The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What’s happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.
Read the rest of our “9 questions you were too embarrassed to ask” series here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...ed-to-ask/

A decent article.

It just reinforces my belief that they're just an 8th century culture with 21st century weapons. Pathetic.

Solid article.

I wonder if a diplomatic solution could be achieved by redrawing Iraq, Syria, and a new country by sect borders. Place the Sunnis in one country, the Shiites in another, and the Alawites in the 3rd. We have control over Iraq so it's definitely possible to coordinate something like this. I don't know if that would make the situation better or worse. Every western involvement in the Middle East has made things worse than before.

(09-01-2013 04:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Solid article.

I wonder if a diplomatic solution could be achieved by redrawing Iraq, Syria, and a new country by sect borders. Place the Sunnis in one country, the Shiites in another, and the Alawites in the 3rd. We have control over Iraq so it's definitely possible to coordinate something like this. I don't know if that would make the situation better or worse. Every western involvement in the Middle East has made things worse than before.

If you are talking an actual population redistribution. We did that to a certain extent in india, pakistan, & bangladesh. You can argue it worked, but you can also argue it didn't work as well. I think those two countries have a lot of other reasons as well for why they managed to keep the region pretty stable.

One thing to note is that kurdistan (the land of the kurds). Is so large and so big that its impossible to restore that country without taking away major chunks of iraq iran syria and turkey. The kurds are a minority in those 4 countries right now.

(09-01-2013 04:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Solid article.

I wonder if a diplomatic solution could be achieved by redrawing Iraq, Syria, and a new country by sect borders. Place the Sunnis in one country, the Shiites in another, and the Alawites in the 3rd. We have control over Iraq so it's definitely possible to coordinate something like this. I don't know if that would make the situation better or worse. Every western involvement in the Middle East has made things worse than before.

Don't forget the Kurds and the Kurdistan they so desperately want. Because if they are forgotten...again, violence will continue in your scenario.

edit: Just noticed john mentioned it...my bad

Yea I totally forgot about the Kurds.

After sleeping on it, I think even my suggestion is a bad idea. Think it's just best to allow them to sort things out and not us.

Here are the salient questions

1) Do we want to have enforceable international prohibitions against the use of chemical weapons? If yes, its apparent that no one but the USA is going to enforce those prohibitions. Is it worth it to expend resources to punish a regime that violates those laws. If someone doesn't act, we can just expect more chemical weapons proliferation in the future.

2) Do we wish to force the regional neighbors of Syria, who are effective security freeloaders of the USA to act by not acting ourselves? Syria is not really that important to the US, from a strategic, historical, or economic perspective. Turkey, France, Greece, and Israel have a LOT more skin in this game than we do. However, if we don't act, we lose credibility in the region.

3) Do we want to play into Russia/China's game in international affairs? Both Russia and China WANT the US tied down in the middle east. That's why both of them see the chaos there as a good thing. For Russia, its a twofer, as it raises oil prices AND they get to pin the US down somewhere other than in the Eastern Europe (which is where Russia doesn't want us focusing on). For China, they want us bogged down by in the Mideast, so that we can't help Vietnam, Taiwan, S Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, who are our regional allies and with whom we have much more economic interests with.

4) Do we want more Islamist regimes in the Middle East? The new regime may not be particularly friendly towards western values (or its sizable Christian minority). Its entirely possible that there IS something worse than Bashir Assad continuing to misrule Syria; Chaos and ethnic cleansing. But that argument must be counteracted with the fact that it appears that these events will occur (and are occurring) with or without US involvement.

My view is, yes, lets approve limited military aid and strikes for the chemical weapons use. Anything more would require Turkey to take the lead.

(08-31-2013 08:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What’s happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.
Read the rest of our “9 questions you were too embarrassed to ask” series here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...ed-to-ask/

Informative on Obama's story, which of course Assad, Russia, and China denies. The big question is whether or not Assad and the Syrian government started killing innocent hippy protestors that were of no threat to their sovereignty, which is the premise of the whole argument... and a premise that is pretty unbelievable if you ask me. This leads to 2 questions:

1. Does the Syrian government have the right or not to defend its sovereignty and who is the group threatening their sovereignty?

2. Is it as issue of US interest, especially when you risk getting a Russia that probably doesn't care if they lose 100,000 soldiers involved against us? For who, for what?

(09-01-2013 02:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Informative on Obama's story, which of course Assad, Russia, and China denies. The big question is whether or not Assad and the Syrian government started killing innocent hippy protestors that were of no threat to their sovereignty, which is the premise of the whole argument... and a premise that is pretty unbelievable if you ask me.

Well, your presumption is that innocent, hippy protestors were no threat to Assad's sovereignty, which makes your question a false dichotomy. The fact is that innocent protestors are a threat to his sovereignty, just as free speech is generally a threat to the sovereignty of such thugs. Now, the other side of the question is whether lethal force is justifiable against 14 year olds marching in the street. I think it can be, as in the Intifada when they are hurling lethal objects (rocks). But, I don't think that was the case in Syria. Even if it was, Idon't know how you can justify rape, torture, and murder in prison of those same 14 year olds, much less adults.

Nevertheless, false dichotomy or no, your questions deserve answers.

quote='EverRespect' pid='9662264' dateline='1378064889']This leads to 2 questions:
1. Does the Syrian government have the right or not to defend its sovereignty and who is the group threatening their sovereignty?

2. Is it as issue of US interest, especially when you risk getting a Russia that probably doesn't care if they lose 100,000 soldiers involved against us? For who, for what?
[/quote]

Answer 1 kind of comes with the territory of sovereignty, but has been eroded somewhat over time. I think that just war theory, a product of the Catholic church, provudes some limitations, but the whole concept of sovereignty should be revisited to adress cases where there is no pretense of consent by the governed.

For the second option, no, but there is next to zero chance Russia will put skin in the game against the US.

(09-01-2013 04:09 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Solid article.

I wonder if a diplomatic solution could be achieved by redrawing Iraq, Syria, and a new country by sect borders. Place the Sunnis in one country, the Shiites in another, and the Alawites in the 3rd. We have control over Iraq so it's definitely possible to coordinate something like this. I don't know if that would make the situation better or worse. Every western involvement in the Middle East has made things worse than before.

There is no such thing coming from the Washington Post.

(09-01-2013 02:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 08:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.
If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What’s happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.
Here, then, are the most basic answers to your most basic questions. First, a disclaimer: Syria and its history are really complicated; this is not an exhaustive or definitive account of that entire story, just some background, written so that anyone can understand it.
Read the rest of our “9 questions you were too embarrassed to ask” series here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...ed-to-ask/

Informative on Obama's story, which of course Assad, Russia, and China denies. The big question is whether or not Assad and the Syrian government started killing innocent hippy protestors that were of no threat to their sovereignty, which is the premise of the whole argument... and a premise that is pretty unbelievable if you ask me. This leads to 2 questions:

1. Does the Syrian government have the right or not to defend its sovereignty and who is the group threatening their sovereignty?

2. Is it as issue of US interest, especially when you risk getting a Russia that probably doesn't care if they lose 100,000 soldiers involved against us? For who, for what?

Russia's leadership doesn't care if it loses 100,000 soldiers. Their poorly led, poorly equipped, and poorly trained army full of conscripts think differently. That being said, they wouldn't be able to do squat even if they intervened as their military is a complete joke. And how would they get the soldiers to Syria and supply them? Turkey, who opposes Assad would simply close the Bosphorus Strait (they've already closed their airspace to even CIVILIAN Russian aircraft flying between the two nations.

(09-01-2013 10:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  If you are talking an actual population redistribution. We did that to a certain extent in india, pakistan, & bangladesh. You can argue it worked, but you can also argue it didn't work as well. I think those two countries have a lot of other reasons as well for why they managed to keep the region pretty stable.

India and Pakistan? That's a really bad example to use. They're constantly sabre-rattling with each other and have threatened to throw nukes at one another repeatedly (would they go that far? I doubt it.), but the one thing that's literally kept from tearing each other apart in the past were the various tribal warlords and the Taliban in the region.

No good can come from intervening in Syria. None.

(09-02-2013 09:51 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 10:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  If you are talking an actual population redistribution. We did that to a certain extent in india, pakistan, & bangladesh. You can argue it worked, but you can also argue it didn't work as well. I think those two countries have a lot of other reasons as well for why they managed to keep the region pretty stable.

India and Pakistan? That's a really bad example to use. They're constantly sabre-rattling with each other and have threatened to throw nukes at one another repeatedly (would they go that far? I doubt it.), but the one thing that's literally kept from tearing each other apart in the past were the various tribal warlords and the Taliban in the region.

Actually that is a very bad example. During the Vivisection between India and Pakistan, over 500,000 people were lynched. That is not a typo. More than 15 million lost everything and had to flee for their lives. The understandable lingering resentment from the Vivisection is the leading fuel for communal strife between the Hindu/Sikh and Muslim communites within India, as well as between India and Pakistan. The vivisection didn't make the area more stable, but less so.

And then there's the breakup of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which involved more deaths

(09-02-2013 10:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 09:51 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 10:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  If you are talking an actual population redistribution. We did that to a certain extent in india, pakistan, & bangladesh. You can argue it worked, but you can also argue it didn't work as well. I think those two countries have a lot of other reasons as well for why they managed to keep the region pretty stable.

India and Pakistan? That's a really bad example to use. They're constantly sabre-rattling with each other and have threatened to throw nukes at one another repeatedly (would they go that far? I doubt it.), but the one thing that's literally kept from tearing each other apart in the past were the various tribal warlords and the Taliban in the region.

Actually that is a very bad example. During the Vivisection between India and Pakistan, over 500,000 people were lynched. That is not a typo. More than 15 million lost everything and had to flee for their lives. The understandable lingering resentment from the Vivisection is the leading fuel for communal strife between the Hindu/Sikh and Muslim communites within India, as well as between India and Pakistan. The vivisection didn't make the area more stable, but less so.

And then there's the breakup of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which involved more deaths

thats why theres the whole, it worked....it didnt work argument. on one hand all that happened and india/pakistan hate each other. on the other hand today both countries are considered to be major powers of the future and have had stability in their governments. we havent seen quite the same brutal dictatorships & genocides that were seen west in africa or communist uprisings seen east in southeast asia.

i know 15 mil & 500k is a lot but looking at the population of the region those numbers can be a bit misleading. imagine if there had been a rwanda like genocide? the numbers would have been much worse.

personally i think you can argue it both ways and be right, and i would never suggest we ever try to implement this. but this really is the only historical example we have to base this topic on.

(09-02-2013 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  thats why theres the whole, it worked....it didnt work argument. on one hand all that happened and india/pakistan hate each other. on the other hand today both countries are considered to be major powers of the future and have had stability in their governments.

I still don't get the "it worked" idea, you're throwing in there John. Both Tom and I pointed out how it hasn't worked whatsoever in the area. (sure you could argue that you've got stable govts for the majority of each of their countries, but in terms of overall stability? Not even close

(09-02-2013 12:14 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 11:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  thats why theres the whole, it worked....it didnt work argument. on one hand all that happened and india/pakistan hate each other. on the other hand today both countries are considered to be major powers of the future and have had stability in their governments.

I still don't get the "it worked" idea, you're throwing in there John. Both Tom and I pointed out how it hasn't worked whatsoever in the area. (sure you could argue that you've got stable govts for the majority of each of their countries, but in terms of overall stability? Not even close

read my entire post. i touched on these topics a little bit but let me elaborate.

the situation there is a lot better than what could have happened. imagine an african like genocide or a middle eastern like govt overthrow, and/or political instability. with the population of these two countries you are talking about a death toll that could be more than all the african genocides combined.

the amounts of religious tension we have seen in other parts of the world resulting from similar situations is unreal. india is as diverse as they come with 3 major religions and an ancient caste system. the amount of diversity & the population size makes this a perfect storm. with the 500k death total we saw in 1947.....imagine how much it would be with religious & political feuds

yes those two countries have gone to war, but when they did they were careful not to escalate it or attack each other's core resources. they both realized war was a lose-lose between each other.

sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. and while it might not have been the right decision. looking at the options they had at the time and the issues we have seen in africa & southeast asia, i dont think its a bold situation that today the region is a lot more stable than it could have been because of that.

If we launch a weak missile attack on an aspirin factory, Obama (and the U.S.) will have been embarrassed, but we will have at least saved some face.

If we do nothing, the U.S. will have lost all credibility around the world. No one will believe a word we say. We will be a joke. This planet can become a scary place real fast if the U.S. isn't respected.

(09-02-2013 08:31 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If we launch a weak missile attack on an aspirin factory, Obama (and the U.S.) will have been embarrassed, but we will have at least saved some face.

If we do nothing, the U.S. will have lost all credibility around the world. No one will believe a word we say. We will be a joke. This planet can become a scary place real fast if the U.S. isn't respected.

We have no face left to save.