Turkey strikes back at Syria after mortar kills five

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Turkish artillery has fired into Syria for a fifth day in a row after three Syrian mortar shells landed inside Turkey. Turkey announced that such retaliatory strikes will now be routine.
In another development, neighbouring Turkey set new rules of engagement after three Syrian shells hit Turkish territory Saturday. Turkey retaliated with artillery, as it has for the past four days, and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said this would now be Turkey’s standard response.
Davutoglu insisted that “we haven’t taken a step toward war,” but Turkey’s threat to fire back for each errant Syrian shell was bound to keep border tensions high. Turkey is one of Assad’s harshest critics and a key supporter of Syria’s opposition.
cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/06/syria-turkey.html

Assuming the mortars are simply errant rounds, such occurrences are likely to continue as long as Syrian troops battle rebels near the border.
 
Turkish artillery has fired into Syria for a fifth day in a row after three Syrian mortar shells landed inside Turkey. Turkey announced that such retaliatory strikes will now be routine.

cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/06/syria-turkey.html

Assuming the mortars are simply errant rounds, such occurrences are likely to continue as long as Syrian troops battle rebels near the border.
Exactly, or the rebels are firing the mortars to cause trouble. In either scenario, lets hope common sense prevails and that ‘war’ will not be declared over this.
 
Its current military response (to whomever launched these attacks) is a legitimate defence of its border and civilians in the neighbouring villages, rather than a declaration of war on Assad.
I would tend to agree. BUT, if one single chemical munition were stolen or smuggled out of his territory and fired onto Turkish soil (by whomever), that could change the entire game overnight. I don’t think the Turks would put up with that for one minute. They’d start playing hardball then.
 
And if this conflict between Christian friendly Syria and anti-Christian Turkey escalates seriously, we can expect NATO to come in on the side of the anti-Christians, just as they did in Bosnia (yes I know there were a few Christians on there side), Kosovo, Macedonia, and Libya.
The West and Japan need to be careful when dealing with Turkey . I find their role as a NATO in most anything with skepticism.

I like NATO, but we need a new look at Turkey.
 
This is from the largest English daily in Turkey hurriyetdailynews.com/main-base-in-turkey-says-rebel-free-syrian-army.aspx?pageID=238&nid=28967
Code:
                        I'd say this thoroughly justifies Syria launching attacks on Turkey to destroy rebel bases.
This puts another twist to the reasons why it’s happening. There is so much skullduggery that occurs during any conflict/war/civil unrest around the world, I doubt if anyone is ever told the ‘real’ story. Even in Northern Ireland (small and insignificant, as it is), there have been ‘strong’ allegations from crime scene evidence that the police force in NI, i.e the. RUC, either assisted or covered-up evidence in the bombing of civilians with one of the terrorist organisations, the UVF.

In other words, no-one really knows who’s fighting on which side, how many other parties/countries are involved in the fighting and the reasons why they are doing so - it is all covered up.
 
Turkey Bolsters Border Units Amid Artillery Exchanges With Syria
Turkey deployed additional tanks and missile defense systems to the Syrian border following five days of artillery exchanges with President Bashar al-Assad’s armed forces.
The Turkish army sent reinforcements to an area near the border town of Suruc in Sanliurfa province on Oct. 6, while a convoy of military vehicles towing howitzers headed toward the border town of Reyhanli in Hatay province today, the state-run Anatolia news agency said in two separate reports. Last week, parliament gave the government a one-year mandate to send forces into Syria if necessary.
“You have to be ready as if you were going to war anytime,” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said yesterday, according to Anatolia. “If needed, if such a thing happens, if you are persecuted, then you will do whatever is necessary.”
businessweek.com/news/2012-10-08/turkey-bolsters-border-units-amid-artillery-exchanges-with-syria
 
guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels

Latest British media report.

*Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.

Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.

In extracts published in advance, he opened up the prospect, if he becomes president, of a US-Iranian proxy war being fought in Syria.

“Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines,” he said.

The proposal would mark a significant shift from Barack Obama’s administration’s policy of trying to keep the conflict a low-intensity one amid fears it might turn into a regional war. Obama is putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of the rebels, to restrict the supply of weapons to small arms.

The Republican presidential candidate has made several attempts at establishing his credentials to be commander-in-chief but those speeches made little impact. Against the background of his win over Obama in last week’s debate, the Romney campaign team is hoping this speech will be better received.*
 
guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels

Latest British media report.

*Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.

Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.

In extracts published in advance, he opened up the prospect, if he becomes president, of a US-Iranian proxy war being fought in Syria.

“Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines,” he said.

The proposal would mark a significant shift from Barack Obama’s administration’s policy of trying to keep the conflict a low-intensity one amid fears it might turn into a regional war. Obama is putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of the rebels, to restrict the supply of weapons to small arms.

The Republican presidential candidate has made several attempts at establishing his credentials to be commander-in-chief but those speeches made little impact. Against the background of his win over Obama in last week’s debate, the Romney campaign team is hoping this speech will be better received.*
If Americans vote for Romney after reading this, then I am seriously going to cry 😦 Not that I blame you all. I know Obama supports abortion, so its between the devil and the deep blue sea.

THE US AND NATO MUST KEEP WELL AWAY FROM SYRIA!

We really have to stop intervening in foreign countries when both sides are just as bad. If Assad wins, he is anti-Western and dangerous. If Assad falls, he will be succeeded by Sunni Islamists who are anti-Western and will rally together with the new Muslim Brotherhood states formed after the Arab Spring.

I believe in tough sanctions on Iran and all efforts to stop their nuclear programme, however Syria is completely different.

There is no way that I will support a useless slaughter of our young men in the army, because a couple of mortar shells were fired into Turkey from - who knows? Assad? Rebels?

The UN was created to halt these ridiculous situations. Just look how sucessful the Secretary General’s peace intiative was. It failed! The UN is now impotent to reign in this conflict.

I believe in Just War (grudgingly since I detest war and would rather it were banned under international law but we don’t live in an ideal world) ie if the world is faced with a militant, arming, nefarious regime such as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan which threatens global security, however I am completely disgusted when wars erupt from small local situations and the world leaders are unable to prevent useless mass murder between countries over NOTHING really.

If the US gets involved in Syria we will have to face a massive middle-east war over NOTHING - fighting on behalf of rebels in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

Assad’s fall might be a defeat to Iran but it would be win-win for the new Muslim Brotherhood states created in the MIddle East who desire a world-wide Sunni Caliphate, since an Islamist government is sure to replace Assad. And it is these same Muslim brotherhood states which have made it clear that if war comes between Iran and Israel, then they will be supporting Iran, regardless of its Shi’ite majority.

The Iranians would thus recover from Assad’s fall. Whoever replaces Assad is sure to be anti-Israeli anyway, and the ememy of my enemy is my friend - and we all know that the common enemy of Islamists whether Shi’a and Sunni is Israel and the West.

I am sorry Mr Romney, but I am completely against your crazy foreign policy.

The blood-shed in Syria must be lessened, contained - not escalated!!!

This madness must end. :mad:

Obama definetly has a more sane and peace-centred foreign policy.

The ordinary people of Syria are suffering. They are dying. They need our prayers and they need an end to this bloodletting, rather than an escalation.
 
If Americans vote for Romney after reading this, then I am seriously going to cry 😦 Not that I blame you all. I know Obama supports abortion, so its between the devil and the deep blue sea.

THE US AND NATO MUST KEEP WELL AWAY FROM SYRIA!

We really have to stop intervening in foreign countries.

I believe in tough sanctions on Iran and all efforts to stop their nuclear programme, however Syria is completely different.

There is no way that I will support a useless slaughter of our young men in the army, because a couple of mortar shells were fired into Turkey from - who knows? Assad? Rebels?

The UN was created to halt these ridiculous situations. I believe in Just War ie if the world is faced with a militant, arming, nefarious regime such as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan which threatens global security, however I am completely disgusted when wars erupt from small local situations and the world leaders are unable to prevent useless mass murder between countries over NOTHING really.

If the US gets involved in Syria we will have to face a massive middle-east war over NOTHING - fighting on behalf of rebels in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

Assad’s fall might be a defeat to Iran but it would be win-win for the new Muslim Brotherhood states created in the MIddle East who desire a world-wide Sunni Caliphate, since an Islamist government is sure to replace Assad. And it is these same Muslim brotherhood states which have made it clear that if war comes between Iran and Israel, then they will be supporting Iran, regardless of its Shi’ite majority.

The Iranians would thus recover from Assad’s fall. Whoever replaces Assad is sure to be anti-Israeli anyway, and the ememy of my enemy is my friend - and we all know that the common enemy of Islamists whether Shi’a and Sunni is Israel and the West.

I am sorry Mr Romney, but I am completely against your crazy foreign policy.

The blood-shed in Syria must be lessened, contained - not escalated!!!

This madness must end. :mad:

Obama definetly has a more sane and peace-centred foreign policy.
You do know it was Obama’s foreign policy failures in the ME that put terrorists in power?

Couple that with his pro-death stance and you can understand why Catholics want a change.
 
I
If Americans vote for Romney after reading this, then I am seriously going to cry 😦 Not that I blame you all. I know Obama supports abortion, so its between the devil and the deep blue sea.

THE US AND NATO MUST KEEP WELL AWAY FROM SYRIA!

We really have to stop intervening in foreign countries when both sides are just as bad. If Assad wins, he is anti-Western and dangerous. If Assad falls, he will be succeeded by Sunni Islamists who are anti-Western and will rally together with the new Muslim Brotherhood states formed after the Arab Spring.

I believe in tough sanctions on Iran and all efforts to stop their nuclear programme, however Syria is completely different.

There is no way that I will support a useless slaughter of our young men in the army, because a couple of mortar shells were fired into Turkey from - who knows? Assad? Rebels?

The UN was created to halt these ridiculous situations. Just look how sucessful the Secretary General’s peace intiative was. It failed! The UN is now impotent to reign in this conflict.

I believe in Just War ie if the world is faced with a militant, arming, nefarious regime such as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan which threatens global security, however I am completely disgusted when wars erupt from small local situations and the world leaders are unable to prevent useless mass murder between countries over NOTHING really.

If the US gets involved in Syria we will have to face a massive middle-east war over NOTHING - fighting on behalf of rebels in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

Assad’s fall might be a defeat to Iran but it would be win-win for the new Muslim Brotherhood states created in the MIddle East who desire a world-wide Sunni Caliphate, since an Islamist government is sure to replace Assad. And it is these same Muslim brotherhood states which have made it clear that if war comes between Iran and Israel, then they will be supporting Iran, regardless of its Shi’ite majority.

The Iranians would thus recover from Assad’s fall. Whoever replaces Assad is sure to be anti-Israeli anyway, and the ememy of my enemy is my friend - and we all know that the common enemy of Islamists whether Shi’a and Sunni is Israel and the West.

I am sorry Mr Romney, but I am completely against your crazy foreign policy.

The blood-shed in Syria must be lessened, contained - not escalated!!!

This madness must end. :mad:

Obama definetly has a more sane and peace-centred foreign policy.

The ordinary people of Syria are suffering. They are dying. They need our prayers and they need an end to this bloodletting, rather than an escalation.
I would agree, based on the media reports we receive over here. Lybia weren’t too friendly with the US nor numerous other ME countries several weeks ago, some of which the US had ‘helped’ to overturn their previous regimes.
 
You do know it was Obama’s foreign policy failures in the ME that put terrorists in power?

Couple that with his pro-death stance and you can understand why Catholics want a change.
I well remember his disastrous “Cairo speech” when he essentially gave a thumbs-up to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, then replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. He did the same in Libya. Obama’s acquiescene, support for and appeasement of rebellious Islamist groups has helped cause the current crisis. Because of his actions secular dictatorships from Arabia to North Africa are being toppled and replaced by Islamist regimes. Its a recipe for utter destruction and I recognise his folly in many respects (especially in Egypt and Libya).

I know. Both Presidential candidates strike me as useless to the world, however have you seen Obama calling for an escalation of the Syrian conflict and direct military aid to rebels in cahoots with Al-Qaeda who are sure to set up an Islamist dictatorship if they come to power?

That scares me more than anything Obama has done. If that is Romney’s aim, then he will simply pute the icing on the cake of Obama’s already diastrous foreign policy and surpass him by about ten million!
 
The Obama administration also gave a thumbs up to the toppling of the Tunisian government, which was the closest thing in the Arab world to a modern progressive state. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali may have been corrupt in the end, but he didn’t tolerate Islamic radicals in Tunisia. Now they’ve gained a big foothold.
How many examples do the American people have to see before they acknowledge that there own government is involved in a weird sinister relationship with radical Wahhabist Islam ?
 
The Obama administration also gave a thumbs up to the toppling of the Tunisian government, which was the closest thing in the Arab world to a modern progressive state. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali may have been corrupt in the end, but he didn’t tolerate Islamic radicals in Tunisia. Now they’ve gained a big foothold.
Code:
                     How many examples do the American people have to see before they acknowledge that there own government is involved in a weird sinister relationship with radical Wahhabist Islam ?
I agree 100% on Tunisia 👍

However on Saudi-US relations, I have huge reservations about what you say. Allow me to explain briefly.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both equally two of the world’s worst regimes in terms of human rights and personal freedoms. However there is a key difference: Some Saudi nationals remain an important source of funding for terrorist networks despite Riyadh’s efforts to crack down on illicit financing, whereas the Iranian government openly sponsers international terrorism. With the Hajj attracting millions of Muslims every year to Mecca, Saudi Arabia becomes the centre of the globe’s terrorist fundraising networks almost by reason of its central position in the Islamic World - however the Saudi government has consistently passed laws to crack down on this. And trust me its incredibely difficult given the amount of people from all over the world who will come to Saudi Arabia on Hajj and try and conduct an illegal sale of arms or funding to overseas terrorists (usually under the pretence of “charitable aid” so as to escape government notce). Iran doesn’t. Instead, the Iranian goverment sponsors terrorism all over the world aimed at the destruction of Israel and the West.

Russia seems to have sided with Iran and the US has always had a working, long-standing security relationship with the Saudis, given its need to maintain stability in the region. Its possession of the world’s largest reserves of oil, and its strategic location as a buffer to Iran, make it indispensible to US interests, as unidealistic as that is. You see as bad as the Saudis are, the ones beneath them - the popular Wahhabist preachers who cannot be coerced like the royals in power with money and Western commodities - would not just lend money to militant Islamic schools and institutions, they would actively try and attack the United States, Europe and more immediately its other allies in the region (Dubai, Qatar - the Arab Emirates), where thousands of Westerners live. America is thus caught truly by the jugular in Saudi Arabia, which is worsened now because Iran and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies jockying to become the regional superpower, and the US cannot allow Iran to have the upper-foot hold in the region. Lebannon was a beautiful country with an almost 50-50% Catholic Maronite and Islamic population which lived in peace prior to Iran’s attempt through Hezbollah to set up another Islamic Revolution in the country. Beirut was known as the “Paris of the Middle East”. A family friend back in the 50s who knows my grandfather and was a collector of world famous antiques, had a holiday home in Lebannon and used to travel there often. Its nightclubs and cafes were known all across the globe. Now Lebannon is one of the most decimated countries on earth. That is the reality of what the middle-east would become if Iran’s revolutionary was given a free hand to play out its designs in the region and spread its Revolution to other nations, which was the whole goal initially of the regime that Ayatollah Khomeini set up after the fall of the Shah in 1979.

Trust me, we need to maintain the status quo as we should have done in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya etc. What would come after is far worse, as has been proved too many times now.

Its a kind of cold war-esque power-struggle between Russia and the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The problem is that Iran is the by far the immediate danger, given its nuclear programme, proxy Hezbollah in Syria, its connections with and revolutionary guard bases in Latin America etc.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are themselves engaged in a cold-war esque struggle for hegemony in the Middle East which is being cruelly fought out between these two horrid governments in poor, war-stricken Syria. I am no fan of either but I recognize, while you don’t seem too, the efforts of the Saudi government wgich relies upon and needs the West to crack down on terror, whereas Iran openly sponsers it. Jewish orphanages have been blown up in Buenos Aires by Iranian-funded terrorists, and all across the globe. It is thought they had a hand in funding 9/11 even.

However any succesors to the Saudis would be far worse. If the House of Saud falls, expect what happened in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya only significantly more dangerous (and that’s saying something) since this is the capital of the Umma, the epicentre of the Islamic religion.

The popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya etc. against secular dictatorships have proved diastrous. The US cannot make the same mistake in Saudi Arabia, if it ever came to it (which it could one day).
 
I agree 100% on Tunisia 👍

However on Saudi-US relations, I have huge reservations about what you say. Allow me to explain briefly.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both equally two of the world’s worst regimes in terms of human rights and personal freedoms. However there is a key difference: Some Saudi nationals remain an important source of funding for terrorist networks despite Riyadh’s efforts to crack down on illicit financing, whereas the Iranian government openly sponsers international terrorism. With the Hajj attracting millions of Muslims every year to Mecca, Saudi Arabia becomes the centre of the globe’s terrorist fundraising networks almost by reason of its central position in the Islamic World - however the Saudi government has consistently passed laws to crack down on this. And trust me its incredibely difficult given the amount of people from all over the world who will come to Saudi Arabia on Hajj and try and conduct an illegal sale of arms or funding to overseas terrorists (usually under the pretence of “charitable aid” so as to escape government notce). Iran doesn’t. Instead, the Iranian goverment sponsors terrorism all over the world aimed at the destruction of Israel and the West.

Russia seems to have sided with Iran and the US has always had a working, long-standing security relationship with the Saudis, given its need to maintain stability in the region. Its possession of the world’s largest reserves of oil, and its strategic location as a buffer to Iran, make it indispensible to US interests, as unidealistic as that is. You see as bad as the Saudis are, the ones beneath them - the popular Wahhabist preachers who cannot be coerced like the royals in power with money and Western commodities - would not just lend money to militant Islamic schools and institutions, they would actively try and attack the United States, Europe and more immediately its other allies in the region (Dubai, Qatar - the Arab Emirates), where thousands of Westerners live. America is thus caught truly by the jugular in Saudi Arabia, which is worsened now because Iran and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies jockying to become the regional superpower, and the US cannot allow Iran to have the upper-foot hold in the region. Lebannon was a beautiful country with an almost 50-50% Catholic Maronite and Islamic population which lived in peace prior to Iran’s attempt through Hezbollah to set up another Islamic Revolution in the country. Beirut was known as the “Paris of the Middle East”. A family friend back in the 50s who knows my grandfather and was a collector of world famous antiques, had a holiday home in Lebannon and used to travel there often. Its nightclubs and cafes were known all across the globe. Now Lebannon is one of the most decimated countries on earth. That is the reality of what the middle-east would become if Iran’s revolutionary was given a free hand to play out its designs in the region and spread its Revolution to other nations, which was the whole goal initially of the regime that Ayatollah Khomeini set up after the fall of the Shah in 1979.

Trust me, we need to maintain the status quo as we should have done in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya etc. What would come after is far worse, as has been proved too many times now.

Its a kind of cold war-esque power-struggle between Russia and the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The problem is that Iran is the by far the immediate danger, given its nuclear programme, proxy Hezbollah in Syria, its connections with and revolutionary guard bases in Latin America etc.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are themselves engaged in a cold-war esque struggle for hegemony in the Middle East which is being cruelly fought out between these two horrid governments in poor, war-stricken Syria. I am no fan of either but I recognize, while you don’t seem too, the efforts of the Saudi government wgich relies upon and needs the West to crack down on terror, whereas Iran openly sponsers it. Jewish orphanages have been blown up in Buenos Aires by Iranian-funded terrorists, and all across the globe. It is thought they had a hand in funding 9/11 even.

However any succesors to the Saudis would be far worse. If the House of Saud falls, expect what happened in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya only significantly more dangerous (and that’s saying something) since this is the capital of the Umma, the epicentre of the Islamic religion.

The popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya etc. against secular dictatorships have proved diastrous. The US cannot make the same mistake in Saudi Arabia, if it ever came to it (which it could one day).
Interesting, and I would agree with much of it.

However, your assumption that Romney is going to start a (newer) war in Syria or join in the existing one, is without any foundation. What he did say is that we ought to be supporting those rebel segments that are not Islamist radicals. Kind of hard to argue against that in principle, and there are numerous ways of doing it.
 
Interesting, and I would agree with much of it.

However, your assumption that Romney is going to start a (newer) war in Syria or join in the existing one, is without any foundation. What he did say is that we ought to be supporting those rebel segments that are not Islamist radicals. Kind of hard to argue against that in principle, and there are numerous ways of doing it.
I understand completely brother/sister 👍

I know nothing about this apart from what I read above in which Romney is reported to have stated that he plans on “escalating” the conflict and militarily supporting the rebels. As we know, the rebels are an incredibly confused melange of radical independent Islamists, democracy activists and Al-Qaeda, to name a few. I fear that on coming to power, what happened in Egypt would happen again: an Islamist Sunni goverment will come in. I do not think that any democratic elements are strong enough to contest the Islamists, whom I expect will take over. I believe that we should learn from our recent mistakes in other countries.

That is why I do not desire any involvement in the Syrian conflict from the West. In fact, I think we should keep out of it as much as possible for the forseeable future, except perhaps humintarian aid and continued international condemnation.

I am extremely worried by the prospect of NATO involvement in Syria, given that the rebels have also committed atrocities. This is no simple “good v evil” but rather a complex war waged by various factions against Assad’s dictatorship with very different ideas about what a free Syria will look like.

How can we militarily support a disunified opposition movement that may be comprised of many people with Islamist or Islamist-sympathetic views? It just looks like the diaster in Libya repeating itself all over again, except worse and this time Iran is backing Assad, so a war in Syria is a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the event of any NATO involvement against Assad they are bound to flare up Hezbollah in Lebannon, so as to spread the conflict.

In an ideal world, I am all for supporting democracy-loving people against a brutal regime. However we cannot intervene in every conflict or dispute. We did basically nothing to help the Iranian protestors back in 2009-2010 and they were peace-loving democracy protestors wanting their stolen vote back because the world leaders didn’t want to flare Iran up into a military response. This isn’t an ideal world and the rebels are not simply democracy-loving protestors.
 
I understand completely brother/sister 👍

I know nothing about this apart from what I read above in which Romney is reported to have stated that he plans on “escalating” the conflict and militarily supporting the rebels. As we know, the rebels are an incredibly confused melange of radical independent Islamists, democracy activists and Al-Qaeda, to name a few. I fear that on coming to power, what happened in Egypt would happen again: an Islamist Sunni goverment will come in. I do not think that any democratic elements are strong enough to contest the Islamists, whom I expect will take over. I believe that we should learn from our recent mistakes in other countries.

That is why I do not desire any involvement in the Syrian conflict from the West. In fact, I think we should keep out of it as much as possible for the forseeable future, except perhaps humintarian aid and continued international condemnation.

I am extremely worried by the prospect of NATO involvement in Syria, given that the rebels have also committed atrocities. This is no simple “good v evil” but rather a complex war waged by various factions against Assad’s dictatorship with very different ideas about what a free Syria will look like.

How can we militarily support a disunified opposition movement that may be comprised of many people with Islamist or Islamist-sympathetic views? It just looks like the diaster in Libya repeating itself all over again, except worse and this time Iran is backing Assad, so a war in Syria is a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the event of any NATO involvement against Assad they are bound to flare up Hezbollah in Lebannon, so as to spread the conflict.

In an ideal world, I am all for supporting democracy-loving people against a brutal regime. However we cannot intervene in every conflict or dispute. We did basically nothing to help the Iranian protestors back in 2009-2010 and they were peace-loving democracy protestors wanting their stolen vote back because the world leaders didn’t want to flare Iran up into a military response. This isn’t an ideal world and the rebels are not simply democracy-loving protestors.
I do not say it would be easy, perhaps even possible, to “back the right horse” in Syria successfully. But as between Romney, who at least wants to try to find one, and Obama, whose tendency (intended or not) is to favor Islamists seemingly without exception, I would trust Romney’s judgment before Obama’s.
 
I do not say it would be easy, perhaps even possible, to “back the right horse” in Syria successfully. But as between Romney, who at least wants to try to find one, and Obama, whose tendency (intended or not) is to favor Islamists seemingly without exception, I would trust Romney’s judgment before Obama’s.
Fair point 👍

I trust that the American voter will elect the right man for the job. I just pray that it is the right one for the times, which are not good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top