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.
The intent of my post is not to suggest to Barack Obama what he should do. If that was the intent, I would have said "I disagree with the Barack Obama. This is what he should do."
The intent of my post is geared toward the numerous threads on the forum that highlight the plight of Syrians by putting forth a rational notion as to why we can expect to see more of the same without our intervention. There's always an underlying notion that the United States should get involved when other people are being slaughtered by their own governments. I'm pointing out why I believe that won't happen in Syria in the current geopolitical climate.
There are four or five occurrences of "Obama" in the OP, and once in the title of this thread. I'm sure you weren't trying to keep Obama and his decisions out of this. This is the same script that was adopted by this collective that was spewing crocodile tears for revolution against Gaddaffi while Obama wasn't doing anything, calling him spineless and "being buddy" with Gaddaffi... until March 15, 2011.
Then, they woke up on the wrong side of the bed, on March 16, 2011, learning that Obama has joined hands with NATO, against Gaddaffi, and the tears were now for Gaddaffi and conspiracy theories for Obama helping Muslim Brotherhood.
There are four or five occurrences of "Obama" in the OP, and once in the title of this thread. I'm sure you weren't trying to keep Obama and his decisions out of this. This is the same script that was adopted by this collective that was spewing crocodile tears for revolution against Gaddaffi while Obama wasn't doing anything, calling him spineless and "being buddy" with Gaddaffi... until March 15, 2011.
Then, they woke up on the wrong side of the bed, on March 16, 2011, learning that Obama has joined hands with NATO, against Gaddaffi, and the tears were now for Gaddaffi and conspiracy theories for Obama helping Muslim Brotherhood.
Which of the two is you? Or, is that ALL of you?
Nowhere in the OP do I discuss Libya. Why are you using Libya as some sort of cover for Barack Obama in Syria? Are you saying that you support United States' intervention in Syria, Al Qaeda's goals be damned?
Nowhere in the OP do I discuss Libya. Why are you using Libya as some sort of cover for Barack Obama in Syria? Are you saying that you support United States' intervention in Syria, Al Qaeda's goals be damned?
Sure sounds like it.
You don't, I do. You want to avoid your past, I want to highlight it. It helps put things in perspective, in place.
The intent of my post is not to suggest to Barack Obama what he should do. If that was the intent, I would have said "I disagree with the Barack Obama. This is what he should do."
The intent of my post is geared toward the numerous threads on the forum that highlight the plight of Syrians by putting forth a rational notion as to why we can expect to see more of the same without our intervention. There's always an underlying notion that the United States should get involved when other people are being slaughtered by their own governments. I'm pointing out why I believe that won't happen in Syria in the current geopolitical climate.
Whatever the intent of your post (which you've failed to elucidate), what you've succeeded in doing is clarifying the difficulty of the situation with Syria. Americans are weary of our government sending in the military to deal with problems in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Our traditional allies in Europe are not in a position to intercede militarily in the tragedy happening in Syria because the will to act has been depleted by their assistance to us in Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis in Europe.
Our allies in the region are not in a position to intercede because Israel cannot act without escalating tensions, and Iran has kept tensions high with Israel. Iraq cannot act because the war and subsequent internal strife has crippled their military and even their police. Saudi Arabia cannot act because it has thus far managed to avoid being drawn into the Arab Spring revolutions, but to do so it has had to support the crackdowns in Bahrain. If the Saudis took action in Syria, such action would doubtless trigger more unrest in Bahrain which could domino into problems in Saudi Arabia, and more than that, because of the US military presence in both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, would cause a US diplomatic crisis.
Egypt cannot act because the provisional government is already under duress by citizens dissatisfied with the speed of reform, and one of the strategies the provisional government has taken is to point fingers at the US for problems in Egypt. Egypt cannot act unilaterally at this point because of their domestic instability, and Egypt cannot work with the United States to try to resolve Syria's problems because that would undermine the provisional government even more.
Libya cannot take any action in Syria because it's just too new, it's focus has to be on reconstruction in Libya. All these countries have spoken out against the Syrian government and its actions against its people. Diplomatically speaking, pressure on Assad has been so strong he's agreed to step down several times, but each time he's reneged on the agreement and renewed his efforts against his people.
The United States cannot take overt action because of the involvement of Russia and China. While overt action could benefit us in the short-term, support for the revolution just makes the region even more unpredictable in the aftermath of the Arab Spring where we still have a political vacuum. That political vacuum may be resolving itself, as all vacuums do, but it is far from any real stability. And if the United States intercedes, we reinforce the propaganda from China and Russia of American imperialism, which doesn't just hurt us long-term in Northern Africa and the Middle East, it hurts us all over the world, and affects our dealings on the diplomatic level, but also affects our dealings on the economic level.
The situation is extremely delicate, extremely volatile, and extremely intertwined with multiple American interests. I personally think that Obama should have joined in his voice with Saudi Arabia in calling for Assad to walk away, especially after Assad reneged on his agreement to do so the second time. I think that there have been opportunities in this matter that have not been seized, but then I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. This is a tragedy, but the end result will be the victory of the revolution. At this point, I think both sides of the conflict are so entrenched, but when a government goes to war with its people, eventually that government falls. Because of the problems of all of the people outside this conflict who might have been able to prevent some of this bloodshed, the body count will be higher, the devastation to Syria will be incalcuable.
The United States will not help Syria, and the reason is very simple. Both Barack Obama and Al Qaeda are calling for the removal of Assad. Any aid sent by the United States is almost virtually guaranteed to assist Al Qaeda in its goal to re-assert itself in Syria. Considering that it is an election year in the United States, that's one risk that Barack Obama is not willing to take.
Funny how politics, oil, and terrorism drive who we support and who we don't, isn't it? The Syrian people are on the losing end of this proposition.
Read the Senate intelligence committee reports.
Clinton and neo-con Tony Lake (now part of Obama's circle) were illegally purchasing weapons from Iran and shipping them to Albania to be smuggled into Kosovo-Metohija and Bosnia by Zawahiri.
Anyway, the point is that this wouldn't be the first time the US and Zawahiri worked together.
What does it mean? I don't know. Lot of funny business going on. If people would look at this stuff in light of 9-11, well, I'll just leave it at that.
The United States will not help Syria, and the reason is very simple. Both Barack Obama and Al Qaeda are calling for the removal of Assad. Any aid sent by the United States is almost virtually guaranteed to assist Al Qaeda in its goal to re-assert itself in Syria. Considering that it is an election year in the United States, that's one risk that Barack Obama is not willing to take.
Funny how politics, oil, and terrorism drive who we support and who we don't, isn't it? The Syrian people are on the losing end of this proposition.
The US should NOT be f'ing with the internal politics of other countries. We have been very slow to figure that out. Obama was wrong to do so in Libya. Maybe he'll get it right this time. We are not the world's policemen.
They were sending truckloads of the same angry jobless young men into Iraq to attack US troops there.
They are not our *friends* in any sense of the word.
Let them fight it out among themselves.
Personally, I think the WH shares my general assessment but has to give "lip service" to the issue so they don't seem insensitive to a segement of the US population.
He shouldn't get involved because its none of our damn business. Simple as can be.
To a degree that's true.
But there is a human toll to the strife in Syria. And if our silence is taken as consent to this tragedy, then we are complicit in these deaths. Much in the same way that silence to Hitler's deliberate extermination of Jews made the people who knew and did nothing complicit. Simple compassion demanded that we as humans protest and try to stop the genocide. As the Syrian government wages war against its own people, we as humans need to cry out that this is wrong, and try to stop it.
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.
