If Obama topples Bashar Al Assad...

[Type Username Here]

If you told me one or two years ago that I'd be arguing with Muslims (here and a few at the uni) about intervening in the Middle East/ exercising the Bush doctrine (sort of) AND that I would be on the side arguing against it, I would have told you that you were bat shyt crazy.

Only thing Obama has left to do to officially become worse than Bush is start another Iraq type of War. That's the only thing left for him to check off the Neo-Con list.

 

[Broke Wave]

I don't know if I agree with all of this, but as always I will read up and figure out my stance from the facts. I will point out that almost the entirety of your critiques of Obama (well the ones that make the most sense) are derived from your disdain about drone strikes against people deemed to be evil (no matter how inaccurate it is). But you're okay with intervening in another country to take a guy out merely because the case of his evil is clearer in your eyes. Meanwhile, in those other regions, the local governments often want the US' intervention whereas here the US is being forced to choose sides and engage in a civil war with many question marks.

I don't know how I feel about intervening, but you're right, there is a precedent for Syria slaughtering its own citizens and if found to be true, I'd have a hard time saying the world should just stand by. As much as I believe that we should stop trying to be the world's police force. Side note: I caught your little shot about me supposedly disliking Cenk...

I've stated numerous times I am no against drones, I am just against the way they are being used right now, which is undoubtedly a war crime. Signature strikes, double taps, etc all that stuff is utterly disgusting.

I am for a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Bashar al Assad in occordance with international law in order to stop the violence, then U.N. peacekeepers to oversee the transition between the regime to the FSA.

If you told me one or two years ago that I'd be arguing with Muslims (here and a few at the uni) about intervening in the Middle East/ exercising the Bush doctrine (sort of) AND that I would be on the side arguing against it, I would have told you that you were bat shyt crazy.

Only thing Obama has left to do to officially become worse than Bush is start another Iraq type of War. That's the only thing left for him to check off the Neo-Con list.

I am not a pacifist. I feel that in this case the U.N. needs to act to stop a madman who is using nerve gas, not one who just has nerve gas, but is now using it. That is the whole point of the U.N.

Nothing can be gained by anyone by allowing Bashar to win at this stage. You think the conflict will ever stop if Bashar regains control? He will slaughter thousands just like his father did, and the country will continue to fall apart. You've seen the videos of him bombing peaceful protesters. He is a mad man and I am not dealing in hypothetical situtations, he really is butchering his own people. The U.N. needs to get its shyt together and end this pathetic mans life.

 

[newarkhiphop]

i say go for it, been a couple of years since we last won some hearts and minds

 

[Type Username Here]

I am not a pacifist. I feel that in this case the U.N. needs to act to stop a madman who is using nerve gas, not one who just has nerve gas, but is now using it. That is the whole point of the U.N.

Nothing can be gained by anyone by allowing Bashar to win at this stage. You think the conflict will ever stop if Bashar regains control? He will slaughter thousands just like his father did, and the country will continue to fall apart. You've seen the videos of him bombing peaceful protesters. He is a mad man and I am not dealing in hypothetical situtations, he really is butchering his own people. The U.N. needs to get its shyt together and end this pathetic mans life.

I am not a pacifist in any way, shape or form. I just don't feel the US needs to:

A) Once again supply and support Sunnis who will then turn around and spit on us for intervening in their affairs
B) Once again supply and support future enemies, who will be bored with this conquest and begin looking for another
C) Allow the Saudis to gain even more power and influence in the region, and get closer to having control of the oil/resources in the region
D) Give up the only true ace they have: empowered Shias to keep the Sunnis in that region in check.
E) Send troops to die for people who would spit on their graves
F) Spend more money outside of this country and once again give welfare to private contractors
E) Justify even more encroachment on the rights of our citizens

Let them handle it on their own this time. If they lose, they lose. That's the price you pay sometimes. But keep our boys here at home, and send them to die when the goal is to protect this country, not protect their future enemies and to make rich men richer.

 

[Broke Wave]

I am not a pacifist in any way, shape or form. I just don't feel the US needs to:

A) Once again supply and support Sunnis who will then turn around and spit on us for intervening in their affairs
B) Once again supply and support future enemies, who will be bored with this conquest and begin looking for another
C) Allow the Saudis to gain even more power and influence in the region, and get closer to having control of the oil/resources in the region
D) Give up the only true ace they have: empowered Shias to keep the Sunnis in that region in check.
E) Send troops to die for people who would spit on their graves
F) Spend more money outside of this country and once again give welfare to private contractors
E) Justify even more encroachment on the rights of our citizens

Let them handle it on their own this time. If they lose, they lose. That's the price you pay sometimes. But keep our boys here at home, and send them to die when the goal is to protect this country, not protect their future enemies and to make rich men richer.

The U.S. supporting the Mujaheddin against the Soviets was probably one of their best moves in the 20th century. They drew the Russians into a long drawn out conflict which helped to cripple them economically and militarily, while at the same time gaining the support of the Saudi's who indelibly control Sunni political thought. It was only after the Saudi's allowed the Americans to use their soil closest to Mecca and Medina for their war that Bin Laden started his enmity towards America, otherwise he supported destroying Iraq's military. But the status quo after the CIA support of the Mujaheddin was great for the U.S.

Saudi's are America's allies so naturally America has been pushing them to be the second place in the region next to Israel. They are the only true Sunni power in the region next to democratic secular Turkey, who is not really involved in the region post WW1 lets be honest. As far as geopolitics is concerned, taking out Bashar is a slam dunk for America however there must be assurances made to Israel that the new rulers will not be against them, and that is why I believe those thangs have not been released yet.

Not a single American will die as a result of a U.N. enforced no fly zone so that is a little hyperbolic, and there will be no new rights stolen as a result of this minor action.

 

[thekingsmen]

Broke Wave supports....

 

[Type Username Here]

Saudi's are America's allies so naturally America has been pushing them to be the second place in the region next to Israel. They are the only true Sunni power in the region next to democratic secular Turkey, who is not really involved in the region post WW1 lets be honest. As far as geopolitics is concerned, taking out Bashar is a slam dunk for America however there must be assurances made to Israel that the new rulers will not be against them, and that is why I believe those thangs have not been released yet.

I'd argue that the Saudis are already the most powerful entity in the region, and if the US had to choose between Israel and the Saudi oil supply, AIPAC members would be committing mass suicide.

Not a single American will die as a result of a U.N. enforced no fly zone so that is a little hyperbolic, and there will be no new rights stolen as a result of this minor action.

I don't see this being like Libya and Yugoslavia. There will be troops on the ground because the Iranians aren't going to let it just happen. Only my opinion.

 

[Broke Wave]

I'd argue that the Saudis are already the most powerful entity in the region, and if the US had to choose between Israel and the Saudi oil supply, AIPAC members would be committing mass suicide.



I don't see this being like Libya and Yugoslavia. There will be troops on the ground because the Iranians aren't going to let it just happen. Only my opinion.

It is totally different from Libya and Yugoslavia IMO because it is way way way way worse and more urgent.

As far as Iran letting anything happen... weren't you in the military? They fly f-14's that were sold to them in the 70's... I don't think they are going to let anything happen friend, it's just going to happen.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I vote in favor for a no fly zone over Syria and some strategic bombing. If he at least did this, and toppled this son of a bytch, he would have done something good for some people who really need it, therefore I couldn't be totally mad at him, even though I feel like he is a reprehensible man. What is unique is the savagery displayed by the Assad regime, I have never seen this before in my life.

Sounds very short sighted and one dimensional IMO

I'm not sure that your answer reflects what we've learned in the past when dealing with these type of delicate situations

 

[Ritzy Sharon]

The U.S. supporting the Mujaheddin against the Soviets was probably one of their best moves in the 20th century. They drew the Russians into a long drawn out conflict which helped to cripple them economically and militarily, while at the same time gaining the support of the Saudi's who indelibly control Sunni political thought. It was only after the Saudi's allowed the Americans to use their soil closest to Mecca and Medina for their war that Bin Laden started his enmity towards America, otherwise he supported destroying Iraq's military. But the status quo after the CIA support of the Mujaheddin was great for the U.S.

Saudi's are America's allies so naturally America has been pushing them to be the second place in the region next to Israel. They are the only true Sunni power in the region next to democratic secular Turkey, who is not really involved in the region post WW1 lets be honest. As far as geopolitics is concerned, taking out Bashar is a slam dunk for America however there must be assurances made to Israel that the new rulers will not be against them, and that is why I believe those thangs have not been released yet.

Not a single American will die as a result of a U.N. enforced no fly zone so that is a little hyperbolic, and there will be no new rights stolen as a result of this minor action.

so, you're basically advocating for absolute/complete Israeli-Saudi-American hegemony and for the people of the region (particularly the Palestinians) to live forever as subjugated subhumans. is "taking out Bashar" really worth that asking price, breh? does the war end with US involvement and Assads death? or will Syria descend into a even deeper level of hell? what does history teach us, breh?

honestly tho, I just wish my other akhs in favour of western military intervention were as forthright as you.

 

[Broke Wave]

so, you're basically advocating for absolute/complete Israeli-Saudi-American hegemony and for the people of the region (particularly the Palestinians) to live forever as subjugated subhumans. is "taking out Bashar" really worth that asking price, breh?

I just wish my other akhs in favour of western military intervention were as forthright as you.

As if Bashar was threatening the status quo in Palestine

Iran threatens the status quo in Palestine? Hezbollah threatens the status quo? Even if Iraq,Iran and Syria formed a superstate, could they threaten the status quo in Palestine? Of course not

Anything that happens outside of Palestine is periphery if it doesn't directly weaken Israel or the U.S.

Bashar catching that cruise missile to his face is not going to make life any less bleak in Ramallah or in any way effect the occupation, it is just a desirable outcome for a brutal dictator.

 

[thekingsmen]

Since Broke Wave is in favor of war....sign up for it....stop talking about it be about that life homie.

 

[Ritzy Sharon]

As if Bashar was threatening the status quo in Palestine

Iran threatens the status quo in Palestine? Hezbollah threatens the status quo? Even if Iraq,Iran and Syria formed a superstate, could they threaten the status quo in Palestine? Of course not

Anything that happens outside of Palestine is periphery if it doesn't directly weaken Israel or the U.S.

Bashar catching that cruise missile to his face is not going to make life any less bleak in Ramallah or in any way effect the occupation, it is just a desirable outcome for a brutal dictator.

it's not about war, it's about leverage. without the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah counterbalance, Israel's power will go unchecked in the region and they will have absolutely no incentive to make peace with with the Palestinians. in fact, Zionist dreams like forced migration of the remaining Palestinian to Jordan and the recolonization of south Lebanon could very well become a reality without that counterbalance.

 

[Type Username Here]

It is totally different from Libya and Yugoslavia IMO because it is way way way way worse and more urgent.

As far as Iran letting anything happen... weren't you in the military? They fly f-14's that were sold to them in the 70's... I don't think they are going to let anything happen friend, it's just going to happen.

They would be extremely dumb if they stand by and let themselves get exponentially weakened. They are going to rile up the Iranians and Iraqis about sectarian conquest, and there will be foreign shia troops/fighters joining in much larger numbers (my opinion). The US could provide air support but I think that if the aforementioned scenario happened, there will be troops deployed. I have no doubt that the US (hell the Israelis) would destroy the opposition in conventional warfare, but like I said before, I don't think it's worth putting one American military person in harms way for a people who will turn around with the weapons and money we gave them to later kill Americans. I'm sure the contractors, bankers and wealthy oil fukks have green in their eyes, but fukk them.

 

[MVike28]

it's not about war, it's about leverage. without the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah counterbalance, Israel's power will go unchecked in the region and they will have absolutely no incentive to make peace with with the Palestinians. in fact, Zionist dreams like forced migration of the remaining Palestinian to Jordan and the recolonization of south Lebanon could very well become a reality without that counterbalance.

Are you serious breh?

That trifecta of scumbags have not fired one shot at Israel. Not one in the last 40 years. They enable Israel if anything, all they talk is rhetoric

@ Hezbollah taking all the credit for the resistance to Israel in South Lebanon

I don't agree with US intervention, but I hope Assad's regime is gone by next year.