# Assad is over?



## mike_cos (Feb 10, 2012)

The Chinese Intel believes that Assad is over.. is it true? Probably yes.. Anti-Assad Rebels have the support of Quatar, Saudi and Western Special Forces...

SOURCE


----------



## Brill (Feb 10, 2012)

Bashar has the support of Iran & Hezbollah. We should crush his regime just for kicks!


----------



## mike_cos (Feb 11, 2012)

Satellite Imagery shows how Assad is using artillery and mortars against Homs... (sorry for the resize pics..)


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Feb 11, 2012)

The Russians and Iranians aren't gonna let him fall easily, as shitty as it is he's playing the mass murder of his own people card, Russia and Iran are playing the game and looking to protect their own interests, which means keeping him in power. Doesn't mean I like it in any way nor is him killing lots and lots of people a good thing, but I can see why Iran and Russia take the stance they do.


----------



## Brill (Feb 11, 2012)

Sounds like a great chance to get some Virgina farm boys in on the action to poke fingers in Putin's and Ahmaddinajad's eyes.

There's nothing like an intel chess game played with other people's pawns!!!


----------



## mike_cos (Feb 11, 2012)

lindy said:


> There's nothing like an intel chess game played with other people's pawns!!!


LOL


----------



## Karoshi (Feb 17, 2012)

It is sad that I see those images and can almost recognize what imagery birds shot them...

Also good to see that Department of State is following NGA guidance in regards to NextView licensing for released items.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

According to Saban Center to Brooking there are 6 options to solve Assad's Crisis:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy; 
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation; 
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime; 
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and 
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

*Faites vos jeux, messieurs...**Les jeux sont faits, rien ne va plus*


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 18, 2012)

How sure are we that removing Assad from power is actually going to make things better?  What's going to take over after him?  Is it going to be more liberal and West-leaning, or is it going to be Hezbollah Lite, but now they have the resources of an entire country?


----------



## Brill (Mar 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> How sure are we that removing Assad from power is actually going to make things better? What's going to take over after him? Is it going to be more liberal and West-leaning, or is it going to be Hezbollah Lite, but now they have the resources of an entire country?


 
Well, Libya and Egypt went so well.  "What, me worry?"


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> How sure are we that removing Assad from power is actually going to make things better? What's going to take over after him? Is it going to be more liberal and West-leaning, or is it going to be Hezbollah Lite, but now they have the resources of an entire country?


Mara.. I understand your position... but we can not justify the atrocities of dictators for fear of Islamic regimes close to AQ... or not?


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> How sure are we that removing Assad from power is actually going to make things better? What's going to take over after him? Is it going to be more liberal and West-leaning, or is it going to be Hezbollah Lite, but now they have the resources of an entire country?


 
The "uprising" in Egypt (to mention but one) was a bad thing IMO.

Dictators get a bad rap that is often unwarrented.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> The "uprising" in Egypt (to mention but one) was a bad thing IMO.


 
the only uprising I like


----------



## QC (Mar 18, 2012)

Assads new motto: When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 18, 2012)

QC said:


> Assads new motto: When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.


Assads new motto: Bunga Bunga...

http://multimedia.lastampa.it/multimedia/nel-mondo/lstp/127340/


----------



## QC (Mar 18, 2012)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/...assad-coterie-conflict?cat=world&type=article

Nothing like the Champs Elysee to settle the nerves.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 18, 2012)

pardus said:


> The "uprising" in Egypt (to mention but one) was a bad thing IMO.
> 
> Dictators get a bad rap that is often unwarrented.


 
I agree.

The whole "let's intervene everywhere... now!" theme reminds me of a memorable scene in one of my favorite TV series, "The Wire:"



> "There we go, _*giving a fuck*_ when it ain't our turn to _*give a fuck."*_


 
It's not that I'm unsympathetic to innocent people getting killed.  It's not that I think Assad's a good guy.  It's just that there are so many other things that I think we need to be focused on, and if we're going to risk our manpower, money, and prestige on yet another military effort, it needs to be worth the cost.  We're broke.  Our military is stretched thin.  We're involved militarily in so many places right now that we don't have to be, that I'm beginning to wonder if it's all not smoke and mirrors to distract us from some very real problems we're facing at home.

I'm personally not convinced that regime change in Syria improves our strategic position in the Middle East or the world one iota.  As a country, Syria despises us and what we stand for.  Our values as a nation are incompatible with theirs.  I don't think there s a West-leaning (or even West-neutral) force waiting in the wings to take over after Assad, so why are we in a rush to show him the door?  I worry Syria will become another religiously-dominated, West-hating government.  (Right now they're only a secular, West-hating government, and traditionally we've found a way to work with people like that.  Not so much the zealots.)  And I don't think anything we do will change that.  Which reminds me of another quote:



> _To state what should be obvious, but somehow is not: Pakistan…is not our friend. They are not our allies; they are not our partners; they are not on our team; they are not on our side._ _And no matter how much aid we give them, no matter what military capabilities we provide them, and no matter what promises, assurances or pledges we make to them, these facts are not going to change. _ _Pakistan is on its own side, period.  __-US Congressman Gary Ackerman (D/NY), November 2011._


 

Now substitute "Syria" in there for "Pakistan."  Same crap, different country.

There are lots of places we can be directing our resources that would better suit our longterm interests.  I do not believe Syria is one of them.  If removing Assad from power is in our long-term, strategic national interests, then let's make it happen.  Otherwise... well, keeping with the theme from "The Wire," I think it's someone else's turn to give a fuck.


----------



## Brill (Mar 18, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I agree.
> 
> The whole "let's intervene everywhere... now!" theme reminds me of a memorable scene in one of my favorite TV series, "The Wire:"
> 
> ...


 
My Latin is pretty rusty but I'm pretty sure that De Oppresso Liber means "I give a fuck". ;)

JFK said it best in '61:

...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. _4_   This much we pledge—and more. _5_   To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. _6_   To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. _7_ *To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required*—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, *but because it is right.* *If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich...*


----------



## Brill (Mar 18, 2012)

Looks like someone is combat advising:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17425062

*Syrian rebels 'in Damascus firefight'*
18 March 2012 Last updated at 22:36 ET

A firefight is reported to have erupted in Syria's capital, Damascus, between the rebel Free Syria Army and the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.
Witnesses say the sound of machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades can be heard from the district of al-Mezze.
The neighbourhood, in the centre of Damascus, is home to several security facilities and is one of the most heavily guarded parts of the capital.
In January the Free Syria Army briefly seized several Damascus suburbs.
Al-Mezze has been the scene of large anti-government protests.
"There is fighting near Hamada supermarket and the sound of explosions there and elsewhere in the neighbourhood," a resident told Reuters news agency.
"Security police have blocked several side streets and the street lighting has been cut off."


----------



## CDG (Mar 19, 2012)

lindy said:


> My Latin is pretty rusty but I'm pretty sure that De Oppresso Liber means "I give a fuck". ;)
> 
> JFK said it best in '61:
> 
> ...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. _4_ This much we pledge—and more. _5_ To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. _6_ To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. _7_ *To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required*—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, *but because it is right.* *If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich...*


 
That's all well and good, if the people we free are going to do something with it.  Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  We "freed" them, but is anything really better?  They will go back to the same tribal feuds and ethnic wars they have been engaged in since the beginning of time.  It's not up to us to try and help a people that are only going to turn around and shit all over what our military bought for them in blood.  Yeah, everybody wants help.  Nobody wants to do anything to help themselves though.  Far easier to let the US do all the heavy lifting and then sit back and criticize after the smoke has settled and you all of a sudden can criticize because you have the American Soldier to hide behind.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 19, 2012)

The quote from JFK is good and all, but I don't see that sentiment reflected in our Constitution, nor do I see it reflected in the reality of the times in which we live.  What I DO see in our Constitution (which IMO should be the determining factor in whether we attack another country) is this:



> *We the People *of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


 

Our Constitution states that we seek to secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.  It says nothing about requiring us to do it for the whole world.  As a human being I care that people are being killed and repressed all over the world.  But as a realist and as a person who would likely be called upon to implement a policy of intervention, I'm not eager to see us get involved overseas.  Unless, again, it's in our national interests.  If intervening somewhere gets us something that we really need, like natural resources, strategic positioning, maintaining the balance of power, etc., then I'm all for it.  Otherwise, I'm quite happy to let people sort things out on their own.  So if going into Syria gains us something that is markedly greater than its potential costs, then I would happily go along with it.  But I have yet to see the "what's in it for us" angle that would gain my support for the endeavor.


----------



## NeverSayDie (Mar 19, 2012)

Isn't Syria well versed in war crimes like this? I also don't remember any of its actions making it off page six before. The argument seems to be based off the idea that this is a rare opportunity (which granted, has come at an inopportune time)  to take down Bashar, that may not present itself again.

My response to this, is to question how good of an opportunity it really is. And as mentioned above we have to consider the repercussions of any course of action we choose, including doing nothing. Who do we back? How far do we back them? What will the blowback be? Being too heavy handed in regime change is what created Sadaam and Khomeini, and carelessly handing out weapons and training to resistance groups of questionable allegiance had a very big hand to play in the birth of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. On the other hand, doing nothing reeks of Rwanda... and if this rebellion succeeds without us, it could grow up with a chip on its shoulder. As well as the fact it could it only further the view that is still somewhat prominent in that region that we are "paper tigers"

I found this to be very interesting when I caught it on cspan a few days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PLw6gYjCZSQ

It really troubles me that some of the members in our civilian leadership seem to thinking with their hearts instead of their minds on this, as well as making dangerous assumptions about the rebels are fighting for. I can't hope enough that that's just rhetoric and posturing.

Up to this point, the fact that the different rebel groups have no centralized command or communication, not to mention the complexity of the politics involved between them would be a migraine in itself, (Among many other things mentioned in the video) tells me to watch it develop patiently and wait for a better opportunity while providing intelligence to the rebels. The last thing we want is be left holding the bag (and the check, both in blood and treasure) for a failed revolution.  

Putting rounds in mass-murdering assholes like this are what the jobs all about (right?), but there has to be a chance of success. I signed up willing to sacrifice my life, not waste it.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2012)

Options 4,5,and 6 won't happen.

Anyone remember our last interaction with Syrian Anti-Aircraft Gunners?
Israel's AF gives Syria's AAA team lots of practice, and we'd lose planes on this.
US Ground forces going into Syria (even as a NATO force) would be a hard swallow for taxpayers, plus there is that defense draw down thing.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 19, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> //////
> 
> *Putting rounds in mass-murdering assholes like this are what the jobs all about (right?)*, but there has to be a chance of success. I signed up willing to sacrifice my life, not waste it.


 
I think a lot of people believe that, but what we signed up for is "to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," not to be the moral compass of the world.  There are plenty of mass-murdering assholes who are not a threat to us, so I don't think we should be going after them.   Again, national interests should drive the decisionmaking.  When mass-murdering assholes represent a direct and definable threat to our national interests, then it is worth considering going to war over it.  Anything short of that, I think we need to consider other courses of action.

Assad's regime is no friend of ours.  Nor will the regime that replaces his, whoever it is, and in fact it might be worse for us.  IMO Assad represents, at best, a tangential threat to U. S. interests.  His country is decidedly anti-U.S., but it (was) also decidedly stable.  We could work with him on some things because he had something to lose.  If Syria becomes a failed state, awash with weapons, fighters, and people with nothing to lose, it will become a better-resourced, more-threatening, more strategically-placed version of Afghanistan.

And as far as Rwanda... what were we supposed to do, exactly?  The US doesn't have a good track record when it comes to getting involved in other peoples' civil wars (Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Iraq...).  Rwanda would have still turned into a terrible mess whether we got involved or not, and then we would have "owned" it.  While I regret the loss of life and the human suffering, I'm glad we didn't get more involved on the ground in Rwanda.  The regime in Rwanda, while reprehensible, did not represent a substantial threat to our national interests, so I think it was a good call to not go in.


----------



## Brill (Mar 19, 2012)

CDG said:


> That's all well and good, if the people we free are going to do something with it. *Look at* Iraq and *Afghanistan*. We "freed" them, but* is anything really better?* They will go back to the same tribal feuds and ethnic wars they have been engaged in since the beginning of time.


 
Is AF an AQ safe haven where they can plan, train, and C2 terrorist attacks against the US or it's interests?  I don't think the goal was to change the culture but Deny, Disrupt, and Destroy AQ.

The invasion of IQ, in my opinion, was a tactical error.  However, is the region better off?  I'll defer to our relationship with the Saudis but personally, I think the cost was way too high.


----------



## CDG (Mar 19, 2012)

lindy said:


> Is AF an AQ safe haven where they can plan, train, and C2 terrorist attacks against the US or it's interests? I don't think the goal was to change the culture but Deny, Disrupt, and Destroy AQ.
> 
> The invasion of IQ, in my opinion, was a tactical error. However, is the region better off? I'll defer to our relationship with the Saudis but personally, I think the cost was way too high.


 
At this moment? No.  As soon as we leave?  Yes, I believe so.  The D3 approach only works as long as we have a presence there.  How can you say the goal was not to change the culture?  We placed a figure in charge with Karzai that we assumed we would be able to control and try to force Western style democracy, or a representative republic, on the Afghans.  I'm sure the soldiers on the ground saw it as what you said.  I don't believe that the State Dept. and other politicians do.  I think they have this naive belief that everyone in the world surely wants to be just like America and have elections, McDonalds, and Chaquanda with her 8 kids at the welfare office.  I don't think that will ever work.  Tribal ties and hatred for each other run too deep.  I don't think anyone in that country wants anything to do with elected officials, unless it's members of their tribe being elected.  We would have been far better off laying waste to the areas we knew were AQ staging areas, going after the top dudes, and ensuring we got our message across.  Instead, we have tried to install a little mini US government in a land that has NEVER had that approach work before.  As soon as we're gone, things are going to implode in AFG.  We are the glue, duct tape, and baling wire holding that jalopy together right now.


----------



## NeverSayDie (Mar 19, 2012)

Maybe its a little idealistic of me, but I think spreading representative government and putting down genocidal maniacs is a worthy reason to fight in and of itself. Flags come and go, but the philosophy that we are founded on, that is embodied by the constitution, will be around long we're gone, long after the actual document fades and long after the monuments rust away. If we're going to accept this role of a post WWII world hegemony,  planting the seeds of our way of life wherever they can grow should be the long term strategic goal instead of  just "national interest" or our nation is going live just long enough to become the very thing we took an oath to fight against: an enemy of our own constitution. 

It was a huge influx of conquered Athenian currency that destroyed Sparta, and the post Punic War's "national interest" of the Roman Republic that set the stage for Caesar, and his line of successors that eventually led to guys like Caligula appointing his horses to positions of power just to humiliate the consuls, and shit on the last vestiges of democracy left in what had become the Roman Empire. Even with all the advances we've made, I don't think we are an exception to that historical trend.

There is an Olympic Afghan Women's boxing team training in Kabul right now, risking *everything *in order to practice their basic rights. I'd take a bullet for any one of those women with a smile on my face before I lift a finger (any higher than I'm required to by law at least) for some of my neighbors that don't come close to deserving the title of citizen that they enjoy, much less its benefits.


----------



## CDG (Mar 19, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> . As well as the fact it could it only further the view that is still somewhat prominent in that region that we are "paper tigers"


 
This is exactly why not getting involved is a better answer for us.  We have that reputation because some jackass gets a wild hair up his ass about this guy or that guy torturing and killing people in some third-world shithole.  So we get all fucking "liberty and freedom" and send dudes over there and think it's going to just go all smooth and get wrapped up in short order with a nice little bow.  Then, when it doesn't, we tuck tail and run because it's all of a sudden not worth it.  As Marauder06 said, unless there is something that benefits us, we should just keep to ourselves.  Darwinian logic applies to countries as well as individuals.  Figure it out, or go away.  It's not our job to try and make sure everyone has their corner of the world set up just the way they want it, or the way we think it should be.


----------



## CDG (Mar 19, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> Maybe its a little idealistic of me, but I think spreading representative government and putting down genocidal maniacs is a worthy reason to fight in and of itself. Flags come and go, but the philosophy that we are founded on, that is embodied by the constitution, will be around long we're gone, long after the actual document fades and long after the monuments rust away. If we're going to accept this role of a post WWII world hegemony, planting the seeds of our way of life wherever they can grow should be the long term strategic goal instead of just "national interest" or our nation is going live just long enough to become the very thing we took an oath to fight against: an enemy of our own constitution.
> 
> It was a huge influx of conquered Athenian currency that destroyed Sparta, and the post Punic War's "national interest" of the Roman Republic that set the stage for Caesar, and his line of successors that eventually led to guys like Caligula appointing his horses to positions of power just to humiliate the consuls, and shit on the last vestiges of democracy left in what had become the Roman Empire. Even with all the advances we've made, I don't think we are an exception to that historical trend.
> 
> There is an Olympic Afghan Women's boxing team training in Kabul right now, risking *everything *in order to practice their basic rights. I'd take a bullet for any one of those women with a smile on my face before I lift a finger (any higher than I'm required to by law at least) for some of my neighbors that don't come close to deserving the title of citizen that they enjoy, much less its benefits.


 
A little idealistic?  Dude, not everyone in the world wants a US style government.  And even if they did, it's not our job to give it to them.  This is exactly why our country is in such disarray right now.  We're more than willing to spend money and lives on other countries, but where's the concern for our own country?  We HAVE to come first.  The colonists came over here and took their chances and figure it the fuck out.  Others can do the same.

How is it that Afghan women have a right to be on a boxing team?  You'd die for that before you'd die for American citizens?  What the fuck?  Like it or not, THIS is your country.  As marriage vows say, "for better or for worse".  It's bullshit that you say you value the Afghan women's Olympic Boxing team over your own countrymen.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 19, 2012)

Despite pronouncements by Western analysts, leaders and commentators, there is nothing inevitable about the fate of the Assad regime. Although
its legitimacy, authority and resources are eroding, as of the beginning of March 2012 the internal balance of power remained in its favour. It could
survive the current unrest, though in a much weakened shape. Much will depend on whether and how its neighbours intervene.

Emile Hokayem : Senior Fellow for Regional Security, IISS–Middle East

From SURVIVAL april-may 2012


----------



## TH15 (Mar 19, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> Snip.


We can't force our way of life on other people. I think that's what a lot of people in the Muslim world have a problem with. They happen to follow a religion that dictates virtually every facet of their life, including a way of governing. We may not like the fact they slaughter homosexuals in the streets or how they treat women, but at the end of the day its none of our business what they do in _their_ country.

I don't think any American life is worth deciding what someone else is going to do in their country- especially at a time when our military is stretched very thin and we have massive debt on our hands.

If George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, (insert Hollywood star w/ an agenda here) wants to stop whats going on in another country, then let them front the money and pick up an M4 and go fight.

We need to stop getting involved in other people's business where there are no US interests at stake, as Mara has said numerous times.

ETA: How would you like it if China came over here and starting meddling in our business? I don't think we would be pleased.


----------



## QC (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm subscribe to Maras' view, stay out, stay put.


----------



## TH15 (Mar 19, 2012)

NeverSayDie


----------



## NeverSayDie (Mar 19, 2012)

CDG said:


> How is it that Afghan women have a right to be on a boxing team? You'd die for that before you'd die for American citizens? What the fuck? Like it or not, THIS is your country. As marriage vows say, "for better or for worse". It's bullshit that you say you value the Afghan women's Olympic Boxing team over your own countrymen.



Not the right to a boxing team, but the right to be more than carpeted slaves to their hairy gelatinous husbands that get stoned to death over accusations of infidelity. I'm not saying start a worldwide crusade and violate the sovereignty of every nation that doesn't do things our way, but when they are willing to fight for that right and have a reasonable chance of success its hard for me to see why they don't deserve our help more than the Dictators like Murabak. 

And the neighbor I was referring to is actually a card carrying member of the american communist party, who argues the virtues of eugenics very passionately. I'll protect the asshole because I have to, but I don't have to like doing it. 

There is a reason that the constitution comes first in the oath before the government. The day that neighbor neighbor of mine gets elected president, is the day I become one very fucking patriotic Canadian.


----------



## NeverSayDie (Mar 19, 2012)

If not what the DHS would call an extremist, but I'll keep those thoughts to myself.


----------



## Brill (Mar 19, 2012)

Foreign troops would tip the balance of power in the region. Cast off the Obama Admin propaganda, this is a war against evil.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/19/russian-troops-reportedly-enter-syria/


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 19, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> Maybe its a little idealistic of me, but I think spreading representative government and putting down genocidal maniacs is a worthy reason to fight in and of itself. Flags come and go, but the philosophy that we are founded on, that is embodied by the constitution, will be around long we're gone, long after the actual document fades and long after the monuments rust away. If we're going to accept this role of a post WWII world hegemony, planting the seeds of our way of life wherever they can grow should be the long term strategic goal instead of just "national interest" or our nation is going live just long enough to become the very thing we took an oath to fight against: an enemy of our own constitution.
> 
> It was a huge influx of conquered Athenian currency that destroyed Sparta, and the post Punic War's "national interest" of the Roman Republic that set the stage for Caesar, and his line of successors that eventually led to guys like Caligula appointing his horses to positions of power just to humiliate the consuls, and shit on the last vestiges of democracy left in what had become the Roman Empire. Even with all the advances we've made, I don't think we are an exception to that historical trend.
> 
> There is an Olympic Afghan Women's boxing team training in Kabul right now, risking *everything *in order to practice their basic rights. I'd take a bullet for any one of those women with a smile on my face before I lift a finger (any higher than I'm required to by law at least) for some of my neighbors that don't come close to deserving the title of citizen that they enjoy, much less its benefits.


 
It's more than a little idealistic of you, it's very idealistic.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing.  It's good to be idealistic when you're young.  I was.  But then you get out in the world... you see things... you learn things... and you find out that what you thought you knew about the world, isn't quite as black and white as you thought it was when you were young.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing either.  With experience comes wisdom, and sometimes clarity.  Maybe you realize that you can't right every wrong in the world, and that what you think it the right way to live, isn't what's best for everyone.  Maybe you realize that even your own country sometimes does things you think only other countries do.  Maybe then you realize that the best you can do is something different than what you thought it would be when you were young.

There are several issues you bring up that I'm going to need you to either clarify or to provide some evidence to support. To begin with, how, exactly, are we going to become "an enemy of our Constitution" by seeking to adhere to the Constitution?  I don't get it.  And where in the Constitution does it say that we are required to be the conscience of the world, or to impose our way of life or impart our rights to anyone else?  Have you ever read the Constitution, or taken a class on it?  If not, then you really should.  Additionally, spreading democracy *is* in our national interest.  But do you think democracy is what is going to result from the revolt in Syria?  I don't.  I forsee a regime less democratic, less stable, and more of a threat to us than the current one.  

I'm not really sure what your references to Sparta and Rome contribute to the current discussion, and I think it's a gross oversimplification to attribute any single cause to a nation's collapse.  Also, we began this discussion with you urging an attack against another sovereign nation (Syria).  Would you not agree that another major contributor to the downfall of both Sparta and Rome was the constant warfare in which both engaged?  So how does that help your argument that we should go in against Syria?

If you want to go give your life for the Olympic Afghan Women's boxing team... fine.    Just don't presume to commit the rest of us to it.  I'm prepared to give my life in the defense of my country and my way of life, not someone else's.  I don't think there is anything stopping you from buying a one-way ticket to Afghanistan, but are you sure that the Afghans even want your help?  Don't you think that it's a little presumptuous of you?  

I admire your motivation and I hope that is something that you never lose.  But there are plenty of people here in the US who need your help, and they should come first.  Then our allies, then everyone else, in support of our national interests and when the benefits outweigh the costs.  There are times when it's worth committing our nation to war, but I think those times happen a lot less often than the number of times our troops are put in harm's way.

That's about all I have on this subject, I don't want to beat it to death.  I will just close by re-iterating that I don't think attacking Syria is in our country's long term national interests, and I hope we get smarter as a nation about when and where we should wage war in the future.


----------



## QC (Mar 20, 2012)

If you're not a liberal in your twenties you have no heart, if you're not a conservative in your forties you have no brain.
W.S.Churchill


----------



## NeverSayDie (Mar 20, 2012)

Whoops. I was having a similar discussion in person at the same time I made my second post, and looking back that (along with not trying to be too long winded) led me to make some big leaps in my logic that you can't really connect without points I failed to include from the other conversation. (sorry about that lol) Lets see if I can't fix it the second time around.

At no point was I urging for an attack against Syria. Just the opposite. In my initial post I said that rushing into this conflict would be a bad idea because the Syrian rebels are more of a disorganized mess of different factions dispersed around the country than a solid resistance movement that we can work with. (Just trying to open negotiations or establish diplomatic relations with all of them has to be a nightmare for the state department and IC) 

What my point was is that should a better opportunity to remove Bashar and install a friendly representative government present itself would be good cause for intervention *if it had a reasonable chance of success*. I'm of the same opinion as everyone else as to whether we should intervene now, but differ as to why based on more immediate tactical considerations than long term strategic ones. 

*from here it turned to what is justifiable cause in intervention was in general,* and that's where it got a little messy. I can accept and support the idea that its not the right time to act, but not that we shouldn't. Following the constitution that strictly in a geopolitical landscape that it was never designed to operate in might work if we adopted an isolationist approach the world over, but is that really a viable option? Do we really do away with the standing army?

Maybe before the Monroe doctrine, or even before we invested ourselves in post war Germany, we could shy away from interventions that don't affect us directly in a permanent way and say "its none of our business", "let them sort it out" etc. But when you're the global superpower that we are, you can't have these huge spheres of influence that extend well beyond our borders and not be *partially* responsible for what happens in them. Setting up anything but democratic governments in these spheres of influence will never offer anything more than temporary advantages, at the expense of the people in them and our long term security.

Yet we've done just the opposite at times. We have this nasty habit of bedding down with dogs like Nasser, Murabak, Zadari, and Sadaam (notice I do not include Bashar on this list, he's a french creation) and then bitching when we wake up the next decade with fleas. I can *begrudgingly* accept a temporary alliance of necessity like we brokered with Stalin against the Nazis, but not these long term alliances we make today because they're convenient. To continuously support these oppressive regimes like we have... I just can't see how that can be anything but a betrayal of the ideas we are founded on. (You can basically sum everything up to this point with "Change the regime to some form of democracy, or don't change it at all.")

And this is where becoming an enemy of our own constitution comes into play. Long term alliances with tyrants have had nothing but short term benefits and corrupting influences on every Democracy that takes part in them, in every single historical account I've ever read. From Ancient Greece and Rome to Florence to now. It was on behalf of our good friends the Saudis that we conducted Shield and Storm to protect them against a rouge dictator we installed (to balance out the consequences of the revolution against a Shah we installed, the genius plan that was) which set the stage for a rich young Jihadi to come in and steal the show. Now, after his death and as the wars wind down, his atrocities are used as pseudo-justification for things like the NDAA, Armed DHS Drones over -- and proposed Executive privileged to assassinate American citizens in --the homeland. (thus setting the stage for our any elitist asshole who has the cunning and balls to take a crack at being the first American Caesar.)  *In any healthy Republic, public servants that make laws like that stand trail for treason, not run for reelection. *

*No one* could have foreseen that inadvertent chain reaction, but that's what happens when you align your interests with regimes that are not responsible to their people. Borders are *not* magic walls that keep out the consequences of a bad foreign policy. You could say that the above is the result of interventionism in general, but if that where the case we would still be facing the consequences of intervention in Europe, and I *don't* presume the superiority of European over Muslim culture to be the difference. It was the difference in policy. 

We didn't prop up or ally ourselves with pro-US moderate communist dictatorships along the iron curtain and then give them a slap on the wrist when they had to use atrocities to stay in power. We pushed capitalist, representative government as far east as it would go, defended it from communist expansion, and seized the opportunities wherever they presented themselves to create free governments, *sometimes at the point of a sword when necessary.*

 As for the boxing team thing, that was an example I was trying to use to illustrate my view that someone who is willing to risk everything to fight for their liberty may be more deserving of it than those who have had the good fortune to be born into it, but do nothing to protect or preserve it, and that we should not dismiss the former's survival in favor of the comfort of the ladder. looking back this was a horrible example anyway because a true "Republic of Afghanistan" never had a reasonable chance of success that I required for Syria being worth a fight, but that's the nature of what I was getting at. 

Make sense, or did I just enlarge the clusterfuck? lol


----------



## Scotth (Mar 20, 2012)

QC said:


> If you're not a liberal in your twenties you have no heart, if you're not a conservative in your forties you have no brain.
> W.S.Churchill


 
Oops I guess I did things backwards.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 20, 2012)

NeverSayDie said:


> <snip>


 
Good post.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 20, 2012)

I had to take a day off to read it all .. But Mara is right... nice post NeverSayDie.


----------



## mike_cos (Mar 21, 2012)

Uhm... Russian counterterrorism SOF in Syrian port?...WTF are they doing there?

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/19/201791.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/russian-anti-terror-troops-arrive-syria/story?id=15954363#.T2lXlhHa5JK

Itar-Tass and RIA-Novosti  flatly denied... LOL

"МОСКВА, 19 марта. /Корр. ИТАР-ТАСС/. *В Минобороны сегодня опровергли сообщения ряда СМИ о том, что у побережья Сирии якобы появились корабли российского ВМФ.*
"В Минобороны РФ вызвали недоумение сообщения некоторых СМИ о якобы появившихся боевых кораблях ВМФ России у берегов Сирии, - отметили в Управлении. - Никаких боевых кораблей ВМФ России у берегов Сирии нет".
По данным Управления, "в сирийском порту Тартус в течение 10 дней находится судно вспомогательного флота - танкер "Иман". "Он выполнял задачи тылового обеспечения кораблей Черноморского и Северного флотов", участвовавших в противопиратской миссии в Аденском заливе, пояснили в Управлении. "Экипаж "Имана" укомплектован гражданским персоналом. На его борту находится подразделение охраны", - отметили в Управлении."

This is the port involved...


----------

