Syria

[RatB0Y68]

Assad may be a bad man, but compared with the alternative groups, in many cases what they want is even worse. Assad may be of dubious morality, but he was keeping the lid on the pot, maintaining some semblance of stability. I imagine his defence would be along the lines of "look at what I have to deal with!".

The dynamic in Syria can to some extent be generally applied to the entire middle east; many different factions fighting each other not just for control, but to address grievances they have with one another, some grievances even go back a long time. There was a US General whose name eludes me who said something like "these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years, and they'll be going at it long after we're dead."

 

On the subject of spreading democracy, I feel it is counterproductive and self defeating. If democracy is to be established it must come from within, not be imposed by some outside force.

The people living in the numerous countries of the middle east are much better placed to know what they want than we do, they are the ones living in that environment. If they know what must be done to establish a democratic government on their terms, they can build one in a way that works for them.

 

Assuming the most negative situation, we can say Assad is a problem, however, many of the other factions are problematic too because of their aims. Assad is already here, we know what he's like. The other factions are unknown quantities, we know some of their goals, but we don't know what their modus operandi will be if they ever seize power. Just a layman's guess, but I don't think a Syrian Golden Age of Peace will be forthcoming if one of those squabbling groups gets into the big boy's chair.

Better to have one managable problem that keeps the other problems at bay, then to have an explosive chaotic mess of unmanagable problems.

 

TLDR: Assad is already here, he may be a tosser, but he's the devil I know.

 

(Edited for spelling mistake)

Edited April 21, 2018 by RatB0Y68

[HeyYou]

Assad may be a bad man, but compared with the alternative groups, in many cases what they want is even worse. Assad may be of dubious morality, but he was keeping the lid on the pot, maintaining some semblance of stability. I imagine his defence would be along the lines of "look at what I have to deal with!".

The dynamic in Syria can to some extent be generally applied to the entire middle east; many different factions fighting each other not just for control, but to address grievances they have with one another, some grievances even go back a long time. There was a US General whose name eludes me who said something like "these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years, and they'll be going at it long after we're dead."

 

On the subject of spreading democracy, I feel it is counterproductive and self defeating. If democracy is to be established it must come from within, not be imposed by some outside force.

The people living in the numerous countries of the middle east are much better placed to know what they want than we do, they are the ones living in that environment. If they know what must be done to establish a democratic government on their terms, thay can build one in a way that works for them.

 

Assuming the most negative situation, we can say Assad is a problem, however, many of the other factions are problematic too because of their aims. Assad is already here, we know what he's like. The other factions are unknown quantities, we know some of their goals, but we don't know what their modus operandi will be if they ever seize power. Just a layman's guess, but I don't think a Syrian Golden Age of Peace will be forthcoming if one of those squabbling groups gets into the big boy's chair.

Better to have one managable problem that keeps the other problems at bay, then to have an explosive chaotic mess of unmanagable problems.

 

TLDR: Assad is already here, he may be a tosser, but he's the devil I know.

Like Iraq, or Yemen, or Libya.........

 

Our government needs to figure out that they just SUCK at nation building, and stop doing it.

[RGMage2]

Perhaps they're not actually doing nation building, and that's just a cover for their true intentions. It could be a divide and conquer strategy - wreaking havoc on small resource rich countries and leaving them vulnerable for corporate vultures to reap windfall profits.

 

Maybe we're not giving them enough credit for competence.

 

"America, Destroyer of Nations" has a nice ring to it don't you think? Very exceptional. in a master race kind of way.

[Deleted54170User]

Is there a master plan? Is there a game which would give the youths of countries lacking the focus a view of what they could do?

 

A master over a master? Someone posted a line I read once. It was from someone's signature. I think I saw it when Morrowind was the main game being modded everywhere.

 

They wrote.

 

"I don't train followers I train leaders. I don't want people to follow me. I want them to walk with me and lead when I no longer can."

 

Or something like that. I think that the last part might have been, "I want them to walk with me and train leaders when I no longer can."

[TheMastersSon]

Assad may be a bad man, but compared with the alternative groups, in many cases what they want is even worse. Assad may be of dubious morality, but he was keeping the lid on the pot, maintaining some semblance of stability. I imagine his defence would be along the lines of "look at what I have to deal with!".

The dynamic in Syria can to some extent be generally applied to the entire middle east; many different factions fighting each other not just for control, but to address grievances they have with one another, some grievances even go back a long time. There was a US General whose name eludes me who said something like "these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years, and they'll be going at it long after we're dead."

 

On the subject of spreading democracy, I feel it is counterproductive and self defeating. If democracy is to be established it must come from within, not be imposed by some outside force.

The people living in the numerous countries of the middle east are much better placed to know what they want than we do, they are the ones living in that environment. If they know what must be done to establish a democratic government on their terms, thay can build one in a way that works for them.

 

Assuming the most negative situation, we can say Assad is a problem, however, many of the other factions are problematic too because of their aims. Assad is already here, we know what he's like. The other factions are unknown quantities, we know some of their goals, but we don't know what their modus operandi will be if they ever seize power. Just a layman's guess, but I don't think a Syrian Golden Age of Peace will be forthcoming if one of those squabbling groups gets into the big boy's chair.

Better to have one managable problem that keeps the other problems at bay, then to have an explosive chaotic mess of unmanagable problems.

 

TLDR: Assad is already here, he may be a tosser, but he's the devil I know.

I agree with all of the above, and the exact same text can be used for Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Libya etc. As if the last 60+ years of established history isn't enough evidence, no possibility of a popularly supported common and democratic government exists in a country as long as it remains in a state of de facto civil war. So the two choices in and with "Islamic Republics" (as any Muslim knows, the very term is an oxymoron) are totalitarian dictatorship and anarchy/chaos. U.S. involvement has simply forced these countries from the former to the latter. History has also proven it is impossible for anyone other than a devil to babysit the factional infighting in these countries. 270,000 Iraqi civilians simply vanished without a trace during Hussein's 20+ years, everyone pointed to him as the culprit. Libya is another example, all of these former leaders were sitters of the same set of babies. Edited April 20, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

Perhaps they're not actually doing nation building, and that's just a cover for their true intentions. It could be a divide and conquer strategy - wreaking havoc on small resource rich countries and leaving them vulnerable for corporate vultures to reap windfall profits.

 

Maybe we're not giving them enough credit for competence.

 

"America, Destroyer of Nations" has a nice ring to it don't you think? Very exceptional. in a master race kind of way.

I would almost buy into that, (hidden strategy) if it actually worked out that way. The whole idea for bush going into Iraq was exactly that.... get the oil. After we were done doing the 'destroyer of nations' bit, no US oil company wanted anything to do with Iraqi oil..... Mainly because there was no guarantee of security. It was, in fact, quite the opposite, if you were american, in Iraq, it was pretty much assured someone would be along to shoot at you/blow you up in relatively short order.....

[RGMage2]

 

Perhaps they're not actually doing nation building, and that's just a cover for their true intentions. It could be a divide and conquer strategy - wreaking havoc on small resource rich countries and leaving them vulnerable for corporate vultures to reap windfall profits.

 

Maybe we're not giving them enough credit for competence.

 

"America, Destroyer of Nations" has a nice ring to it don't you think? Very exceptional. in a master race kind of way.

I would almost buy into that, (hidden strategy) if it actually worked out that way. The whole idea for bush going into Iraq was exactly that.... get the oil. After we were done doing the 'destroyer of nations' bit, no US oil company wanted anything to do with Iraqi oil..... Mainly because there was no guarantee of security. It was, in fact, quite the opposite, if you were american, in Iraq, it was pretty much assured someone would be along to shoot at you/blow you up in relatively short order.....

 

True enough. American foreign policy certainly hasn't been making the world a safer place for Americans. It makes no sense, trying to understand it is like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. I'm usually torn between the idea of incompetence or ulterior motives, but maybe what it really is is some of these people are just downright delusional. I still remember in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, watching some of the Sunday news shows where a Bush accomplice (Dick Cheney?) was explaining how the Iraqi people would be throwing rose petal parades for American troops.

[TheMastersSon]

 

 

Perhaps they're not actually doing nation building, and that's just a cover for their true intentions. It could be a divide and conquer strategy - wreaking havoc on small resource rich countries and leaving them vulnerable for corporate vultures to reap windfall profits.

 

Maybe we're not giving them enough credit for competence.

 

"America, Destroyer of Nations" has a nice ring to it don't you think? Very exceptional. in a master race kind of way.

I would almost buy into that, (hidden strategy) if it actually worked out that way. The whole idea for bush going into Iraq was exactly that.... get the oil. After we were done doing the 'destroyer of nations' bit, no US oil company wanted anything to do with Iraqi oil..... Mainly because there was no guarantee of security. It was, in fact, quite the opposite, if you were american, in Iraq, it was pretty much assured someone would be along to shoot at you/blow you up in relatively short order.....

True enough. American foreign policy certainly hasn't been making the world a safer place for Americans. It makes no sense, trying to understand it is like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. I'm usually torn between the idea of incompetence or ulterior motives, but maybe what it really is is some of these people are just downright delusional. I still remember in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, watching some of the Sunday news shows where a Bush accomplice (Dick Cheney?) was explaining how the Iraqi people would be throwing rose petal parades for American troops.

Pentagon budget documents tell us Dick Cheney chose military targets in Iraq, not based on their strategic importance, but on Halliburton's potential profit margins for the targets' reconstruction. The punchline is that he did nothing whatsoever illegal as far as anyone knows. Our feds have been charting new despotism territory with pretty much every new president and administration since Nixon. Thank long-term voter apathy and strangulation of our electoral process by a colluded two-party cartel that is bought by and beholden to the same multinational corporate and special interests. With all the talk and accusations about Russian interference in our last election, ironically between that and Trump's apparently infinite hat size we currently do not look all that dissimilar to Syria. Edited April 21, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[RGMage2]

 

Thank long-term voter apathy and strangulation of our electoral process by a colluded two-party cartel that is bought by and beholden to the same multinational corporate and special interests.

I would add a complicit press to the list, whether it's journalists not doing their jobs or the result of concentration of ownership, they are part of the problem.

 

Democracy's greatest weakness is how easily it is corrupted by money. We need a reset on the democratic process, to find ways of keeping the money out, and ways of allowing normal ethical good people to compete for high office.

[RatB0Y68]

 

 

Thank long-term voter apathy and strangulation of our electoral process by a colluded two-party cartel that is bought by and beholden to the same multinational corporate and special interests.

I would add a complicit press to the list, whether it's journalists not doing their jobs or the result of concentration of ownership, they are part of the problem.

 

Democracy's greatest weakness is how easily it is corrupted by money. We need a reset on the democratic process, to find ways of keeping the money out, and ways of allowing normal ethical good people to compete for high office.

 

The same could be said for virtually all forms of government. Money is just another form of power, and ambitious power hungry people are a problem in any government or political system.

 

There are solutions that are viable in and of themselves, but in the real world they won't see they light of day because, as mentioned often here, the people with the power to implement these reforms are the ones due to be shafted by them.

 

So to reset the democratic system there may well be the need to remove the government by force.

Therein lies another problem, that isn't so easily done anymore. Governments today are vastly more powerful than back in the olden days.

 

So what's left? You can't reform the system; it's resistant by design. You can't remove the system; it's too entrenched.

 

Consider then, a more unconventional solution: Make Everything Worse

Instead of trying to cure a sickened system, make it sicker. Make the government more corrupt, more incompetent, more inefficient and ineffective. Exacerbate the bloated wastefulness of the system to breaking point until it can't support itself anymore and finally collapses. Then when the system has disintegrated, start all over again.

 

Now you might well be thinking at this stage: "What? Have you taken leave of your senses?!" It's understandable. Measures like this aren't going to come without cost, perhaps dire cost. However one could argue that the system is already costly to people as is.