USA´s next victim: Syria.

[Superalexmarket]

Mr. "Nobel peace prize" is ready to strike again, and this time is the bloody, malicious and pervert regime (CNN, TNT, NBC say it so it´s true) of Al-Asad in Syria.
The USA no need the approval of Security Council of UN, because they are the guardians of world freedom and democracy therefore have white carte to do what they please. So let's get ready to see the war live on yours TV's and computers fellows! The heroic US ARMY saving the World again!!

 

[Feicarsinn]

Get off the fence and tell us what you really think.

 

[Superalexmarket]

This is another step towards the ultimate goal: IRAN (and oil of course) the Syrian government is the last ally of Iran in the region, finishing them the circle closes.
There are dozens of tyrannies in other parts of the world, however USA is not involved, even sometimes they're promoted by the U.S. government. (The military Junta in Argentina in the 70s, the Taliban regime and Saddam Hussein in the '80s, etc)
I hope that soon Russia and China come together to stop this unilateral abuse .

 

[Big Ewis]

^ one can be anti-American (I'm not personally) but one cannot wish for Russia and China to have too much success. They're both monster states, no discussion needed facts speak for themselves.

And the Syrian problem is a great one for specific reasons, it's not just some random dictatorship and it's not all about oil. I agree no government/nation in the world cares about human suffering, they should have acted months ago in Syria if that was really the problem, not wait for millions to die.
The influence Syria has in that zone of the world is capital. It's Russia's only pole of influence in the region, it is a bridge to Iran and a stronghold in the Middle East.

America cannot just sit by and wait for Russia and China to get bigger and stronger and try to dominate the world, obviously. When given the opportunity, a nation *must* unfortunately act in a fallacious way, find a pretext, and act. Because if you don't act, your enemy will. And you lose. And I prefer Obama and co. than fkn Putin and the fkn Chinese commies with the clinically insane regimes of Iran and N. Korea as allies, Pakistan and their prehistoric politics and beliefs not far behind - but that's just personal preference..

 

[nickdnz]

Well, France is looking to get involved as well..

Its all a mess and very much a double standard of Obama who still hasn't removed all troops from Iraq even after the 2011 withdrawal. They really should stay out of it, or provide support that isn't lethal military action.

 

[Gavin]

So the international community should stand back whilst innocent civilians are the victim of chemical attacks? If the attacks are proved by UN officials then something should be done. Compare it to Iraq all you want but you could also compare it to the Bosnian War in the early 90s.

 

[Peat]

^ one can be anti-American (I'm not personally) but one cannot wish for Russia and China to have too much success. They're both monster states, no discussion needed facts speak for themselves.

And the Syrian problem is a great one for specific reasons, it's not just some random dictatorship and it's not all about oil. I agree no government/nation in the world cares about human suffering, they should have acted months ago in Syria if that was really the problem, not wait for millions to die.
The influence Syria has in that zone of the world is capital. It's Russia's only pole of influence in the region, it is a bridge to Iran and a stronghold in the Middle East.

America cannot just sit by and wait for Russia and China to get bigger and stronger and try to dominate the world, obviously. When given the opportunity, a nation *must* unfortunately act in a fallacious way, find a pretext, and act. Because if you don't act, your enemy will. And you lose. And I prefer Obama and co. than fkn Putin and the fkn Chinese commies with the clinically insane regimes of Iran and N. Korea as allies, Pakistan and their prehistoric politics and beliefs not far behind - but that's just personal preference..

Well said. I've never really got the argument that says just because America (or anyone) does a lot of wrong things, they can't do anything right, or that a frequent hypocrite loses all rights to moral action. There are two kinds of governments in this world as a rule, hypocrites and unrepentent monsters, and the former is still better than the latter.

I am not comfortable with the idea of America intervening. There seems to be great scope for them to make things worse than they are and in one sense they are acting in support of some very unpalatable people. But equally, I'm not comfortable with the idea we sit around when people start lobbing chemical weapons around, or totally wash our hands of humanitarian crises because the situation is difficult, or because it would not be entirely consistent. And while it could go wrong, it could go right. Look at the air strikes in Libya for an example of a limited intervention that achieved a target, albeit to what ends we don't yet know.

 

[LittleGuy]

Well, France is looking to get involved as well..

Its all a mess and very much a double standard of Obama who still hasn't removed all troops from Iraq even after the 2011 withdrawal. They really should stay out of it, or provide support that isn't lethal military action.

I'm being a bit pedantic, but those aren't really troops, they are embassy guards and defence contractors supporting the embassy staff. The United States Army, Marine corps soldiers have been completely withdrawn.

As for Syria, well I'm glad I don't have to make the call on this one. The Assad regime is dastardly, but are the rebels much better? I'm sort of with Peat on this one, does everyone sit on their hands which seems like a lousy choice, or do we interfere at risk of making things either much better or worse? I also don't have access to the intellignece sources, personalities of the major players, nor does anyone have clairvoyant insight into how third parties will interfere on Assad's behalf.

 

[psychic duck]

I'm being a bit pedantic, but those aren't really troops, they are embassy guards and defence contractors supporting the embassy staff. The United States Army, Marine corps soldiers have been completely withdrawn.

As for Syria, well I'm glad I don't have to make the call on this one. The Assad regime is dastardly, but are the rebels much better? I'm sort of with Peat on this one, does everyone sit on their hands which seems like a lousy choice, or do we interfere at risk of making things either much better or worse? I also don't have access to the intellignece sources, personalities of the major players, nor does anyone have clairvoyant insight into how third parties will interfere on Assad's behalf.

No they are not, they have a lot of Islamic militants amongst them.

Syria is a mess whatever happens. Leave it alone and Assad continues to butcher a tonne of people in war. Intervene and depose Assad then the Shia and Sunni Muslims will still be fighting a sectarian war and loads of people get killed. There's no point picking a side in a war as it is a doomed situation anyway. Only thing Obama might be worth doing is stopping the chemical weapons to deter countries like Iran thinking they can too kill people without worrying about outside intervention.

 

[smartcooky]

This is another step towards the ultimate goal: IRAN (and oil of course) the Syrian government is the last ally of Iran in the region, finishing them the circle closes.
There are dozens of tyrannies in other parts of the world, however USA is not involved, even sometimes they're promoted by the U.S. government. (The military Junta in Argentina in the 70s, the Taliban regime and Saddam Hussein in the '80s, etc)
I hope that soon Russia and China come together to stop this unilateral abuse .

"USA attacks middle east for oil" is one of the greatest political lies and myths going around.

Less than half the US' oil imports (3 billion barrels PA) come from OPEC countries (1.4 billion barrels), and of that only 795 million barrels come from middle east countries. They get more oil from their biggest supplier, Canada (880 million barrels) who supply almost 1/3 of the USA's imported oil. Perhaps the USA should invade Canada for their oil

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_a.htm

Just to straighten out those who think that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, the supply of oil from Iraq to the USA has remained at its low level, virtually unchanged since the invasion (marked with a red dateline on the graph below) at less than 250 million barrels, or less than 9% of the US total imports.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMIZ1&f=A


Now if you take this even further, USA is the No. 3 producer of oil in the world, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. It supplies 48.6% of its own consumption.
So if we look at the figures above and express them as a fraction of the overall US oil consumption, it drops the figures to roughly half.

The US overall oil requirements come from..

OPEC Counties - less than 25%
Middle East - about 17%
Canada - about 18%
Iraq - less than 5%

 

[Tony Manx]

No they are not, they have a lot of Islamic militants amongst them.

Syria is a mess whatever happens. Leave it alone and Assad continues to butcher a tonne of people in war. Intervene and depose Assad then the Shia and Sunni Muslims will still be fighting a sectarian war and loads of people get killed. There's no point picking a side in a war as it is a doomed situation anyway. Only thing Obama might be worth doing is stopping the chemical weapons to deter countries like Iran thinking they can too kill people without worrying about outside intervention.

It is a real s*** heap and the only way these things ever end is by mediation......I am not sure that military interference by the US (but agree with Yoe I would prefer them rather than leaving it to the regimes of Russia and China) in anyway would make any sense or change the situation and they should be trying to get some sort of dialogue going rather than looking to bomb anything they think is the right thing to do.

How they get some one to talk on behalf of the many factions within the rebels, I have no idea but that is the only way to end the conflict with any sanity.......

 

[LittleGuy]

"USA attacks middle east for oil" is one of the greatest political lies and myths going around.

Less than half the US' oil imports (3 billion barrels PA) come from OPEC countries (1.4 billion barrels), and of that only 795 million barrels come from middle east countries. They get more oil from their biggest supplier, Canada (880 million barrels) who supply almost 1/3 of the USA's imported oil. Perhaps the USA should invade Canada for their oil

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_a.htm

Just to straighten out those who think that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, the supply of oil from Iraq to the USA has remained at its low level, virtually unchanged since the invasion (marked with a red dateline on the graph below) at less than 250 million barrels, or less than 9% of the US total imports.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMIZ1&f=A


Now if you take this even further, USA is the No. 3 producer of oil in the world, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. It supplies 48.6% of its own consumption.
So if we look at the figures above and express them as a fraction of the overall US oil consumption, it drops the figures to roughly half.

The US overall oil requirements come from..

OPEC Counties - less than 25%
Middle East - about 17%
Canada - about 18%
Iraq - less than 5%

Excellent post, there is also the additional factor of the cost of the invasion, even if Iraq were supplying oil to the United States "free of charge" it wouldn't possibly cover the cost of the war for decades.

The War is "good for an economy" fallacy is another one that grinds my gears, if you want a way to destroy your economy than engage in a war. Destruction does not create prosperity, I think this fallacy is largely based on what people perceived to happen with the United States after World War 2 and it's economic boom in that period. What they overlook is that the United States competitors were either in ruins or saddled with massive war costs, of course the US boomed when it had essentially no competition from the rest of the globe. Likewise while their were certain benefits in terms of technology e.g. rockets, aviation, this ignores the fact that many commerical technolgoies and products were put on hold eg. Television. in favour of war production.

The war stimulates an economy argument is a part of the "Broken window" fallacy that still gets used by politicians, the media and those with an axe to grind.

 

[smartcooky]

The War is "good for an economy" fallacy is another one that grinds my gears, if you want a way to destroy your economy than engage in a war. Destruction does not create prosperity, I think this fallacy is largely based on what people perceived to happen with the United States after World War 2 and it's economic boom in that period. What they overlook is that the United States competitors were either in ruins or saddled with massive war costs, of course the US boomed when it had essentially no competition from the rest of the globe. Likewise while their were certain benefits in terms of technology e.g. rockets, aviation, this ignores the fact that many commerical technolgoies and products were put on hold eg. Television. in favour of war production.

The war stimulates an economy argument is a part of the "Broken window" fallacy that still gets used by politicians, the media and those with an axe to grind.

Yep, and what the axe-grinders will never point out to you, is that Japan, the vanquished enemy, country in physical, psychological and economic ruin, grew their economy at a huge rate, with massive amounts of help from the US.

Effectively, after WW2, US resources were able to boom TWO economies at the same time!

Cities on the US mainland were never bombed, and the only casualties from any kind of bombing in the US were a half-dozen of people killed by a Japenese balloon bomb in rural Oregan! Meanwhile, the US competitiors in Europe lay in ruins.

 

[Toko_11]

Yea US can be a jerk nation but to those who have witnessed how much worse Russia China and Iran can do.... are probably gonna prefer USA, no question about it. I mean those are the countries who can mass murder their own people and not give a rats ass about it... Imagine what they would do to the rest of the world...

as for Syria Well I still haven't made up my mind about it.. from Georgian perspective i guess its not that good cause all the refugees from Syria are going to spread around the map and Georgia having horrible border checks and security can get thousands of unwanted visitors with questionable past.. which is not a good news for a country that has enough of its own problems atm. and southerners have never brought us anything nice before i doubt they will this time around :/.....

 

[Feicarsinn]

Yep, and what the axe-grinders will never point out to you, is that Japan, the vanquished enemy, country in physical, psychological and economic ruin, grew their economy at a huge rate, with massive amounts of help from the US.

Effectively, after WW2, US resources were able to boom TWO economies at the same time!

Cities on the US mainland were never bombed, and the only casualties from any kind of bombing in the US were a half-dozen of people killed by a Japenese balloon bomb in rural Oregan! Meanwhile, the US competitiors in Europe lay in ruins.

Don't forget the Marshall Plan and what that did for Western Europe. Saying it was only two economies that benefited from the US in the post war years is a definite understatement.

 

[smartcooky]

Yea US can be a jerk nation but to those who have witnessed how much worse Russia China and Iran can do.... are probably gonna prefer USA, no question about it. I mean those are the countries who can mass murder their own people and not give a rats ass about it... Imagine what they would do to the rest of the world...

Ask all the white, middle-class, US hating, anti-american greenies where they would rather live if their choices were limited to USA, Syria or Iran.

as for Syria Well I still haven't made up my mind about it.. from Georgian perspective i guess its not that good cause all the refugees from Syria are going to spread around the map and Georgia having horrible border checks and security can get thousands of unwanted visitors with questionable past.. which is not a good news for a country that has enough of its own problems atm. and southerners have never brought us anything nice before i doubt they will this time around :/.....

I just don't get how the residents of a country can take part in turning it into a pile of rubble, in an argument over who gets to be in charge. Its just pure insanity, and much as I feel for the plight of the refugees, I don't want them bringing that insanity here.

Don't forget the Marshall Plan and what that did for Western Europe. Saying it was only two economies that benefited from the US in the post war years is a definite understatement.

Yes, I overlooked that, thanks.

When you take that into account, it reinforces Little Guy's point about the economic benefits of war being a fallacy.

If the US really wanted to get maximum benefit from WW2, they could have simply said "your problem pal" and left the Japanese and Europe to sort themselves out.

 

[Peat]

If the US really wanted to get maximum benefit from WW2, they could have simply said "your problem pal" and left the Japanese and Europe to sort themselves out.

While selling them lots of guns. Other people's wars can be very profitable in fact. Its your own that should largely be avoided.

 

[smartcooky]

While selling them lots of guns. Other people's wars can be very profitable in fact. Its your own that should largely be avoided.

True, but only the last part of your statement is what Little Guy is saying.

The fallacy is that if you get involved in a war as a participant, then that it is good for your economy... it simply isn't.

The point being that the accusation often levelled at the US, that they invaded Iraq for the oil, is utter nonsense. Why would you invade a country to secure 5% of your total oil consumption, when the cost of the war far outweighs the benefit that might accrue from a couple of year's worth of free oil. It would have been cheaper to just buy it!!!

 

[Feicarsinn]

Back onto the Syrian issue, my feelings are pretty mixed at the moment.

On one hand, the use of chemical weapons is entirely reprehensible. Most importantly, it flies straight in the face of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons (not to be confused with the Geneva conventions of 1949) which sends a pretty bad message to similar regimes if their use in Syria goes unpunished. Also, if one international law can be broken without consequence then why not others?

Next there's the issue of evidence. The US claims to have proof that the Assad regime has used, however the have yet to present it to the UNSC. Given their track record, with particular regard to the whole WMD's debacle regards Iraq, one can entirelly understand Russia and China's skepticism, even if their motives may be somewhat more self serving than just seeking the definite truth. A genuine worry is the fact that the UK and French governments were so willing to accept the word of John Kerry with no actual evidence provided. I for one would love to have a look at the evidence gathered by the States. The fact of the matter is that Assad is currently winning the war and has no reason to use chemical weapons, particularly in the manner suggested. All it would accomplish would be to bring to focus of the outside world down on his and perhaps lead to outside intervention, something I'd imagine he wouldn't be too hot on. For me this evidence would have to be very compelling.

Then you've got to look at the actual feelings of the Syrian populace. Accounts I've read (this one is a little dated, but it was the first one to come to hand - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda) show that Assad still has a large amount of popular support. While the fact that mainstream US media is unwilling to report this as it doesn't fit with the Obama regime's goals isn't surprising it is very disappointing. The main issue it raises is what right has a foreign power(s) to depose a popularly back government?

There's also the question of America's track record in these situations. The interventions in Libya and Yugoslavia were well handled you could argue, but their forays into Afghanistan and Iraq have been disasters. I have the feeling that this would be one of the more messy affairs, resembling the latter conflicts. The US could easily get bogged down in another long and unproductive war with a local populace that doesn't want anything to do with them. The rebel forces are likely to remain friendly too long either to be honest. There are a lot of radical fundamentalist Islamic voices in their number and there have even been suggestions that Al-Qaeda has "hi-jacked" the revolution - http://communities.washingtontimes....rians-al-qaeda-hijacked-revolution-civil-war/

Most crucially in my mind is the fact that the American populace is firmly against involvement. As low as 9% of Americans are in favor of intervention - http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html In my mind a democratically elected government shouldn't act against the will of its people.


I suppose with all of that in mind I'm against intervention.

 

[smartcooky]

Then you've got to look at the actual feelings of the Syrian populace. Accounts I've read (this one is a little dated, but it was the first one to come to hand - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda) show that Assad still has a large amount of popular support. While the fact that mainstream US media is unwilling to report this as it doesn't fit with the Obama regime's goals isn't surprising it is very disappointing. The main issue it raises is what right has a foreign power(s) to depose a popularly back government?

^^^THIS!

It is very important for people to understand Syria is not like Iraq in this regard; that Assad is in no way like Saddam.