So it looks like we may be going into Syria (?)

[LuisDantas]

In a situation like this, who's judgement do you trust?

Mine.

I happen to have very definite positions about the validity of war, and I am not about to just trust a Chief of Staff's opinion over mine. For good or worse, they are in their positions largely because they do not have a particularly high degree of aversion towards warfare.

They may be very good people otherwise. But it takes a lot indeed to convince me that it is a good thing to launch missiles or wage war. And it will be that much more difficult for members of the Military High Command.

Come to think of it, I happen to believe that it is the people's duty to challenge their military officers to convince them that war is acceptable, not to trust their judgement on the matter. War is serious business and never to be taken lightly.

If you were to check back at some of my first posts on this subject, I mentioned a couple of times that I was undecided. However, my "rule-of-thumb" is to listen to those who know a lot more than I do, and then try to figure out which advice is the best. As much as I literally detest using military force, I'm convinced that doing nothing but whining about what a mess it is, is not only not going to help anything but will most likely just make it worse.

No doubt the JCoS have access to more and better intelligence than I do. But how critical are they of it, and how reliable is that intelligence in the first place?

And how free are they to speak sincerely about their judgements, anyway? Not a whole lot, I think. Whatever they say, they will be heavily criticized for it.

Interesting discussion though, and I do appreciate where you're coming from, and would prefer you to be more right than I.

Thanks. So do we all, I hope.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...09883815.67691.268330443233035&type=1&theater

I hope we stay out of this one.

 

[Aquitaine]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...09883815.67691.268330443233035&type=1&theater

I hope we stay out of this one.

Brilliant, pure genius - so true! :yes:

 

[Aquitaine]

Look a**h***. You can have any f****** opinion you want about politicians. But I suggest you keep your f***** slander of the military and in this case especially the United States Marine Corps. These men fought to keep this country free and you think your f***** so called humor is funny. If you think is so funny why don't you take it down to your nearest USMC base and present your humor to them.

I was going to excuse my language, but then I figured this would be the only way I could penetrate your excuse for a brain.

Easy tiger. You should know by now, that I am not the type who "blames the messenger" so to speak. I don't blame a military for the actions of disastrous Foreign Policy which is enacted by (you guessed it) politicians and lobbyists.

The image you quoted was not my own, and I don't even know if they're Marines in that picture. The image "works" because of the comparison with the symbolic photo from WW2 - how it's gone from "protecting America" to "protecting American interests".

It's not to criticise or demonise the military, but rather show how the military are basically being misused: abused and sent into pointless conflicts which (in recent times) have very much so involved Oil as a part of it.

I understand, given your history that you have found it personal and offensive, however I can assure you I was not quoting that image to slur members of the military, or more specially, members of the USMC.

Take a deep breath, and just relax.

 

[esmith]

my reply to your posting was deleted by me due to anger overcoming emotions.

 

[Aquitaine]

my reply to your posting was deleted by me due to anger overcoming emotions.

Don't worry about it, it happens. I blow out on people all the time!

In fairness, when one posts images that have a heavy political sentiment behind them, s/he must expect that some people will find said images offensive, and will thus criticise.

I know what you said, I don't mind, I took it on board, and I can understand why you said it. However I will stress that I am not in these recent Syria threads because I have some vendetta against the military or whatever - I'm in them because I don't want people being dragged into another pointless conflict overseas.

Believe it or not, I actually don't think soldiers are (or should be seen as) expendable pawns for foreign policy.

 

[Godobeyer]

You are not alone in your beliefs (as stated above), Assad. Not many know that Saudi Arabia has an involvement in this whole thing. In fact, many of the "rebels" are non-Syrian. It is unfortunate the media never traverses upon this fact.

You are dame correct man !!!, i guess he knows that the terrorists are supported by Saudi Arabia and many countries, but he agree with , and he call it Jihad !!!!

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

When it comes to Obama's (and others) so called red line of using chemical attacks, the rationale behind such dramatic declarations reek of sheer lack ability to address the broader picture. Some estimates put the death toll in the Syrian civil war at well over 100,000, perhaps even 120,000. Is the president of America suggesting that while over a hundred thousands of people have already been slaughtered, and millions have turned into homeless refugees, his red line is the death of a couple of hundreds more? those who happened to die from Sarin gas? That logic stinks of strategic cowardice, and complacency with the brutality of the Syrian regime which has de facto been unleashing a genocide for over 2 years now.

To me this is the dirty little secret that will leave a stain on whatever Obama or future office holders do. The damage is done.
Thanks for the clear explanation of that sir.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...Is the president of America suggesting that while over a hundred thousands of people have already been slaughtered, and millions have turned into homeless refugees, his red line is the death of a couple of hundreds more? those who happened to die from Sarin gas? That logic stinks of strategic cowardice, and complacency with the brutality of the Syrian regime which has de facto been unleashing a genocide for over 2 years now...

Just for the record, the Syrian regime has not, de facto or otherwise, been unleashing genocide. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a mass of people in an attempt to wipe out the "gens", or "people". This happened to the Jews during WWII, to the Tutsis of Uganda more recently and, many claim, to the Armenians during WWI. There isn't any people group in Syria being targeted by the Assad government. Assad himself is a member of a religious minority (the Alawites); and other minorities, such as the Kurds, Druze and Christians, have largely sided with him -- along with many majority Sunnis. The fairest assessment of Assad, is that he is putting down an insurrection by people who, for the advancement of their own agendas (such as the world-wide establishment of Sharia Law) want Assad killed and his government overthrown. Lots of people have been killed in the process, as commonly happens in wars.

In response to the title of this thread, I have never seriously thought that Mr. Obama would send American troops to fight in Syria; and my brief hope that he would actually honor his commitment to a "red line" evaporated quickly after his very skillful but cowardly speech in which he said he would pass the buck to Congress.

President Obama is now an international joke, and all America with him. I'm not laughing; actually I'm a little sad, but life goes on...

 

[Caladan]

To me this is the dirty little secret that will leave a stain on whatever Obama or future office holders do. The damage is done.
Thanks for the clear explanation of that sir.

Thank you for the feedback.

Just for the record, the Syrian regime has not, de facto or otherwise, been unleashing genocide. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a mass of people in an attempt to wipe out the "gens", or "people". This happened to the Jews during WWII, to the Tutsis of Uganda more recently and, many claim, to the Armenians during WWI. There isn't any people group in Syria being targeted by the Assad government. Assad himself is a member of a religious minority (the Alawites); and other minorities, such as the Kurds, Druze and Christians, have largely sided with him -- along with many majority Sunnis. The fairest assessment of Assad, is that he is putting down an insurrection by people who, for the advancement of their own agendas (such as the world-wide establishment of Sharia Law) want Assad killed and his government overthrown. Lots of people have been killed in the process, as commonly happens in wars.

In response to the title of this thread, I have never seriously thought that Mr. Obama would send American troops to fight in Syria; and my brief hope that he would actually honor his commitment to a "red line" evaporated quickly after his very skillful but cowardly speech in which he said he would pass the buck to Congress.

President Obama is now an international joke, and all America with him. I'm not laughing; actually I'm a little sad, but life goes on...

Let's put it into perspective. In 2.5 years between 100-120 thousand people have been killed. Killed as a result of disproportionate fire unleashed on Syrian population centers by the Assad regime. The Syrian forces bomb their own cities with fighter jets and ballistic missiles. Mass graves were found, mass massacres have been reported.
The Sunnis in Syria who have been living under a Shiite Alawite apartheid state for decades are now an exposed and opened target for the regime.
Now you may shrug the death of over a hundred thousands people, of over 2 million refugees, in such a short time span as not 'technically' being a genocide. But from the view from here, a relatively short distance from Damascus it smells like genocide in the process.
Perhaps in 5 years, when the death toll rises to over a million, you would deem it technically correct to define it as a genocide by your standards.
Personally, I find it a little sad that you snipped that one single paragraph from my post and began a session of polemics about it while ignoring the disturbing bigger picture.
It is irrelevant whether you disagree with the semantics and insist on making clear that the on going death in Syria is not a 'proper' genocide. The bottom line is, that it is a indiscriminate killing with horrific results which make regions and countries around Syria to face an overflowing problem of refugees, and in some places (such as Lebanon) to a potential cultural collapse.

 

[darkendless]

It boggles the mind how the Western powers seem so keen to go to war again. What will it achieve? Let me middle eastern powers sort out their own back yard.

There is enough anti-western propaganda out there without giving them more ammunition.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I concur with Josh's comment in the YouTube Comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

 

[MD]

Thank you for the feedback.

Let's put it into perspective. In 2.5 years between 100-120 thousand people have been killed. Killed as a result of disproportionate fire unleashed on Syrian population centers by the Assad regime. The Syrian forces bomb their own cities with fighter jets and ballistic missiles. Mass graves were found, mass massacres have been reported.
The Sunnis in Syria who have been living under a Shiite Alawite apartheid state for decades are now an exposed and opened target for the regime.
Now you may shrug the death of over a hundred thousands people, of over 2 million refugees, in such a short time span as not 'technically' being a genocide. But from the view from here, a relatively short distance from Damascus it smells like genocide in the process.
Perhaps in 5 years, when the death toll rises to over a million, you would deem it technically correct to define it as a genocide by your standards.
Personally, I find it a little sad that you snipped that one single paragraph from my post and began a session of polemics about it while ignoring the disturbing bigger picture.
It is irrelevant whether you disagree with the semantics and insist on making clear that the on going death in Syria is not a 'proper' genocide. The bottom line is, that it is a indiscriminate killing with horrific results which make regions and countries around Syria to face an overflowing problem of refugees, and in some places (such as Lebanon) to a potential cultural collapse.

I think your analysis is flawed. First of all although Assad has indiscriminantly bombed a lot of neighbourhoods and killed innocents, the rebels aren't really saints. With their own ethnic cleansing of kurds, ****tes and christians, there's a reason the shabiha is ruthless. It's for survival. Most of the shabiha is comprised of ****tes, druze and christians. Almost 50-60% of the rebels are al qaeda and fanatics. I would bet the vast majority of those 50% are foreigners. I remember reading an article a month ago about how a whole Kurdish village was wiped out and hundreds were killed.

Assad is secular and protects minorities. Yes he is also a megalomaniac, but I'd take a secular dictator any day over a theocratic tyrant. If a million sunnis died the Sunni states surrounding Syria would invade. A lot of those who have died have been non sunnis as well. A lot of money is being poured into syria from the richest sunni states in the world, not to mention arms and even 'volunteers'.

If you have read about middle eastern history or politics you would realize that religious wars are common. If you want to highlight Assad's flaws go ahead. But if you want to be fair, I'd include the rebels atrocities as well. That's real perspective.

 

[Caladan]

I think your analysis is flawed. First of all although Assad has indiscriminantly bombed a lot of neighbourhoods and killed innocents, the rebels aren't really saints. With their own ethnic cleansing of kurds, ****tes and christians, there's a reason the shabiha is ruthless. It's for survival. Most of the shabiha is comprised of ****tes, druze and christians. Almost 50-60% of the rebels are al qaeda and fanatics. I would bet the vast majority of those 50% are foreigners. I remember reading an article a month ago about how a whole Kurdish village was wiped out and hundreds were killed.

Assad is secular and protects minorities. Yes he is also a megalomaniac, but I'd take a secular dictator any day over a theocratic tyrant. If a million sunnis died the Sunni states surrounding Syria would invade. A lot of those who have died have been non sunnis as well. A lot of money is being poured into syria from the richest sunni states in the world, not to mention arms and even 'volunteers'.

If you have read about middle eastern history or politics you would realize that religious wars are common. If you want to highlight Assad's flaws go ahead. But if you want to be fair, I'd include the rebels atrocities as well. That's real perspective.

If you actually took the time to read my original post, the one that was snipped and only one short paragraph was taken from, you would see I already said all the things you did above.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...The Sunnis in Syria who have been living under a Shiite Alawite apartheid state for decades are now an exposed and opened target for the regime...

Not really. "Apartheid" was a system peculiar to South Africa, wherein the minority whites sought to carve South Africa into independent states based on linguistic affiliation. The Ba'athists of Syria have never proposed independent statelets for the various religious minorities there. Syria is simply a dictatorship.

 

[MD]

If you actually took the time to read my original post, the one that was snipped and only one short paragraph was taken from, you would see I already said all the things you did above.

You briefly touch upon the rebels atrocities in your other post, but you mainly focus on Assad. You are from Israel, your country has it's own reasons to see Assad go and it has nothing to do with 'democracy' or 'freedom'. Israel would rather have a lawless al qaeda state than Assad. It has to do with his chemical weapon stockpile and link to Iran. Reading the rebel atrocities is disturbing, as it is mostly comprised of sunni fundamentalism.

 

[Bismillah]

You briefly touch upon the rebels atrocities in your other post, but you mainly focus on Assad

That is because Bashar Al Assad and his totalitarian regime are the chief violators and perpetrators of human rights violations and crimes.

 

[metis]

...Israel, [the] country has it's own reasons to see Assad go and it has nothing to do with 'democracy' or 'freedom'. Israel would rather have a lawless al qaeda state than Assad. It has to do with his chemical weapon stockpile and link to Iran. Reading the rebel atrocities is disturbing, as it is mostly comprised of sunni fundamentalism.

The leadership in Israel is very fearful of the rebels, especially because the al-Queda element has been strengthened by al-Queda in Iraq militants. Even though there's certainly no love for Assad in Israel, the rebels may well constitute a much greater threat. At least with Assad we have a "known". Assad has these weapons, but he also knows well what Israel's response will be if he dares to use them on them.

 

[MD]

That is because Bashar Al Assad and his totalitarian regime are the chief violators and perpetrators of human rights violations and crimes.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true, no matter how badly you want it to.

 

[Caladan]

Not really. "Apartheid" was a system peculiar to South Africa, wherein the minority whites sought to carve South Africa into independent states based on linguistic affiliation. The Ba'athists of Syria have never proposed independent statelets for the various religious minorities there. Syria is simply a dictatorship.

Well I see I am not going to get a constructive discussion here, only a useless battle of semantics. carry on.

You briefly touch upon the rebels atrocities in your other post, but you mainly focus on Assad. You are from Israel, your country has it's own reasons to see Assad go and it has nothing to do with 'democracy' or 'freedom'. Israel would rather have a lawless al qaeda state than Assad. It has to do with his chemical weapon stockpile and link to Iran. Reading the rebel atrocities is disturbing, as it is mostly comprised of sunni fundamentalism.

I discussed the role and perception of the rebels, I focused on Assad's secular regime, I discussed the Israeli consensus that the Assad regime was an era of stability for the Israeli-Syrian border, while the civil war with the rebels brought instability to the region. So no, you have not read my post at all.