Observers predict Syria is headed for civil war

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
Hey, why doesn’t obama start yet ANOTHER war there? I mean, if its good enough for Libya?
Click to expand...
It seems to me Obama doesn’t start these civil wars. When he engages American troops, it is for the purpose of supporting the insurgents and ultimately ending the civil conflict. And at least we have a time table for withdrawal. GWB, on the other hand, was trigger happy and surrounded by the most incompetent foreign policy advisors since the days of LBJ. I don’t like the War in Afghanistan, and only G-d knows what the aftermath of the conflict will be; but on the whole, Obama’s foreign policy, consisting of diplomacy and combat, is, surprisingly, superior to his domestic policy. You may not agree with most of his economic and social policies, but that doesn’t mean he’s inept across the board.
 
meltzerboy said:
It seems to me Obama doesn’t start these civil wars. When he engages American troops, it is for the purpose of supporting the insurgents and ultimately ending the civil conflict. And at least we have a time table for withdrawal. GWB, on the other hand, was trigger happy and surrounded by the most incompetent foreign policy advisors since the days of LBJ. I don’t like the War in Afghanistan, and only G-d knows what the aftermath of the conflict will be; but on the whole, Obama’s foreign policy, consisting of diplomacy and combat, is, surprisingly, superior to his domestic policy. You may not agree with most of his economic and social policies, but that doesn’t mean he’s inept across the board.
Click to expand...
Well said, but I am not persuaded of your first point. All civil wars represent the eruption of preexisting hostilities and discontents, which explode into noticeable action when the rebel side feels it has sufficient strength to make good on its ambitions. I don’t think one can really make a distinction between Obama and Bush in this way, because there most definitely was internecine violence in Iraq prior to our second intervention; at least as serious as that in Libya.

In the long run, there is no particular reason to expect a more favorable outcome to American foreign policy from our intervention in Libya than that in Iraq, and some reason to doubt it.

It does strike me as improbable that anything good will come of the Af/Pak war.
 
meltzerboy said:
It seems to me Obama doesn’t start these civil wars. When he engages American troops, it is for the purpose of supporting the insurgents and ultimately ending the civil conflict. And at least we have a time table for withdrawal. GWB, on the other hand, was trigger happy and surrounded by the most incompetent foreign policy advisors since the days of LBJ. I don’t like the War in Afghanistan, and only G-d knows what the aftermath of the conflict will be; but on the whole, Obama’s foreign policy, consisting of diplomacy and combat, is, surprisingly, superior to his domestic policy. You may not agree with most of his economic and social policies, but that doesn’t mean he’s inept across the board.
Click to expand...
I don’t blame Obama for the civil wars of the ME.
Nor do I see Bush as having been trigger happy. Going to Afghanistan after 9/11 would have been a minimal response, and Iraq was a festering sore for ten years prior to 9/11 anyway.
If anything, with increased drone attacks, even against American citizens, Obama has proven to be the trigger happy one.
And apparently just saying that he was going to shut down Guatanamo was as good as actually shutting down Guatanamo. Liberals everywhere are fully appeased and satisfied with that kind of response.

I don’t complain too much though about Obama in essence carrying on the Bush doctrine in the war against terror, even as it is muddled and inconsistent and more reactionary and lacking foresight in many cases. The same could be sometimes said about the latter years of the Bush policy too.

Why not, for example, maintain a presence in Iraq given the Iranian nuclear situation? A little diplomacy is all it would have taken to extend the deadline that was worked out under the Bush administration btw.

It is splitting hairs though to find much of a difference between Bush’s ME policy, and the policy of Obama, which is in essence a continuation of what Bush was doing, and even an escalation of that policy in certain instances.

For sure though, Obama is not responsible for this potential Syrian civil war. It will be real progress when we, and the people of the region especially, understand that they are responsible for their own societies to an extent that nobody else can be.
 
meltzerboy said:
It seems to me Obama doesn’t start these civil wars. When he engages American troops, it is for the purpose of supporting the insurgents and ultimately ending the civil conflict. And at least we have a time table for withdrawal. GWB, on the other hand, was trigger happy and surrounded by the most incompetent foreign policy advisors since the days of LBJ. I don’t like the War in Afghanistan, and only G-d knows what the aftermath of the conflict will be; but on the whole, Obama’s foreign policy, consisting of diplomacy and combat, is, surprisingly, superior to his domestic policy. You may not agree with most of his economic and social policies, but that doesn’t mean he’s inept across the board.
Click to expand...
You mean like Clinton in Bosnia? How’s that time table working out?

Obama said our involvement in Libya would be measured in days - not weeks - starting to look more like years. In March Obama said no troops in Libya - I guess he forgot to tell the Pentagon to not tell anyone.
 
All good points, however while the initial intention always seems to be just, and with Freedom and Human/Civil Rights in mind. The end result of all these conflicts have been anything but.

In the end we see Muslims who do not read violence in the Koran, and do not believe in the radical approach, whom by large being silenced just as Christians, Jews or whomever.

While the actual Radical aspect of Islam may not be all that great, it seems to have a snowball effect for many different resaons. Such as we see now in Egypt or Iraq. Some of the radical thinking is simply to persue a personal agenda which arrives out of poverty. To own a piece of land which a Christian or Jew owned. 🤷

To add to the complexity is what Pope Benedict XVI spoke on. There is no idea of religious freedom within the Radical aspect. Democracy with Religious Freedom is the initial call, which them turns to a more radical Islamic rule with less religious freedom.

While in the West we allow Islamic house’s of worship and religious equality. This simply isn’t happening in the middle-east. Its a continued manipulation of the “Blasphemy” laws of Islam and Sharia Law. Which in truth Mohammad could only have been relating to Medina 1400-years ago. Not the entire world. Or we would have never seen Mohammads personal letter left to the Christians in Egypt.

This has been taken way out of context with a total disregard to humanity. Even where no-one but Islam exists, the radical thinking still prevails now. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Iraq have all become examples.

So what is the solution if Islam is not willing to co-exist with other religions including none? To continue to allow a pretentious thinking to slowly seep into the West with the end result being a Egyption situation of total civil war in the West?

Its not Islams way of no Bibles, no Churchs, no-converstion but too Islam. Its a total understanding of the sanctity of life and human respect, based on love and the true meaning of justice.

While the true understanding of God may take a very long time yet to fully comprehend for man. Till then we must preserve all life. Unfortunately Islam must understand this, and soon as we travel a constant path of death and destruction of humanity.

If we consider a 360-million year old Moon Rock, obviously we are just a flash in time passing by. Not much on the large scale of things. The only purpose is to see the true God, then to accept it. However we cannot kill those who don’t agree with us. If man concluded this message out of whatever knowledge they came to know, then they are simply wrong. This is a solution that leaves Earth in most probable total destruction, or if man manages to survive then we will be reduced to a mere few left on earth. Then back to the drawing board of technology with sticks and stones. Primitive to say the least. No-one is walking out of world war a winner at this point.

The fact Islam is preoccupied with its own Civil-War and agenda, there is a much larger picture here with many world super-powers. And we can rightfully assume they are not going along with Islamic rule. So Islam would need to do a whole lot of seeping and creeping IMHO.

I fail to see this Rule The World theory living to see the light of day. Not with the amount of Nuclear Warheads readily available.
 
Seamus_L said:
Israeli news source Haaretz is saying that Russian warships are due to arrive off Syria in a bid to stem foreign intervention haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-russia-warships-to-enter-syria-waters-in-bid-to-stem-foreign-intervention-1.396359
Code: 
          Don't know how accurate this is info is, but personally I hope it's true and that the Russians are prepared to warn NATO that this won't be a repeat of Libya.
Click to expand...
Interesting, we shall see as the days unfold. Syria is a mess.
 
Seamus_L said:
Israeli news source Haaretz is saying that Russian warships are due to arrive off Syria in a bid to stem foreign intervention haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-russia-warships-to-enter-syria-waters-in-bid-to-stem-foreign-intervention-1.396359
Code: 
          Don't know how accurate this is info is, but personally I hope it's true and that the Russians are prepared to warn NATO that this won't be a repeat of Libya.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. I don’t think there was the least possibility of NATO intervention in Syria, but from the Russian standpoint, it’s a good move. Here is the U.S. making toothless demands on Assad, and the Russians supporting him with the appearance of semi-belligerence. Assad is very likely to win in a full-blown civil war unless Turkey intervenes, which is unlikely. One suspects Turkey’s pushy attitude toward him is more aimed at weaning him away from too close cooperation with Iran. If Turkey is trying to be the big dog in the “Northern Sunni-sphere”, that’s what it will want. I’m guessing that’s already an accomplished fact.

Personally, I think we’ll end up looking pretty ineffectual in that whole thing. The Russians will look like a serious power, and power impresses in the Middle East.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top