Syria warnings

[Chris James]

Yes, Russia and China are warning the U.S. to stay out of the Syria conflict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

What better source can we find in the world of nations that support the genocide going on in the Middle East? Iran perhaps, they always side with other Muslim nations...well, some of the time and only if it suits them.

But the destruction of the population in Syria is hardly rampant, only a 100,000 dead so far. China and Russia must see that as a paltry toll considering those countries have killed millions of their own people over the years. Think Mao and Stalin, two "great leaders" in the rampant slaughter we now call genocide. I guess their warning to the U.S. comes from great experience at killing helpless populations.

Syria does need resolution so where is the outrage from other Muslim nations? I know they have vital interests in the region so why hasn't the Assad genocide been stopped? Of course the U.S. could bomb the hell out of the military assets of Syria, might even get that bastard in charge while they're doing it. But why should we bother is the question, it's only Muslims killing Muslims and that seems acceptable in the Islamic religion.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have given us genocide in the name of religion. But could you imagine the Baptists and the Lutherans killing one another for something as trivial as whose uncle should have been the next Bishop in charge? Islam claims to be a religion of peace but so far all we see is hatred. If they hate the Christians so much then why are they killing fellow Muslims? Islam equals irrationality.

But Assad is destroying his own people and that's okay because they aren't in his tribe. The economy of Syria is down the drain and they will soon be as isolated as North Korea. But Russia supports them just to use their seaports. China probably has an overstock of Tupperware they want to sell Assad. Iran has been financing the wars in this region for decades, no sense in changing now.

There are a million refugees from the Syrian conflict, and given time that number will double. My advice to President Obama is to make noise and do nothing. We can't afford another war and bombs are expensive. Where are we going to get the money to pay for it, borrow it from China? Now that would be ironic.

There will never be democracy in the Middle East for Muslim countries. Allah doesn't want that, the Koran says so. And where else does a religious holy book lead people to believe in slavery and killing masses of people? Oops, we all know that answer to that one.

[JamesSavik]

It's about money. Everything is.

Syria's leaders have it and they are buying weapons from Russia and China.

Russia needs the hard currency and the strategic ports on the Med. China will do anything to undermine US prestige.

As far as the United States is concerned, we have a military that has major commitments, has been overextended for over a decade and running on starvation budgets for the last six years.

Syria is a established regional power that has had decades to dig in. They have backing from the Russians and the Chinese. We have no idea how far they are likely to go.

Add in the wildcard that rebels in Syria have been caught with Sarin.

What could go wrong?

[Cole Parker]

Tribe first. That's a hard nut to crack.

C

[Camy]

I fear that this is going to suck us all into another major conflict that, to be pragmatic, no one can actually afford.

The financial and humanitarian aspect aside, Russia and China backing Assad vs the rest of the world is a rather terrifying prospect.

[Chris James]

America is going to attack Syria, Wolf Blitzer on CNN says so. I imagine he's not telling the Syrians anything they don't know. But there is nothing funny about the news media touting an attack and listing the kinds of targets they will seek to destroy. By the time the missiles get there the Syrian military will have removed everything they can down the street.

I can just imagine what kind of disaster our modern media would have wrought on D-Day in WWII. With a few days warning the Germans could have repulsed the invasion, but the military knew how to keep secrets back then. So why does the government advertise their targets in advance? Again,my advice is don't do it, we can't afford it. Our military is worn out and tired, that is when we make mistakes.

[Nigel Gordon]

The basic problem is that the Skyes-Picot Treaty (officially the Asia Minor Agreement) is finally coming home to rest. The whole division of the Ottoman Empire between England and France was a mess and took no account of demographic issues. Syria did not and never has made demographic sense. It should really be about five or six different countries. The problem is that there are too many vested interests in trying to keep it as a single entity, one way or another. Maybe it is time for another secret treaty. The USA and Russia should come to an agreement whereby the Russians go in and sort the mess out, in return for those part of Syria that they have always had a claim and giving up parts of Syria that others would like, e.g. Kurdastan and the bits Turkey would like back.

Unfortunately I fear that those who think the big stick will solve everything will no doubt use it. Maybe they should consider the fact that the biggest stick does not always win.

[Cole Parker]

I have a question. If we are going to attack Syria with missiles as pay-back, and will select various targets, wouldn't it be likely we'd target the toxic gas storage sites? And if we do that, won't we be releasing the gas such as it was when they delivered it to targets themselves, using missiles? Wouldn't that result in the US being the cause of a gas attack?

I'd think we'd need to send in ground forces to capture and remove the gas. And absolutely no one wants to do that. But we don't want it to fall into the hands of anyone else there, either.

C

[The Pecman]

I'm totally against the U.S. making war against Syria on a number of reasons:

1) there are hundreds of atrocities and people dying in awful situations all over the world, and the American government has a bad habit of only acting against the ones that are more visible or could have a bigger impact against us or our allies. (The 1,000,000 people killed in Rwanda is a good example of a genocide the U.S. basically ignored. The American government ignored it because it had no economic impact on us.)

2) the Middle East has to take care of their own problems. If something bigger happens, then it's up to the U.N. to come in with an army of U.N. members to police the action.

3) America is not the "policeman of the world." We got enough of our own problems. I'd much rather they solve the problems of unemployment and poverty in the U.S. rather than trying to tackle problems outside our borders.

4) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that even 10 years of conflict, death, and money spent have done little or no good in the long run. War has plagued those areas for thousands of years; a decade and billions of dollars (actually $1.5 trillion) have done little good. And it's going to collapse once we eventually pull out.

I voted for Obama twice, but I'm very much against him sending more troops in, losing more lives, and spending more money in an unwinnable war. I have no problem with us sending in weapons, supplies, and aid to the rebel fighters, but not fighting another war per se.

All strictly my opinion.

[EleCivil]

A friend of mine is in the Navy, and was stationed near Syria about a month ago. He told me stories of how his crew would stand on their ship, watching loyalists and rebels alike brutally murdering civilians. The government would lob a missile at an apartment building one day, the rebels would stage a public beheading of non-Muslim "heretics" (assorted civilians rounded up from a Christian church) the next, tearing out their hearts and hanging their bodies in the streets. He was so conflicted, because he felt like he should do SOMETHING, but both sides are populated by murderers committing evil acts.

It seems like if we support the Syrian government, or simply do nothing and allow them to steamroll the rebels, we'll be in another Saddam Hussein situation, where we'll have to take him out ourselves in a decade or so. If we help the rebels, we'll be in another Taliban situation, where we'll be giving arms and authority to the same extremists who will likely turn them against us, next (after they execute all the non-Muslims, non-conforming women, and homosexuals, of course). If we don't support the rebels, but take out Assad, we'll create a power vaccuum like we did in Afghanistan, unless we install a puppet, which would just give the rebels better recruiting slogans.

If there's a "good" choice, here, I don't see it. But then again, I don't know much. Hopefully, there are people much smarter than myself with much more information who can figure out what the "good" or at least "least-horrible" choice is.

[The Pecman]

It's at times like this that I wish we had the Mission:Impossible squad, where we could just send in a half-dozen guys to do the dirty work, get rid of this week's madman, and then get out.