Or, do you believe the alawites made their bed so they should learn to sleep in it?

 

Personally, I would tend to think that Assad is doomed, either now or not terribly far off. He should have fled to Venezuela or Dubai after stuffing his accounts with as many millions as he could round up (why gadhaffi did not do this is beyond my comprehension). I would tend to think that killing begets more killing, that his fighting now is only going to cause his people more pain when his regime finally does collapse. His military seems strong, but the demographics are decidedly hostile.

 

In short, I vacillate and agree with you all (tid, bag, and nint) in different ways. Glad I am not the one making policy :ninja:

Edited February 24, 2012 by sukeban

[Aurielius]

I think, once again I have failed to make myself clear and will make another attempt. I am not suggesting that we have never attempted to help; in fact, quite the opposite. Nor am I suggesting that we have not been involved since time immemorial in a variety of military and political capacities attempting to set things right (or wrong as the case may be). What I was attempting to say was that these people have their own history as a people, and it differs tremendously from ours. And if I am not mistaken (and I may be) they have been around longer than we have. They have a right and a responsibility to work out their differences amongst themselves. You may be correct in saying that (edit: others) helped to cause the problem, but we are certainly at this point not helping to solve it.

 

One point that I agree with is, that when a ship runs aground on a reef it is moot to argue who was steering at the time. First priority is to see what you can salvage and then you let history decide who to assign blame to. Disengagement in the Middle east is not an option for either the US or the Europeans. In a conflict in which either side is diametrically and antithetically opposed to the other there is little choice but to pick sides and hope you picked the right one. For better or worse the option of which side to pick has long since sailed. Just an old pragmatist's point of view.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

I think, once again I have failed to make myself clear and will make another attempt. I am not suggesting that we have never attempted to help; in fact, quite the opposite. Nor am I suggesting that we have not been involved since time immemorial in a variety of military and political capacities attempting to set things right (or wrong as the case may be). What I was attempting to say was that these people have their own history as a people, and it differs tremendously from ours. And if I am not mistaken (and I may be) they have been around longer than we have. They have a right and a responsibility to work out their differences amongst themselves. You may be correct in saying that (edit: others) helped to cause the problem, but we are certainly at this point not helping to solve it.

 

One point that I agree with is, that when a ship runs aground on a reef it is moot to argue who was steering at the time. First priority is to see what you can salvage and then you let history decide who to assign blame to. Disengagement in the Middle east is not an option for either the US or the Europeans. In a conflict in which either side is diametrically and antithetically opposed to the other there is little choice but to pick sides and hope you picked the right one. For better or worse the option of which side to pick has long since sailed. Just an old pragmatist's point of view.

 

Why is disengagement not an option? It seems that one of the major complaints in the middle east is US meddling in what they see as internal affairs. (overthrowing governments, supporting "freedom fighters", etc.) In my view, simply pulling out of the middle east, would remove one their major reasons for jihad against us. I am sure they would come up with some other reason though...... extremists are just like that. We don't have a very good track record there...... Iraq is descending back into sectarian violence. Afghanistan is a mess. Obama yet again apologizes to a muslim country, we have yet to see if he is going to bow to their demands that the Koran burners be prosecuted. (you realize the sentence for desecrating the koran is death, right?) It seems that we can't turn around without annoying someone there.

 

So, let's pull out. Bring our troops home, stop giving away billions of dollars to people that hate us, (and that we borrow from china.....) Stop spending money on useless wars that are actually doing us more harm than good.

[Tidus44]

 

I remember seeing an article this week saying that many of the al-qaeda in iraq fighters were leaving iraq to join the syrian free army. Some other article mentioned the growing sectarian/religious flavor of the opposition. I shall try and find them.

<snip>

 

The Arab Spring is actually more than just Syria and so far dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have been overthrown and significant political reform has occurred in Morocco, Jordan, and Oman. There are still protests ongoing in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.

I have heard some cries of panic from some US politicians that this is all about the Middle East being taken over by religious fanatics and the continued oppression of women and fighting against Israel.

 

I agree that this is a possibility as past history suggests that the oppressed look to freedom and democracy, begin a protest or revolt, but somehow get derailed by the religious/political fanatics and the whole cycle starts again. But, this isn’t the first time this has happened in that part of the world and each cycle takes that part of the world a bit closer to a more democratic society. And please, one cannot measure the ideal of democracy for that country unless you live there. I’m not talking western democracy, but a more moderate and free society.

Another issue is that in this particular go around is that the Arab Spring has been mostly motivated by internal issues like poverty, corruption, unemployment, and the lack of democratic reform than by the interference of the west, which has, IMO, been a primary factor in causing the oppressive factions to derail any progress in stability in that part of the world. It’s a different aspect to revolt “against” something than to revolt “for” something. That is a bit of a fine line in thought, but I think it’s a bit more significant this time around. It is a source of amusement for me as US politicians are struggling to come up with any coherent thought or comment on the situation as its hard to build rhetoric when it isn’t about you.

 

A huge failing of the west has been to judge everyone else by a very narrow and prejudiced standard. I noted the comment on Sharia law. The west is generally appalled by the thoughts of some practise (law, religion, whatever) being in place that isn’t exactly what they feel is appropriate or familiar to them, but then on the other hand have generally accepted that religious fanaticism in their own country must be protected as a right. Really, one man’s beliefs are another man’s source of amusement or horror. Not much one can do about it.

 

Anyway, it is hard to predict the outcome there, but one holds an optimistic thought that the current round of protests will bring a degree of stability to that area of the world and that hopefully this time around it won’t be a matter of change from one oppressive regime to another.

[grannywils]

@Aurielius (snip) "In a conflict in which either side is diametrically and antithetically opposed to the other there is little choice but to pick sides and hope you picked the right one. For better or worse the option of which side to pick has long since sailed. Just an old pragmatist's point of view."

 

Audio vos sermo

or

אני שומע אתה מדבר

 

[Ihoe]

<snip>

Why is disengagement not an option? It seems that one of the major complaints in the middle east is US meddling in what they see as internal affairs. (overthrowing governments, supporting "freedom fighters", etc.) In my view, simply pulling out of the middle east, would remove one their major reasons for jihad against us. I am sure they would come up with some other reason though...... extremists are just like that. We don't have a very good track record there...... Iraq is descending back into sectarian violence. Afghanistan is a mess. Obama yet again apologizes to a muslim country, we have yet to see if he is going to bow to their demands that the Koran burners be prosecuted. (you realize the sentence for desecrating the koran is death, right?) It seems that we can't turn around without annoying someone there.

 

So, let's pull out. Bring our troops home, stop giving away billions of dollars to people that hate us, (and that we borrow from china.....) Stop spending money on useless wars that are actually doing us more harm than good.

 

:rolleyes:

 

(I Really can't stop myself from posting here :D)

 

I've read this platitude before, not that i am against what you're saying on a whole scale. Rescinding action by any of the countries that meddle in their internal affairs really can't be possible, if the losses were as salient as you mentioned, why didn't the SuperPs pull out? surely there's profit to be made (not Shirley), but i extemporize. :huh:

 

and what's wrong with Obie apologizing to a group of Somebodys? pulling out of the MedE (or whatever) really shouldn't mean that the Almighty Gov of the US of A wouldn't have to... errr... Apologize later, should it? Just a bit of clarification, the punishment of the Certain act of "Desecrating the Qur'an" or "Insulting Mohammad" is pretty much inscrutable to the "non-Muslim" but is extremely fastidious to a "Muslim". Kinda like Going somewhere, looting and pillaging everything and showing "the Finger" to the survivors. that's how a group of Somebodys might feel when the above mentioned acts are done. I'm not sure how to construe what i just wrote further.

[grannywils]

Ihoe, it has been requested that I just go ahead and report you when I find your posts to be obnoxious and/or offensive. But I must ask you why you find it necessary to be so rude to your fellow posters. HeyYou is a serious and intelligent poster. He takes time and thinks before he posts. Why must you call his posts platitudes. When you post in this fashion you do not make yourself sound superior. You do not make the other guy sound inferior. What happens is that people just stop taking you seriously. There was a time when I had some interest in what you had to say, as I believe that we are on the same side of many issues and that you are a reasonably intelligent young man. But until you grow up and learn how to interact with others, I cannot even listen to you. Take a lesson from your friend Corlan and tone it down some.

 

Aside to the monitors, I know this was not my place, and I apologize in advance.....:confused: