At 5/14/13 09:31 PM, Ranger2 wrote:
What he says, given our history, is very believable.
Not for me. Yes, we've had some bad instances before, and we do tend to stink at nation building. Plus you already showed earlier you don't entirely know "our history" when it comes to the Middle East. Without our intelligence services, or a credible friendly intelligence service saying "the rebels are little better" I'm sticking with the dictator under siege is lying to save himself.
I'm talking about those in power, not the average everyday civilians.
Uh...which ones? Because we put most of those fuckers there.
So we should blindly support the rebels without doing our homework?
Not at all. We should absolutely do our homework. You seem to want us to switch support to Assad solely because you've heard some stuff about them hating Israel and planning to attack. Stuff that I could not find any kind of source for.
Your ad hominem implications are completely wrong.
I'm not ad homineming you. I don't believe I personally insulted you, if you feel I did, let me apologize and clarify if you'd be so kind. I honestly think you do have a pro-Israel bias. I base that on the entirety of what I personally have seen from your posts on any topic involving Israel and Muslims. You always come down very hard on the Israeli side, even to the point of ignoring or trying to defend actions where Israel is clearly wrong, and you have nothing really positive to say about the Arab world. That is what led me to my conclusion. It wasn't an attempt to ad hominem you, it was an attempt by me to be honest about what I felt was an ulterior, and improper motive for jumping to the conclusions you seem to be jumping to. That's all.
That's what I'm also arguing: hands off supplying the rebels. Do you think that it's only the al-Assad government that is radical?
I don't know that the rebels are radical. I'll need to do more research. I know al-Assad's government is tyrannical and harmful to it's people and supporting it now, especially if it falls, is going to be creating headaches for the future. The problem here though and why I feel you're moving the goal posts is your opening name for the topic, and the thesis you then present isn't simply "should we stop supplying this conflict?" it's "should we stop supporting the rebels, then switch to supplying al-Assad because I hear the rebels are in league with terrorists and want to kill my people in Israel?". You now are moving away from what you posited originally.
Yeah, let's topple that stronghold regime in Syria, too! Nothing bad can come from that!
Did I give the impression I'm for regime toppling? Because dear me I thought I was positing the opposite. I've said over and over since the "Arab Spring" started that the US should do two things:
1. Support democratic, human rights respecting governments to rise from these revolutions
2. That the US is ready and willing to sit down with these new governments and offer them help, support, and friendship provided they show us that they can meet the basic standards of human decency and stability within their own borders and outside.
That's it. No giving guns, no providing training, no getting involved in a direct or even indirect way. Let them figure it out, and see if we can make some new friends once the dust settles. We tried it the other way, it doesn't work, so let's abandon that.
To you, but my primary concern are the NATO countries.
Even that is wrong headed to me. It smacks of the kind of policy that has put us into situations where terror groups use us as a way to recruit, and makes us a favored target. It's well past time we stopped saying "what's good for us?" and said "what's good for us, and how do we get that while also doing what's good for the country in question?"
It's common sense. The Middle East is a breeding ground of radicalism, and like many, many, many revolutions, the moderates get left out.
So's america. Prior to 9/11 the worst attack in American history was Oklahoma City perpetrated by American born terrorists. Oh and there's David Koresh, and the fact that we're hearing more and more about "self-radicalized" individuals like the Boston Bomber. You're behind the curve with your "common sense".
Hmm, I don't see any of the Arab nations being on good terms with Israel...
Because Israel is blameless and has shown such a willingness to be friends with it's Arab neighbors right?
Ah, so then it's a good thing we invaded Iraq, right? Saddam was killing the Kurds and oppressing the Shi'a majority, and we put a stop to that! Would you agree with that? I thought you were generally a fan of "not getting involved in their business," which not only means not attacking them, but not stopping them from doing atrocities to their own people.
I am a fan of that. My point wasn't to argue for interventionism. It was to try and get you to realize your thesis sounds very, very upsetting when read by an audience. It really sounds like you could care less about what al-Assad does, so long as he doesn't do it to anyone you care about. I can call a guy scum I feel and wish for his downfall while still saying that doesn't mean I want an outside party (us) to do the ousting. Do you disagree? Not sarcasm, I'd really like to know.
No, I don't have a fundamental mistrust of anything Islam. I have a mistrust of fundamentalist Islam. As I have a mistrust of any fundamentalist wing of any religion.
Common ground. I do as well. Thing is though, a fundamentalist is not automatically a threat, though many times they absolutely are. That's why we watch the crap out of them, but we only give them a slap if they act out.
I said stable enemy, not stable ally. Please read my entire argument-I never said we should support al-Assad, because that's not practical, but that doesn't mean I can't halfheartedly hope he wins.
Your argument isn't a call to directly support him, no. But I don't agree with your premise that I should hope someone who kills and harms their own people should win based on a "devil we know" thesis.
I don't believe that the rebels will continue to be friendly with us once they win. That's my belief.
Which I don't understand because it seems to be based on misunderstandings of middle east history and why people might not like the west. I've got no evidence so far to say they'll get power then come at us. They'll have bigger things to worry about.
Al-Qaeda is fighting the al-Assad regime along with the rebels. Sure, it doesn't represent the FSA but that doesn't mean it can't in the future.
Very true, bears watching. But right now it could be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". These guys are going to take help wherever they can. Bears watching, but I'm not yet completely convinced this is a marriage of ideology so much as a marriage of resources to accomplish the same goal.
Battle cry? I'm advocating simply sitting back and doing nothing. You're the one who has the battle cry of arming the rebels.
I'm not actually. I'm also saying sit back, don't do shit. Let the dust settle, deal with who wins up winning. But I won't be shedding any tears if another strong man tyrant gets deposed.