Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Currently there is, once again, a religious war going on in Iraq and Sunnis are the targets being attacked, murdered and subjected to suicide bombings. Would that mean Obama will comply with Iraq and we will return to Iraq to save the Sunnis????
Good point. It's not as simple as Sunni against Shiites, I used to think the same. It's really radical extremist Arab Wahhabi jihadits. We cannot paint them as simply Sunni, because many Sunni live peacefully with Shia, and live by the Koran peacefully. These are extreme fundamental Islamists, that will readily kill fellow muslims, including Sunni, for their cause.
The Origins of Wahhabism Wahhabi ideology serves U.S. interests for several reasons. Its followers’ archaic perception of society makes them reject any kind of progressive social change. Therefore they are well equipped to push back socialist, secular or nationalist movements, whose independence-oriented policies are a threat to America’s geopolitical agenda. Although Wahhabism certainly is not representative of the majority of Sunni Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni extremists, which causes them to maintain an extremely hostile stance towards Shi’te Islam.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which brought down the secular-nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein (a Sunni), the influence of Shi’ite-dominated Iran increased and caused a certain power shift in favor of Shiʿite Islam in the region. Due to this strengthened Shiʿite representation, American activities in the Middle East in recent years have been almost exclusively directed against Shiʿite interests. The emancipation of deprived Shiʿite masses in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen or Lebanon are contrary to aspirations from the side of the U.S., whose main allies in the region (next to Israel) consist of repressive Sunni regimes and terror groups.
In the case of Syria, President Bashar Al-Assad (an ally of Iran) and the secular Syrian society particularly evoke the hatred of extremists. The fact that Al-Assad belongs to the Alawite minority (a mystical religious group and a branch of Shiʿite Islam) makes him unacceptable to Wahhabi purists. US Sponsored “Islamic Fundamentalism”: The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance | Global Research
Not even close to being on the fence. We have no dog in this fight and should stay out.
Obama should take out his Peace Prize and dust it off. But he won't because he is a warmonger just like all the other Presidents. The only difference is he's a hypocrite warmonger.
Plus it gives a good excuse for Obama to invade Iran if they get antsy. Gives Obama support from his base since they can say "look, see, Obama is justifiably going into Iran". The anti-war left are tools and trophies for Obamabots.
Iran needs to be invaded, and their terrorist sponsoring government destroyed. Syria, on the other hand, is in the process of self-destructing. They need no help from us. Furthermore, once Iran's terrorist sponsoring government is destroyed Syria would most likely capitulate without the US firing a single shot. Syria has been propped up by Iran for years, and when Iran falls, so will Syria.
We should stay out of Syria, not support either side, and let their terrorist sponsoring government continue their war with the terrorists they helped to create. Or we could pull a Reagan, and do what he did during the Iraq/Iran war, which was to give both sides intelligence on the other country, so that neither country could win.
Iran needs to be invaded, and their terrorist sponsoring government destroyed. Syria, on the other hand, is in the process of self-destructing. They need no help from us. Furthermore, once Iran's terrorist sponsoring government is destroyed Syria would most likely capitulate without the US firing a single shot. Syria has been propped up by Iran for years, and when Iran falls, so will Syria.
We should stay out of Syria, not support either side, and let their terrorist sponsoring government continue their war with the terrorists they helped to create. Or we could pull a Reagan, and do what he did during the Iraq/Iran war, which was to give both sides intelligence on the other country, so that neither country could win.
Saudi Arabia is also a terrorist sponsoring government.
It's Saudi that has been linked to terrorist actions, not Iran.
If they like chemical weapons and poison so much, why not just have Monsanto plant a couple thousand acres of GMO corn in Syria? That'd take care of all combatants and everyone else.
I have yet to see any proof that it was Assad and not the Islamic revolutionaries who used the chemical weapons. Kerry declaring so is not proof. There is no reason to take the Obama administration at their word. We have some reason to believe that Assad would hesitate to use chemical weapons while we have more than enough to convince us that al Qaeda would do so without a second thought if it furthered their cause. I am opposed to any action on our part in either case, but should we act, we need to punish the guilty.
I think it's none of our concern. Why must WE always be the one to save the day? Inevitably, we either get drawn into a bigger conflict, or have to occupy, or rebuild, etc etc. It may start as a missile barrage, but I don't for one second think it will stop with that.
And once more, it is none of our business, and not our problem to solve. Let someone else be the hero of the day for once!
Quote:
I suspect that Assad feels he is not making progress, or is not doing so fast enough. So he murdered Syrian civilians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
Which brings us to...
You only believe that because the US government claimed it was so. What gives you so much faith in the US government to be truthful in such matters? One of the main lessons from the Iraq war (and really, many wars before that) is that the government will claim what it wants to claim, and if that happens to intersect with the actual truth of things, all the better. If not, no problem.
I think Obama and Kerry are waiting for the UN inspectors to concur that gassing did take place. How do you know why I "believe" anything when I specifically used the word "suspect"? I don't know. How could I? I am not there, nor do I have special information.
But logically, if logic can be used here, why else would Assad risk everything with a gas attack on his own people? And I do mean he risked everything with this. I don't even know if Russia can stand with him now, at least pubicly.
I thought the first article was a pretty good summary of why the "red line" was gassing. Or why Obama used the term, "red line" as a term that meant there could be no turning back. As I stated, I have not wanted for the U.S. to be engaged in this civil war. But at this point, I am on the fence. I just don't know.
I think it's none of our concern. Why must WE always be the one to save the day? Inevitably, we either get drawn into a bigger conflict, or have to occupy, or rebuild, etc etc. It may start as a missile barrage, but I don't for one second think it will stop with that.
And once more, it is none of our business, and not our problem to solve. Let someone else be the hero of the day for once!
I agree that I don't think we need to be involved. In the CNN article, Peter Bergen referenced the U.S. as the world's police. I don't know how I feel about that. For one thing, I don't think we can afford it. But the middle east is a powder keg, and not managing it might be bad for our country.
I do note that Saudi Arabia is quietly trying to depose Assad, as he is seen as a liability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
