Syria

[dan_bgblue]

One Opinion (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/17/arming-syria-rebels-not-answer-here-what-us-must-do/?intcmp=HPBucket)


A cardinal rule in foreign policy is this: if your enemies are busy killing each other, don’t step in and try to stop them. Yet, that’s exactly what we would be doing if we train, arm or provide military assistance to the Syrian rebels.

Very few people in positions of power in DC seem to understand this very simple principle

[CitizenBBN]

First off it will be the classic American foreign policy move of "too little too late". Second, there is no outcome here that is good for the US, and the one that is best for us is already the most likely and the most supported, which is to let the Syrian regime remain in power. Our interests are best served by a regime in Syria that is less tied to Al Queda and the Islamist movement, and one with ties to nations like Russia with whom we can sit down and hammer out deals, so Obama's bright idea is to help the other side that is even more anti-US and anti-Western and will not be beholden to nations with whom we have any leverage.

Even if we could find a segment of the rebels we could even tolerate, it's incredibly unlikely that segment would be able to gain power and hold it without massive US intervention, and they sure won't survive a democratic election. Then we're just talking about installing a new regime, something this Administration (and the last as well) has no stomach for, so what's the point of doing anything?

The best solution is the one we had: do nothing. Now we're doing the worst: taking a stand once there is no real chance of anyone on our side winning.

[dan_bgblue]

Even though you may find the current persons in power to be despicable, many times there are reasonable, selfish positives to letting them remain in power. I agree that this is another of those occasions

[CitizenBBN]

In the Third World, which I often decry and IMO do so for good and sound reason, that is often the case. Only a handful of nations on Earth seem to be ready and able to step forward and have stable, relatively low corruption governments that allow for the economic prosperity of the entire populace, with at least some level of meritocracy in both the civil service and the economy. IMO the key defining aspect of that ability is pretty simple: respect for the rule of law. You vote for laws, lobby for laws, but you obey laws and you hold ALL MEN accountable to them. The rule of law, not the rule of individual men. It is IMO the cornerstone of making that step.

That part of the world simply isn't to that point. They aren't having a revolution to replace corruption and repression with freedom and liberty, they're having a revolution so they can become the corrupt oppressors and implement the kind of oppression in which they believe. This isn't going to change anything but the name on the desk. Instead of oppressive non-religious rule we'll have another Islamist state with the same oppression b/c they aren't fighting for the rule of law. Even "Islamic Law" isn't a law as I define it b/c it's really implemented largely as "tribal law" which is "this guy gets to decide". It lacks the protections against tyranny of the majority or corruption of individuals. It doesn't do what it must: subjugate the power of an individual person to the longevity of legal principles to which all must adhere.

So why do we care who wins? The only reason is geo-political, and the current stable if repressive regime is far preferable to an unstable and unpredictable one that is just as anti-US and anti-Israel. Were I President I'd be more likely to arm Assad and in fact I'd have probably proactively tried to hammer out a deal with him to pull some influence away from Russia as the Arab Spring winds started blowing his way.

This move is just silly. Are you just hoping against hope that they all turn good if they win? Do you not understand they are strongly Islamist? Is it really just moral outrage at Assad's choice of HOW he slaughters his people, and if so you didn't mind when they were being bombed and shot? Is it just feeling like the last person not to join the party?

take those weapons and send them to Israel, currently the only people in the region who won't turn around and point them back at us. If you want to get ahead of things send them to the Turks and start propping up their regime. That's one nation we really can't afford to lose to Islamist fascism.

[dan_bgblue]

If only I could be in the situation room (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/obama-on-syria-americans-just-dont-understand/?test=latestnews)

That seems to be the new motif of this presidency, whether it’s domestic spying, taking it easy on the IRS and Department of Justice scandals or implementing his creaking and groaning health law. Americans can’t understand the details here, but Obama and his team of experts understand things in a way we can’t.

Obama can’t tell you why he’s doing what he’s doing because it is too complicated. But if you could understand, you’d be all for it.

[CitizenBBN]

If only I could be in the situation room (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/18/obama-on-syria-americans-just-dont-understand/?test=latestnews)

That seems to be the new motif of this presidency, whether it’s domestic spying, taking it easy on the IRS and Department of Justice scandals or implementing his creaking and groaning health law. Americans can’t understand the details here, but Obama and his team of experts understand things in a way we can’t.

Obama can’t tell you why he’s doing what he’s doing because it is too complicated. But if you could understand, you’d be all for it.

That seems to be the new motif of this presidency, whether it’s domestic spying, taking it easy on the IRS and Department of Justice scandals or implementing his creaking and groaning health law. Americans can’t understand the details here, but Obama and his team of experts understand things in a way we can’t.

Obama can’t tell you why he’s doing what he’s doing because it is too complicated. But if you could understand, you’d be all for it.

It's actually the mantra of Leftism on every subject. Things are complex and we understand them and to the extent you disagree you just don't understand. Be it from info you don't have or innate understanding and intelligence you don't have, you need to just trust us b/c we know what we're doing and we're acting in your best interests.

I have always subscribed to the view of Einstein: if you can't explain it to a 6 year old, you don't understand it yourself.

Personally I don't think Obama understands the Islamist fascist movement and what it means any more than Kennedy and Johnson understood the Cold War, thus the domino theory and Vietnam. Of course a small part of me thinks he does understand it and it quite fine with it. I don't think he's an Islamist, but I do think he's an American apologist and card carrying "blame America first" member who has swallowed their lies about how their excesses and violence repression are all the US's fault somehow. No doubt he thinks about how the US and England divided up the Middle East and formed these nations, how we installed the ruling houses of Syria and Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and thus how it's somehow our fault these groups have embraced a religiously veiled fascism. I'm sure all these things come up, and what he doesn't get is they don't matter.