Syria

[Empire*Of*Media]

..not gonna touch that one...



While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

good proofs, actually i brought Qazzafi knew some secrets, i Quoted from an Arab jurnalist in Al Jazeera English, but while some of your proofs are right, but for many you just see the Apearances! of course im not Mossad to bring you the classified and top secrets of Nato EU UN & and imperialists like USA & Britain.
but it needs a little thinkink and researching about many things, they are all in a way of New World Order, you believe it or not, they are doing their work, but of course war in Syria has too much profits for USA & Nato & Israel!! how they sell their old fashioned guns!!(like the LORD movie!!) and of course to more weaken Islamic Republic of Iran, and then the raising of a SuperPower Israel!! so the New World Order will go much Further!! if they wanted to invade Syria they could! like Iraq & Afghanistan & etc they. they want to fix the problem slowly and undirectly. because they have taughted lesson from Iraqs War's Consequences. the fact is, when they comfortably think what has the most benefits for them to do, in that coursed land, the apart from men, children and women are suffering a beautiful hell that no one except Kurds suffered in history!!
in the end, they dont want freedom for people, they just see where & what has the most profits & Benefits!! yes!! its an Imperialistic Trait !!

[rvg]

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

[rvg]

I'm not entirely convinced that Empire, Truth, and Relism aren't all just the same troll, myself.

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

[Empire*Of*Media]

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

hey whats going on in here !?!?!? who's Total Relism ?!?!? please somebody explain for me !!

[rvg]

who's Total Relism ?!?!?

Some Turk.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Some Turk.

a Catholic Turk ?!!!!!
and whats that with my name ?!

[rvg]

Looks like Syrian forces in conjunction with Hezbollah have recaptured the city of Qusair. Geez, never in my life did I think I'd ever support a military operation conducted by Hezbollah, yet here I am. Go Bashar! Crush those rebels.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

[rvg]

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.

Assad's finished, long term...

People have been saying this for a year and a half now.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.


Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.


It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.


People have been saying this for a year and a half now.


I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.

You think Lbya doesn't have sectarian problems?

Are we forgetting the Christian the Jews?

Not to mention the African/Arabic issue?

Assad has been confirmed to being using Sarin - that's WMD territory we're in now.

You're taking a local, short-termist, perspective.

In the short term Assad may win, may hold on for another 5-10 years but in 20 years he will fall - what sort of country Syria will be when that happens is being decided now.

There's a good chance that in 10 years Libya will be similar to Turkey now, there's a good chance Syria will be like Somalia five years ago. You remember Solalia, the last Islamic country we tried to ignore.

[rvg]

You think Lbya doesn't have sectarian problems?

She does. Tribal sectarian problems. Everyone wants their piece of the oil revenue pie. Not that difficult to solve.

Are we forgetting the Christian the Jews?

Of course I am. The 1000 Jews who live on that dinky little island and a handful of Christians do not matter in the grand scheme of things for Libya. In Syria minorities are big enough to matter.

Not to mention the African/Arabic issue?

Most Africans have already been expelled or massacred, so it's no longer an issue.

Assad has been confirmed to being using Sarin - that's WMD territory we're in now.

Only if we want to be there. I do not. I doubt Obama does either.

You're taking a local, short-termist, perspective.

How so?

In the short term Assad may win, may hold on for another 5-10 years...

5-10 years is not a trivial amount of time. In that timeframe he may crush the rebellion completely.

There's a good chance that in 10 years Libya will be similar to Turkey now,

I'd love to see that happen. Really, I would. I don't think it will though.

there's a good chance Syria will be like Somalia five years ago. You remember Solalia, the last Islamic country we tried to ignore.

Negative. Syria has oil.

[rvg]

To build a rapport between westerns and middle-easterners, we have to find a common cause...

Why do we need to build rapport?

[Pannonian]

To build a rapport between westerns and middle-easterners, we have to find a common cause. If resisting dictatorship and demanding more democracy isn't a common cause... I don't know what is. But, because we can't look past realpolitik for ten minutes, the Syrian people are going to suffer and the rift between the middle-east and the west will only get worse. Way too late to change that now.

We've already given them plenty of opportunity for that in Iraq. How's the rapport between the west and the middle east over that issue? Everywhere we've intervened in the name of democracy, the subsequent turn has been towards fundieism. Why not try the Chinese approach of being open and frank about establishing relations for the purpose of trade rather than ideology?

[Pannonian]

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

Why does it go religious fundie?

Usually because the alternative presented is the "Great Satan".

If we made a point of smacking Dictators around when they get like this we would be more popular.

Both the Syrians and the Iranians before them voiced feelings of being "abandoned" when they protested in favour of Western-ish ideals of at least a less-oppressive government and more freedom of expression. We ignore them, we won't give them arms or funds, and as a result they turn to the Islamic militias.

We should have blockaded Assad, prevented new munitions getting to him from Russia or elsewhere and out politicians should, at the least, be constantly screaming in the UN about his Air Force, which could at least be interdicted. You wouldn't even need to send aircraft - a couple of Dauntless class destroyers sat off the coast could destroy aircraft as they launched.

The Last 50-75 years policy of supporting "strongmen" so long as they enforced a veneer of Western society and wore suits has been an abject failure. It gave us the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussain, two Assads...

It's time for a new strategy - one that involves the use of surgical force against a regime that turns guns on the populace.

[Pannonian]

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

Why does it go religious fundie?

Usually because the alternative presented is the "Great Satan".

If we made a point of smacking Dictators around when they get like this we would be more popular.

Both the Syrians and the Iranians before them voiced feelings of being "abandoned" when they protested in favour of Western-ish ideals of at least a less-oppressive government and more freedom of expression. We ignore them, we won't give them arms or funds, and as a result they turn to the Islamic militias.

We should have blockaded Assad, prevented new munitions getting to him from Russia or elsewhere and out politicians should, at the least, be constantly screaming in the UN about his Air Force, which could at least be interdicted. You wouldn't even need to send aircraft - a couple of Dauntless class destroyers sat off the coast could destroy aircraft as they launched.

The Last 50-75 years policy of supporting "strongmen" so long as they enforced a veneer of Western society and wore suits has been an abject failure. It gave us the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussain, two Assads...

It's time for a new strategy - one that involves the use of surgical force against a regime that turns guns on the populace.

Yeah, right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

If the West made it a principle to intervene, even with just punitive strikes, then the Arabs would not be asking "why Libya and not Syria".

After Lybia the Syrians certainly expected help.

Why would they want to emulate us when we're such arbitrary arseholes.

[Montmorency]

Surely the more arbitrary path is to go to war simply because war is a thing that we've done in the past.