We should have intervened in Syria a long time ago to help the secular moderates who initially came together to oust Assad. Too late for that (and them) now.

Quote: Every time we get involved in other countries we end up with more refugees.

And, seemingly, when we don't (eg. Syria).

(September 23, 2015 at 12:40 am)ignoramus Wrote: You go over to help and they all turn on you. A bad Muslim is better than an infidel trying to help. It's in their psyche. The west is not the better of two evils for we are the cause of everything bad that happens to them!

This constant 'it's the west's fault!' discourse has to stop. The west has done some seriously dumb shit in the ME, yes, but it is not the sole root cause of instability in the ME.

Are we forgetting some of the harshest theocratic and totalitarian regimes in the world that are clustered around that area? Poverty and war existed in the ME long before the west was even a thing. People have been murdering each other there for over a millennium. Syria is/was a country full of secular middle class and educated people who were willing to stand up to Assad to create a fairer society. They tried, and failed, and are now either refugees in Europe (because no rich countries in the ME will take them) or have their heads mounted on a pike.

If people want to revert to isolationism, then fine. But let's not kid ourselves of the fact that there were thoroughly modern, decent and innocent people in Syria who were not religiously inspired fanatics who genuinely wanted to oust a dictator in order to build a better society who asked for the west to help. We said no, and now they're dead or living in Europe. I'm more than happy to let them in, personally, because that's the least we can do after turning our back on them in the first instance.

If we're going to have an open and honest discourse about what to do in the ME, it should start by admitting the west made mistakes but also by acknowledging that the west didn't behead a journalist in Syria, and that sectarianism in Iraq and pretty much everywhere else in the ME didn't suddenly begin when the US went into Afghanistan and later Iraq. The US haven't repeatedly tried to genocide the Kurds, for example (though the lack of help given to the Kurds is another stain on the international community record of just intervention), or forced hundreds of thousands into de facto slavery to build football stadiums, killing tens of thousands in the process. The west is not executing and torturing people en masse in Saudi for homosexuality or, even worse, being an 'atheist'.

Genuine question, what happens if and when ISIS do gain control of both Iraq and Syria? What happens if they follow through with their plans and expand into North Africa and the rest of the ME? What happens then? Genuine question as I certainly don't know. Do we just ignore them and hope they will go away?

(September 24, 2015 at 6:17 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: And, seemingly, when we don't (eg. Syria).

Who's we in this case? You seem to forget the Western bomb raids in order to help the gallant insurgents overthrow big bad Assad. Thereby further destabilizing his regime in favor of factions unknown. Gung Ho at it's finest

We [being the same forces that were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus forces from the ME who promised so much but delivered fuck all] bombed Syria during the initial uprising? When?

I also made no reference to the methodology in which to support the relevant fores during the uprising either. I would agree with any point made towards a comprehensive review of the way in which support is enacted, not just necessarily via air strikes.

I honestly think most people have no idea about the original demographics of Syria and automatically equate the initial demonstrations against Assad to people who were ISIS in disguise. Isn't this the exact same same discourse we lambaste far right groups for now in Europe who claim every Syrian is a terrorist? These are the same people.

(September 24, 2015 at 6:22 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: If people want to revert to isolationism, then fine. But let's not kid ourselves of the fact that there were thoroughly modern, decent and innocent people in Syria who were not religiously inspired fanatics who genuinely wanted to oust a dictator in order to build a better society who asked for the west to help.

Of course there were. But I was against intervention then, and still am now, because it is not in our national interest. As others have pointed out, when dealing with Muslims, no good American deed goes unpunished, while on the other hand we have historical examples of our assistance rebounding against us at a later date.

I appreciate your point about the people there; there are similar people in all the lands running from Egypt to Iran. But I doubt American intervention in the Middle East will ever be welcomed generally by the folks who live there.

<double-post edited>

We don't care if there's an islamic state in the middle east. Have you met our ally, Saudi Arabia? It greatly depends on whether a country is our oil buddy or not.

A little more than a thousand years ago... muslims took north Africa... and then southern Europe.
Could history be repeating itself? Now, with nukes!

(September 24, 2015 at 10:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(September 24, 2015 at 6:22 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: If people want to revert to isolationism, then fine. But let's not kid ourselves of the fact that there were thoroughly modern, decent and innocent people in Syria who were not religiously inspired fanatics who genuinely wanted to oust a dictator in order to build a better society who asked for the west to help.

Of course there were. But I was against intervention then, and still am now, because it is not in our national interest. As others have pointed out, when dealing with Muslims, no good American deed goes unpunished, while on the other hand we have historical examples of our assistance rebounding against us at a later date.

I appreciate your point about the people there; there are similar people in all the lands running from Egypt to Iran. But I doubt American intervention in the Middle East will ever be welcomed generally by the folks who live there.

This is why I'm a Secular Humanist, as one of our fundamental principles is to stop looking at humanity through the lens of national interest. I agree that getting involved directly with the ground war using our own troops would have been counter to our national interests, for a host of reasons (not the least of which was Russia's posturing if we started moving in troops), but I think we could easily have made a deal with Turkey to use our base at Incirlik (~100 miles from Aleppo, Syria) and the AWACS that are based there as a means of maintaining a "No-Fly Zone", as we did in Iraq to stop Hussein from using his airpower to murder people from the sky. This is particularly of note, given Assad's use of "barrel bombs" and constant airstrikes against his own people. 

I think the real reason we didn't do it, aside from Russian threats, is that Russia has provided Syria with a more-modern military than any other country we've faced. They have the Su-27 Flanker interceptor, the equal of our F-15 Eagles (but not our F-22s), and more importantly, the Russians made it clear that if we tried to intervene in Syria, they'd give them the SA-10 surface to air missile system, which is a seriously nasty SAM that would have threatened every aircraft we sent in.

Frankly, there's really not much the US could have done, short of a full commitment, even if we managed to establish the No-Fly Zone, since the main problem reported by the Syrian rebels was trying to face armor without antitank missiles, and Assad's artillery. And Russia made it clear that they would see us supplying missiles to the Syrian rebels as a Major No-No™.

Do I think we should have intervened on behalf of the Syrian secularists? Yes, and frankly I think had we taken a totally different approach from the start, we could have gotten Russia on our side (for instance, by allowing them to appoint a pro-Russian successor to Assad, as Assad's ass-kissing to the Russians is why they were defending him in the first place) in exchange for treaty obligations about protecting democracy and human rights in the transitional government. Instead, we tried the American Bully approach, which just doesn't hold the weight it once did, now that everyone has seen us straining under the weight of trying to fight Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time.

We tried "the American bully" approach? How so?