If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Syria, concerning their civil war: "America, you're on the wrong side in our little get-together with the rebels. You're siding with the extremists"   (nytimes.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, civil wars, information minister, military campaigns, secular state, Damascus, extremists, Israeli government  
•       •       •

1333 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2013 at 11:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 08:43:48 AM
Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?
 
2013-04-25 08:47:29 AM
"You chose the wrong friends again, Dr. Jones. This time, it will cost you."
 
2013-04-25 08:48:30 AM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


Are you suggesting we get involved in Syria's civil war?
 
2013-04-25 08:59:35 AM

Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

Are you suggesting we get involved in Syria's civil war?


I'm just asking a question and not a Glenn Beck "I'm just asking questions here" type of question. The intent was to provoke thought or a discussion on the topic at hand.
 
2013-04-25 09:13:01 AM

Cythraul: Are you suggesting we get more involved in Syria's civil war?


Fixed
 
2013-04-25 09:45:54 AM

The Muthaship: Cythraul: Are you suggesting we get more involved in Syria's civil war?

Fixed


And how involved are we at the moment?
 
2013-04-25 09:47:50 AM

Cythraul: And how involved are we at the moment?


Providing assistance to the rebels at the very least.  Weapons and supplies.  It's not our business.  We should stay out of it.  But since the MB are our new buddies, we are aiding them.
 
2013-04-25 09:58:49 AM
Supplies not weapons currently, I believe.
 
2013-04-25 10:04:38 AM
 
2013-04-25 11:11:34 AM

sentex: Supplies not weapons currently, I believe.


That's always how it starts.
 
2013-04-25 11:14:17 AM
All y'all are extremists, and I want nothing to do with either side of this mess in Syria.
 
2013-04-25 11:22:37 AM
abidnyc.files.wordpress.com
Yeah, but that's kind of our thing.
 
2013-04-25 11:27:50 AM

YodaBlues: [abidnyc.files.wordpress.com image 480x319]
Yeah, but that's kind of our thing.


Brown people with funny clothes. I bet they have funny names too
 
2013-04-25 11:32:07 AM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


When getting involved would cost more lives, yes.
 
2013-04-25 11:33:04 AM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


It's not our responsibility to intervene in the civil wars of other nations.
 
2013-04-25 11:33:28 AM
I am conviced there isn't a good side at all. Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. The old governments suck and whoever comes to power will suck just as bad if not worse. Solution: Stephen King's The Dome. Your welcome
 
2013-04-25 11:36:38 AM
It's kinda fun to watch the 'RT' (English-language Kremlin propaganda station) spin on it.

As far as I can tell, we're (very mildy) anti-Assad because Putin is pro-Assad.  And Putin is (slightly more directly) pro-Assad because we're anti-Assad.   Could have swapped partners and the proxy grudge would still be there.
 
2013-04-25 11:37:01 AM

Voiceofreason01: Cythraul: Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

Are you suggesting we get involved in Syria's civil war?

I'm just asking a question and not a Glenn Beck "I'm just asking questions here" type of question. The intent was to provoke thought or a discussion on the topic at hand.


No, the intent was to shame opposition to joining the war into silence with "b-b-but civilians!!!!"

Hands off of Syria. It isn't any of your damn business.
 
2013-04-25 11:38:32 AM

Aarontology: It's not our responsibility to intervene in the civil wars of other nations.


My mother was saying how bad it was what Syria was doing to their citizens, and that something ought to be done.  I asked her what she thought the American military would do if a group of its citizens started an open revolt?  Then I asked her what she would think if another country intervened militarily on behalf of the insurgents (or whatever you want to call them).
 
2013-04-25 11:42:40 AM

The Muthaship: Aarontology: It's not our responsibility to intervene in the civil wars of other nations.

My mother was saying how bad it was what Syria was doing to their citizens, and that something ought to be done.  I asked her what she thought the American military would do if a group of its citizens started an open revolt?  Then I asked her what she would think if another country intervened militarily on behalf of the insurgents (or whatever you want to call them).


The American revolution against the British?
 
2013-04-25 11:44:13 AM
Secular dictatorship or religious dictatorship? Your choice.
 
2013-04-25 11:54:58 AM
Anyone else catch the guy at the 4 Seasons, drinking wine and smoking a fine stogie?

"I don't always drink wine but when I do..."

/stay thirsty, my Farkers
 
2013-04-25 12:03:57 PM

clambam: Secular dictatorship or religious dictatorship? Your choice.


you must choose one.

strong-arm dictator or another domino falling on the way to the caliphate.
 
2013-04-25 12:04:52 PM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


Considering both sides are endangering civilians -Asad through aerial bombing, the Rebs through car bombs, and both through artillery barrages- I say "a pox on both your houses" and leave it at that. Of course, we'd have been smarter never to encourage the rebels in the first place; everyone working in the foreign service or media who was saying "Asad would be gone in three months so we should help the rebels now" and "the rebels are all tech-savvy free-market liberals" ought to be kicked out the door.

I said it when this started  in 2011 and I'll say it again; Asad ain't going nowhere. The Alawites know what'll happen to them if he falls, the elites and middle class in the central towns support him as a force for stability and relative moderation, his international backers have no reason to cut him loose, and with every passing day the rebels look more and more like religious radicals and western puppets. They should have cut a deal with him when he offered reconciliation two years ago.
 
2013-04-25 12:05:18 PM
The US has been making the absolute worst possible political decisions in the Middle East since at least the end of WWII. Keep the streak going, fellows.

But they hate us for our freedoms, not because we always pull the strings on the wrong puppet.
 
2013-04-25 12:16:08 PM

Bravo Two: The American revolution against the British?


Just like that.  Sort of.  A little anyway.
 
2013-04-25 12:36:15 PM

The Muthaship: Bravo Two: The American revolution against the British?

Just like that.  Sort of.  A little anyway.


French intervention on the side of the rebels during the Revolution led directly to war between Britain and France.
 
2013-04-25 12:36:34 PM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


I'm okay with this.
 
2013-04-25 12:38:54 PM

qorkfiend: French intervention on the side of the rebels during the Revolution led directly to war between Britain and France.


Yes, but the whole land mass was in a little more dispute politically, then.
 
2013-04-25 12:39:04 PM
We'll be hated for not getting involved and standing idly by as thousands are slaughtered, and we'll be hated for trying to intervene and stop the killing and meddling in another states affairs.

Either way, whatever majority takes hold in Syria, they'll hate the West. You can bet on it. We're looking at a failed state no matter what happens now, and it looks like there are already Sunni and Alawite extremists on both sides looking to capitalize on the hatred.  Either way, there will probably be at least couple Syrian bombers looking for entry to soft western targets because the only thing that brings the Middle East together is the common scapegoating of the West.

Whoever wins, we lose. That's the way it goes.
 
2013-04-25 12:44:39 PM

The Muthaship: qorkfiend: French intervention on the side of the rebels during the Revolution led directly to war between Britain and France.

Yes, but the whole land mass was in a little more dispute politically, then.


Well, sure, but there wasn't a declared war until the French signed the Treaty of Alliance. You could say that the French intervention led to an actual declaration of war between Britain and France instead of the normal territorial squabbling, I guess.
 
2013-04-25 12:57:42 PM
Chaos in the Middle East is in America's interest. If they are busy killing each other, they don't have time to kill us, or Israel. Except the big oil exporters, we do want them stable and we don't care under what system.
 
2013-04-25 01:13:13 PM
the only reason america can't understand this war is that syira is so messed up that al qaeda are actually the good guys.

why isn't the right wing inspired by these small government activists?
 
2013-04-25 01:19:25 PM
The chemical weapon story just hit the NY Times front page: http://www.nytimes.com//

If it's true, the US may make missile strikes or even send in commandos.
 
2013-04-25 01:20:47 PM
To quote Henry Kissinger:  "It's a pity they can't both lose."

/originally said about the Iran-Iraq war
//applies here too
///the more time they spend trying to kill each other, the less time they spend trying to kill us
////Assad should have thought about this before he let AQ use Syria as a transit base into Iraq
//slashies for realpolitik
 
2013-04-25 01:21:26 PM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


Can we support the civilians and just take out both sides of this childish conflict?
 
2013-04-25 01:25:33 PM

Wooly Bully: The chemical weapon story just hit the NY Times front page: http://www.nytimes.com//

If it's true, the US may make missile strikes or even send in commandos.


I'm down with that. No one should use chemical or biological weapons. Inhumane.
 
2013-04-25 01:28:10 PM

Lawnchair: It's kinda fun to watch the 'RT' (English-language Kremlin propaganda station) spin on it.

As far as I can tell, we're (very mildy) anti-Assad because Putin is pro-Assad.  And Putin is (slightly more directly) pro-Assad because we're anti-Assad.   Could have swapped partners and the proxy grudge would still be there.


Or Russia's support of Assad could be attributed to Syria housing Russia's last remaining warm water naval port. There's that. And the 20,000 Russians living in Syria. Yea. No. It's totes a "stop liking what I don't like!"
 
2013-04-25 01:40:19 PM
Syria's government has caused the US too many problems over the years to get our assistance.  This is long term payback for things that stretch back into the 1950s.  From 1956 on Syria was a US opponent.  The current government has direct continuity to those years, and we have a damn long memory.  Other than not joining with Iraq in Gulf War I, they've not been aligned with US goals for the region.  Being first a Soviet, and then later Russian aligned country, doesn't help you much with the US.  Pile on top the continuing issues with Israel, which for better or worse is the major US ally in the region, you get the US tacitly supporting the protestors and rebels.  They should be happy we aren't nation building in their country.
 
2013-04-25 02:26:03 PM
The Syrian govt., who have been sponsors of anti-American terror, in a civil war with terrorists.

How's it feel, biatches??
 
2013-04-25 02:30:13 PM

Voiceofreason01: Both sides are bad but is it OK to stand by and watch while they kill each other and more importantly while they kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians?


As long as our goals are accomplished, sure - we've done it so many times before. We want Assad out, so we can further Israel's agenda. Doesn't matter that Assad is the lesser of two evils here, globally speaking, or that we're actually siding with extremists - our government only cares about that sort of thing when it doesn't work with the pretext we're pitching.
 
2013-04-25 02:53:31 PM

The Muthaship: Cythraul: And how involved are we at the moment?

Providing assistance to the rebels at the very least.  Weapons and supplies.  It's not our business.  We should stay out of it.  But since the MB are our new buddies, we are aiding them.


You mean the democratically elected government of Egypt, an ally to which we have spent billions in direct military aid and who has given us no clear reason to discontinue apart from ZOMG IT'S THE MB! LOOK AT THEIR PAST! SOME OF THEM HAVE MADE CRAZY STATMENTS!! OOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
 
2013-04-25 04:12:09 PM
I love that they trotted out the prisoners for the media and actually expect people to believe a word they say after months of "interrogation" by government forces. Do these guys only watch old, bad war movies or something?
 
2013-04-25 05:28:48 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: You mean the democratically elected government of Egypt, an ally to which we have spent billions in direct military aid and who has given us no clear reason to discontinue apart from ZOMG IT'S THE MB! LOOK AT THEIR PAST! SOME OF THEM HAVE MADE CRAZY STATMENTS!! OOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!


Well, you certainly live up to your middle name...
 
2013-04-25 05:55:57 PM
Which 'will almost certainly bite us in the arse later' side to support... Hrm...

Or if you want to go with the conspiracy theory. We didn't seem keen on helping the people of Iran who have a government hostile to Israel. We bent over backwards to make sure we helped the people of Egypt, so we could get a new government hostile toward Israel. The jury is out on Libya but again, likely to shift toward a more hostile government toward Israel. Syria was already hostile towards Israel, so there was no real need to help the rebels.... Well, looks like even if the rebels win they will still be hostile toward Israel so maybe we could help them after all.
 
2013-04-25 05:56:03 PM

MadHatter500: Syria's government has caused the US too many problems over the years to get our assistance.  This is long term payback for things that stretch back into the 1950s.  From 1956 on Syria was a US opponent.  The current government has direct continuity to those years, and we have a damn long memory.  Other than not joining with Iraq in Gulf War I, they've not been aligned with US goals for the region.  Being first a Soviet, and then later Russian aligned country, doesn't help you much with the US.  Pile on top the continuing issues with Israel, which for better or worse is the major US ally in the region, you get the US tacitly supporting the protestors and rebels.  They should be happy we aren't nation building in their country.


It's a bit more mixed than that. The CIA worked with the Syrians on terrorism issues every now and then throughout the 70s and 80s. The fundamental thing to remember here is that the line we've been fed media-wise on Iran and Syria for the ~last 4 decades has been hogwash. Iran is a rational actor, they've been more than willing to work with the US when our goals have coincided, while Syria is allied to Iran they are not their client nor does Iran set Syria policy ,and Syria has been just as pragmatic in choosing to openly oppose and silently support US aims in the region. For the most part, people within the US foreign service and US administrations have understood this and were willing to deal with Iran and Syria equitably when the need arose, despite the official rhetoric directed at them and vice versa. That is, until Shrub's presidency brought in a whole slew of ignorant conservative diploma mill graduates who genuinely believed the ideological manure they'd grown up with.
 
2013-04-25 06:07:51 PM

randomjsa: Which 'will almost certainly bite us in the arse later' side to support... Hrm...

Or if you want to go with the conspiracy theory. We didn't seem keen on helping the people of Iran who have a government hostile to Israel. We bent over backwards to make sure we helped the people of Egypt, so we could get a new government hostile toward Israel. The jury is out on Libya but again, likely to shift toward a more hostile government toward Israel. Syria was already hostile towards Israel, so there was no real need to help the rebels.... Well, looks like even if the rebels win they will still be hostile toward Israel so maybe we could help them after all.


If we were Israel, this might be a valid issue for discussion. It wouldn't, because it's a rather facile analysis, but it at least would have the potential to be so.  We do plenty to prop up Israel as it is; making sure an ally can wipe the floor with any conventional foe in the region is more than enough. Holding the US responsible for whether Israel's neighbors and near-neighbors "like it" or not is absurd.
 
2013-04-25 07:29:58 PM
the moderates are rapidly getting shoved aside by the extremists. that's what always happens when things drag along (think your mother's third marriage)

that minaret getting blown up in aleppo the other day should make every syrian ashamed.

but I was an alawite? um. head to the mountains and sue to join lebanon? (who probably wouldn't even have them considering how much mucky muck syria has done in there over the years).

I still believe this is part of the continued disintegration of the phony baloney countries made up at the end of ww1

thanks, george?
 
2013-04-25 07:53:29 PM

The Muthaship: PC LOAD LETTER: You mean the democratically elected government of Egypt, an ally to which we have spent billions in direct military aid and who has given us no clear reason to discontinue apart from ZOMG IT'S THE MB! LOOK AT THEIR PAST! SOME OF THEM HAVE MADE CRAZY STATMENTS!! OOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

I got nothing...


I know.
 
2013-04-25 08:09:29 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: I know.


If you are going to discard their own deeds and actions, how can anyone oppose your vast personal knowledge of their true motivations, Load?
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report