Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

I know it's slightly old news, but about a month ago, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad warned the the US and Europe that should the Syrian rebels be armed and succeed in their conflict, they would turn against the West.

At first one may dismiss it as anti-rebel propaganda. It's Al-Assad, after all. He's a bad person. You can't trust him.

But still, he has a point: the West (not just the US, a popular scapegoat) has intervened in the Middle East often and the people we help end up turning on us.

The West (again, not just the US) has supported rebel causes in the past, and many have come back to bite us.
Afghanistan: First the muhajideen were supported in their fight against the Soviets. Those same people turned around and attacked the US on 9/11 and the UK on 7/7.

Egypt: Aided the rebels (mostly through rhetoric) and now we have a Muslim Brotherhood-run state that is breaking its peace pact with Israel and will likely cause more instability in Gaza.

Libya: Aided the rebels in taking out Gaddafi: US, French embassies attacked, British diplomat assaulted in Benghazi. Libya has the potential to rise above this (there were large anti-terrorist protests after the 9/11/12 attacks) but radicalism is a problem.

Now there are reports that al-Qaeda is mixed in with the Syrian rebels. And why wouldn't they be? Besides knocking out an Alwite-ruled secular state, they'd be in a better position to launch attacks on the West, probably starting in Turkey, which I remind you is part of NATO.

Now I'm aware that al-Assad is no knight in shining armor. He's a brutal thug who has killed many of his own people. I sure wouldn't invite him over for dinner. But all that aside, here are his positive credentials:

-He's kept the peace somewhat in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. True, he is arming Hezbollah, but he's avoided full-out war with Israel. Would an Islamist takeover be any less violent towards Israel?

-As bad as he is, he's no Al-Qaeda. Yes, he's aided attacks against israel, but we know that should the rebels take over they'd continue that. Maybe with a different group, but the Arab world is unified in their hatred of Israel. Al-Assad has not launched attacks against the West. He's a rat, but he stays in his nest for the most part.

Power abhors a vacuum. If Al-Assad is toppled, we will see Islamists take over, just as they did in Iraq and Egypt. Strongman dictators are bad, but they at least kept/keep true radicals like Al-Qaeda out of power. We've learned that it's easier to deal with a stable, centralized enemy than an unstable "ally." Taking out a dictator like Al-Assad would be a piece of cake. After all, the US, UK, Australia, and Poland removed Saddam in a few months.

But dealing with a new, resurgent Al-Qaeda-esque regime in Syria would be far more destabilizing and costly.

Of course, I have to be realistic: with all the bad press Al-Assad has been justly receiving, no country can simply decide to switch sides and offer support to Al-Assad. And since we know from experience that decentralized radicals groups are incredibly difficult to destroy, it's only a matter of time until Al-Assad is toppled from power.

If we're going to face an Islamist Syria, I'd rather we not arm them first.

---

Our gameplan in the Middle East throughout the 20th century was to do exactly what you're suggesting, propping up authoritarian strongmen who would be receptive to Western interests in return. But in my opinion that's only proven to be a self-defeating strategy, a method of curbing terrorism that only creates more terrorists.

The explicitly stated rationale of pretty much every terrorist group has been resentment of Western influence in the Arab world. Our support of dictators sowed further resentment and helped these groups to find new recruits and radicalize them. It's worth noting that the earliest Islamist terrorist attacks were not on Western targets, but on the local authoritarian governments. The whole ideology of groups like al-Qaeda is built around the notion that the West, the "far enemy," exerts its evil influence through its local puppet governments, the "near enemy."

So as these regimes have started to fall in favor of autonomous (if deeply flawed) democratic governments, the whole jihadist rhetoric has totally unraveled and been discredited. There's always going to be tension between the West and the Arab world as long as there's still an Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and believe me, that shit's never ending), but without a "near enemy" in the long term I think Arab perception of the West only stands to improve as long as we keep our noses out of their business.

And yes, that will even be the case if the new government is Islamist. I'm certainly no fan of Islamism, but it's not accurate to conflate it with al-Qaeda or similar militant jihadist groups or even to necessarily associate it with violence, especially not the kind of Islamism that's been popping up in post-Arab Spring countries. Only a tiny minority of Muslims in Arab countries had ever advocated violent jihad, and according to several public opinion polls even that number has plummeted in the years since 9/11. Nobody in the Arab world is buying what groups like al-Qaeda are selling, it was a reaction to the 20th century state of the Middle East and it isn't relevant anymore.

Instead, the new Islamists are using the democratic political system to achieve their goals. Compared to the militant Islamists of the past who violently opposed working within the system and instead chose to express their political desires through mass murder, I think this is vastly preferable and much easier to deal with. Even if we don't condone it, we shouldn't discourage it.

As for your fears of al-Qaeda co-opting a rebel movement or filling a power vacuum, I think they're largely unfounded. They just don't have the manpower, the resources, and most importantly, the influence and popular support to do shit like that anymore. Most "al-Qaeda" terrorists today are self-radicalized lone wolves with no real connection to the organization. Hell, some of the documents recovered from bin Laden's compound suggest that he was seriously considering changing the organization's name; I guess the al-Qaeda brand just doesn't have the potency it once did.

And then of course there are also ethical considerations. These are sovereign nation-states, don't they have a right to self-determination? If they want an Islamist government I don't see how that's our problem as long as they aren't threatening us or our allies. And to their credit, things are obviously tense as always, and there have been a few incidents, but to the best of my knowledge the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel remains intact; I'm not sure where you got the impression that it's been broken.

We really don't need to be fucking around with the governments of countries halfway around the world. It didn't do us any good during the Cold War and it's not doing us any good now.

---

I think this is one situation the Obama Administration should closely monitor, but not mess with. It seems like right from the start the winner will be largely opposed to the United States, whether we help the rebels or not once there a full-fledged government they'll slowly grow there hatred for the U.S like every other Arab government out there. I cannot say whether a dictator or rebel group is better in charge, but I know either way it'll turn into a brutal government one way or another.

We all know an international intervention will most likely have the same effect the Iraq War did. Once you remove a dictator this harsh, there's bound to be a rise in insurgency. The only difference is this war already has a coalition against him but I really don't see how foreign intervention is going to help the outcome of the war. After all, it's a CIVIL war and we should keep it that way.

---

At 5/4/13 02:57 AM, Ranger2 wrote: Egypt: ...now we have a Muslim Brotherhood-run state that is breaking its peace pact with Israel

How so? This is the first I've heard of any treaty violations on the part of the current Egyptian government.

---

You make some very valid points.

At 5/4/13 05:14 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Our gameplan in the Middle East throughout the 20th century was to do exactly what you're suggesting, propping up authoritarian strongmen who would be receptive to Western interests in return. But in my opinion that's only proven to be a self-defeating strategy, a method of curbing terrorism that only creates more terrorists.

If that's so, how do you suggest we make friends with the rebels? We've tried arming them and aiding them but that has not worked out so far. From my point of view, supporting authoritarian strongmen is delaying the inevitable, but it's better than nothing. Plus the delays can take very long times.

The explicitly stated rationale of pretty much every terrorist group has been resentment of Western influence in the Arab world. Our support of dictators sowed further resentment and helped these groups to find new recruits and radicalize them. It's worth noting that the earliest Islamist terrorist attacks were not on Western targets, but on the local authoritarian governments. The whole ideology of groups like al-Qaeda is built around the notion that the West, the "far enemy," exerts its evil influence through its local puppet governments, the "near enemy."

Yet these groups attack the "far enemy." If we take out their "near enemy" that'll leave us as the next targets.

So as these regimes have started to fall in favor of autonomous (if deeply flawed) democratic governments, the whole jihadist rhetoric has totally unraveled and been discredited. There's always going to be tension between the West and the Arab world as long as there's still an Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and believe me, that shit's never ending), but without a "near enemy" in the long term I think Arab perception of the West only stands to improve as long as we keep our noses out of their business.

You make a good point, but like I said before, we need the "near enemy" to keep those groups busy. If we wash our hands of the entire conflict, the rebels will likely win and Al-Qaeda will Islamize the area. Al-Qaeda has forces on the ground, and they are very persuasive in that region, more so than we are.

And yes, that will even be the case if the new government is Islamist. I'm certainly no fan of Islamism, but it's not accurate to conflate it with al-Qaeda or similar militant jihadist groups or even to necessarily associate it with violence, especially not the kind of Islamism that's been popping up in post-Arab Spring countries. Only a tiny minority of Muslims in Arab countries had ever advocated violent jihad, and according to several public opinion polls even that number has plummeted in the years since 9/11. Nobody in the Arab world is buying what groups like al-Qaeda are selling, it was a reaction to the 20th century state of the Middle East and it isn't relevant anymore.

Al-Qaeda is selling like never before! Iraq gave them new life, and they're spreading in North Africa and are allied with the rebels. Don't forget that they are spreading in Pakistan and much of the Pakistani government is infested with them. Granted, the War on Terror has diminished their numbers but mostly in areas that were once their strongholds. They're popping up in brand new places. Don't forget, after the Libyan and Egyptian rebels won their wars, Western embassies were attacked, and in Egypt, Coptic Christians were subject to violent progroms, which did not happen in Mubarak's regime.

Instead, the new Islamists are using the democratic political system to achieve their goals. Compared to the militant Islamists of the past who violently opposed working within the system and instead chose to express their political desires through mass murder, I think this is vastly preferable and much easier to deal with. Even if we don't condone it, we shouldn't discourage it.

But these are the same groups who fought violently to put this "democratic" system in place. They claim to be democratic to gain the world's approval. Look at Hamas-they came to power through elections, but also through a bloody conflict with Fatah that plunged Gaza into a civil war. Also note that the Muslim Brotherhood, the main power player in Egypt, is the parent organization of Hamas.

As for your fears of al-Qaeda co-opting a rebel movement...; I guess the al-Qaeda brand just doesn't have the potency it once did.

Well, they're not as powerful as they were in 2001, that's for sure. But Al-Qaeda is one of many Islamist groups. Look at it this way: how many Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood countries existed 12 years ago compared to today? Even if they're not Al-Qaeda, Islamists can still be a problem. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing for example-I'm not saying he's tied to the Syrian Civil War, but it shows that al-Qaeda is one of many radical Islamists.

And then of course there are also ethical considerations. These are sovereign nation-states, don't they have a right to self-determination?...

Yes, although it goes beyond the state level. The current map of the Middle East is a European creation: the rebels in Syria certainly don't have the backing of the Alawites or Christians. It's very complicated, and nobody here has the perfect solution.

We really don't need to be fucking around with the governments of countries halfway around the world. It didn't do us any good during the Cold War and it's not doing us any good now.

It did some good-Mubarak's Egypt made peace with Israel and was a pro-Western voice in OPEC and in the War on Terror. Supporting these strongmen authoritarian leaders delayed the worst-a radical Islamist takeover, and while it was great while they lasted, they were merely a delay when we had no other choice. I think the only thing that could make us best buddies with the Middle East would be to nuke Israel and have a nationwide conversion to Islam-neither of which are going to happen.

---

I say we hedge out bets, and work with both sides to ensure the war continues for as long as possible and as many people die as possible in order to weaken the nation to the point where they're no threat to anyone for a long, long time.

---

At 5/4/13 08:31 PM, Korriken wrote: I say we hedge out bets, and work with both sides to ensure the war continues for as long as possible and as many people die as possible in order to weaken the nation to the point where they're no threat to anyone for a long, long time.

America is losing so it's America burning though tax payer funding and getting weaker.

---

At 5/4/13 06:20 PM, Ranger2 wrote: If that's so, how do you suggest we make friends with the rebels? We've tried arming them and aiding them but that has not worked out so far.

We do nothing. This is a civil war, it's not about us and implanting ourselves into the situation would be a catastrophic mistake of Iraq proportions. We make friends with the rebels by letting them make their own sociopolitical decisions and not lending credence to militant Islamist claims that the West is exerting undue influence on Muslim countries.

From my point of view, supporting authoritarian strongmen is delaying the inevitable, but it's better than nothing. Plus the delays can take very long times.

History tells us otherwise. The entire Islamist movement would never have even gained traction in the first place without these regimes. Sure, it was the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan that catalyzed the creation of al-Qaeda, but al-Qaeda was not the first militant Islamist group. There had been Islamist terrorist actions in several Arab countries throughout the '60s and the '70s, all against what these groups viewed as apostate Western puppet regimes.

I believe that the global jihadist movement came about as a direct result of people feeling frustrated by their political marginalization and resentful of the Western influences on their governments that perpetuated it. The toppling of authoritarian regimes and the establishment of participatory parliamentary systems, even Islamist-controlled ones, resolves both of those concerns and would render militant jihadist ideology irrelevant.

Yet these groups attack the "far enemy." If we take out their "near enemy" that'll leave us as the next targets

They haven't done so successfully in a long time. Most of the prominent attacks on Western targets since 9/11, including the 7/7 bombings in London, were perpetrated by homegrown or homebrewed Western citizens and residents, not foreign plans hatched by central al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

But whatever, the point I was trying to make is that without a "near enemy," average Muslim citizens will have no firsthand basis for real or perceived Western oppression, and al-Qaeda and similar groups will lose the hearts and minds they desperately need to function. People won't care about the "far enemy."

So as these regimes have started to fall in favor of autonomous (if deeply flawed) democratic governments, the whole jihadist rhetoric has totally unraveled and been discredited. There's always going to be tension between the West and the Arab world as long as there's still an Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and believe me, that shit's never ending), but without a "near enemy" in the long term I think Arab perception of the West only stands to improve as long as we keep our noses out of their business.

If we wash our hands of the entire conflict, the rebels will likely win and Al-Qaeda will Islamize the area. Al-Qaeda has forces on the ground, and they are very persuasive in that region, more so than we are.

Al-Qaeda really isn't all that persuasive or far-reaching anymore. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that al-Qaeda is capable of co-opting the rebel movement or "Islamizing" the country like that. Even at the group's height they only managed something like that once, in Afghanistan, and those were vastly different circumstances where the group was a supporting player more than anything. When they tried to capitalize on the power vacuum in Iraq they started off strong but ended up massively losing public support and failing when they couldn't control their affiliates and stop them from indiscriminately killing other Muslims.

And their organizational cohesiveness and ability to effectively communicate and enforce orders hasn't exactly improved since then, considering a central al-Qaeda lieutenant can't so much as pick up a cell phone these days without immediately finding himself on the receiving end of a drone strike.

Al-Qaeda is selling like never before! Iraq gave them new life

True, but that was almost a decade ago. Like I mentioned before, the group squandered all the support it gained from Iraq when Zarqawi and his thugs started slaughtering local Shiite communities.

Don't forget, after the Libyan and Egyptian rebels won their wars, Western embassies were attacked, and in Egypt, Coptic Christians were subject to violent progroms, which did not happen in Mubarak's regime.

But are those organized, politically motivated acts of terrorism or simple mob violence and the release of long-standing tensions in the wake of short-term political instability?

But these are the same groups who fought violently to put this "democratic" system in place. They claim to be democratic to gain the world's approval.

That wasn't the case in Tunisia and Egypt, whose revolutions were non-violent, and it still remains to be seen what will happen in Libya and Syria. All this stuff is still very recent, you can't exactly expect stable, perfectly legitimate democracies right off the bat. I mean, Eastern Europe had its similar moment two decades ago and they're still struggling to make it work.

Look at Hamas-they came to power through elections, but also through a bloody conflict with Fatah that plunged Gaza into a civil war.

That was before the Arab Spring, totally different political climate and circumstances. This wasn't a popular uprising, just the same old warring factions.

Yes, although it goes beyond the state level. The current map of the Middle East is a European creation: the rebels in Syria certainly don't have the backing of the Alawites or Christians. It's very complicated, and nobody here has the perfect solution.

You're right, but isn't that all the more reason to stay out of it and let them figure it out for themselves?

I think the only thing that could make us best buddies with the Middle East would be to nuke Israel and have a nationwide conversion to Islam-neither of which are going to happen.

I think an amicable two-state solution and a reduction of Western hegemony in the region would suffice. But of course the latter probably isn't happening for a long time and the former is probably never going to happen at all. I think the most we can hope for right now is a Middle East that still doesn't particularly like us but expresses that dislike through diplomacy as opposed to suicide attacks.

---

Probably best idea is to leave Syria alone and to its own devices. Wathever is done about them will be a screw up.

---

Taking a look at the results of backing various mid-east revolutions and conflicts should give you your obvious answer.

However, in the case that you are indeed as retarded as Obama and most of our presidents of the past couple decades, the answer is no.

---

At this point, we should do nothing, and let the civil war in Syria continue on, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep an eye on it, especially if Israel attacks again, which will possibly create yet another shitstorm in the Middle East. There is really no need to step into a civil war, and have another international backlash from those who never even entered the fight to begin with.

Plus, it really doesn't matter who wins this fight, a dictatorship will most likely either replace Al-Assad, or Al-Assad himself would control a country that is going to be an even bigger shithole within a shithole region than it already is now. Basically, playing both ends against the middle is a dirty tactic, but is the most effective at this point.

---

The reason it went to shit when we took action in the middle east was that we had already fucked it up by giving (amongst others) the taliban money to fight the soviets, the taliban fucked shit up and we had to unfuck it up by fucking it up more.

---

Look I don't claim to be an expert on terrorism, but I feel like (and if I'm wrong tell me so) that Al Qaeda, as Dr-Worm has said isn't some far reaching monopoly on terrorism.

I mean anyone these days especially over there can get their hands on a bomb, they're not as hard to make as people think, on top of that there's more than enough chaos over there to turn a man to evil.

All it takes is some Iraqi/Pakistani/Afghan/etc. cabdriver/goat herder to be killed from a drone strike or stray bullet, hell maybe even unintentionally. Then have his kid grow up for a decade or so with hate in his heart agaisnt the US and West pick up his ak47 or strap c4 to his chest and then run out into the streets and start killing innocents.

Then this group whose hanging on by a thread somewhere in a cave or ghetto, can post online "WE DID THIS WE KILLED THE INFIDELS GLORY TO ALLAH" or some other nonsensical bullshit about how morally right it is to do so and we accept it as a sign of Al Qaeda's 'strength'.

Personally the situation sucks. There are genuine innocent people out there who are getting hurt, and probably fighters who genuinely are giving their lives to save their country from these despots and terrorists. But we can't do anything really.

If we help out and give them weapons there's a big possibility they might end up in the hands of terrorists, so really as bad as it is, we can't really do anything without causing more harm. We should just sit this one out.

---

What the West needs to do is make sure Syria does not turn into a terrorist haven. The result of the civil war will likely decide whether intervention is necessary.

Regardless, it seems that the results of each of the uprising countries have been bad for the Christian minorities, who have become increasingly persecuted in the Middle East. They say that it's possible that Christianity in the Middle East will become extinct in the near future.

At the same time, I have heard reports on the spread of radical Islam in Europe, with the existence of "no-go zones" that follow Sharia Law and are unable to be controlled by the nation they are in. Anything critical of Islam in those countries is usually rejected from public view because of fears of offending Muslims and inciting violence.

It's tough to make a call on anything involving Islamic nations and Muslim affairs.

---

At 5/7/13 12:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

However, in the case that you are indeed as retarded as Obama and most of our presidents of the past couple decades, the answer is no.

I don't agree with everything US Presidents do, but I'm not so blind to assume that an internet subscription to Al Jazeera and high school history classes equates to the knowledge that the CIA and our many diplomats have.

---

At 5/10/13 12:12 AM, Ranger2 wrote: I don't agree with everything US Presidents do, but I'm not so blind to assume that an internet subscription to Al Jazeera and high school history classes equates to the knowledge that the CIA and our many diplomats have.

Um, wat? 0_o

---

At 5/4/13 02:57 AM, Ranger2 wrote: I know it's slightly old news, but about a month ago, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad warned the the US and Europe that should the Syrian rebels be armed and succeed in their conflict, they would turn against the West.

Riiight, because I will totally trust the guy saying that his enemies are worse then he is....this is the sort of thing we developed agencies like the CIA for. So we could investigate these things. Because my knee jerk is to say someone like assad who has every reason to lie in this situation to save his own skin...will lie to save his own skin.

At first one may dismiss it as anti-rebel propaganda. It's Al-Assad, after all. He's a bad person. You can't trust him.

All good reasons to dismiss it.

But still, he has a point: the West (not just the US, a popular scapegoat) has intervened in the Middle East often and the people we help end up turning on us.

No, that is not entirely true. Much of Iraq right now has no problem with us. But the media only tends to report on the extremists actions and then people like GW Bush exaggerrate and use that to justify big flashy intervention on the "they're bad, they hate us, we get to kill them now. It's self-defense". There's more to it then simple "us vs. them"

The West (again, not just the US) has supported rebel causes in the past, and many have come back to bite us.

Yes, but that's usually because we tend to support the wrong sides of the argument, or we didn't bother to do our homework properly, or we didn't care what happened after our interests were served.

Afghanistan: First the muhajideen were supported in their fight against the Soviets. Those same people turned around and attacked the US on 9/11 and the UK on 7/7.

Uh no, they didn't, the muhajideen and the Taliban are NOT the same group, and they do not believe the same things This article might help your understanding.

Egypt: Aided the rebels (mostly through rhetoric) and now we have a Muslim Brotherhood-run state that is breaking its peace pact with Israel and will likely cause more instability in Gaza.

How? Because the Muslim Brotherhood is protesting and screaming for Israel's blood? Iran does that on a near weekly basis, however no substantial conflict has come yet. Also last I checked Egypt's President has not echoed these sentiments and in fact organized a cease fire between hamas and Israel. Your seeming bias of "muslims are the enemies of my people and therefore we can never ever trust them" is showing through again.

Libya: Aided the rebels in taking out Gaddafi: US, French embassies attacked, British diplomat assaulted in Benghazi. Libya has the potential to rise above this (there were large anti-terrorist protests after the 9/11/12 attacks) but radicalism is a problem.

Radicalism anywhere is a problem, what can you do about it though really? Trying to crush it just breeds more radicals. If it's not radicalism infecting the government, then I'm a fan of careful monitoring, but hands off unless it becomes unavoidable.

Now there are reports that al-Qaeda is mixed in with the Syrian rebels. And why wouldn't they be? Besides knocking out an Alwite-ruled secular state, they'd be in a better position to launch attacks on the West, probably starting in Turkey, which I remind you is part of NATO.

al-Qaeda is anywhere there's instability. Hell we gave them that great foothold in Iraq.

Now I'm aware that al-Assad is no knight in shining armor. He's a brutal thug who has killed many of his own people. I sure wouldn't invite him over for dinner. But all that aside, here are his positive credentials:

-He's kept the peace somewhat in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. True, he is arming Hezbollah, but he's avoided full-out war with Israel. Would an Islamist takeover be any less violent towards Israel?

And again, this comes off as "all I give a fuck about is Israel...because I'm a Jew and Jews live there". That's really fucked dude.

-As bad as he is, he's no Al-Qaeda.

Um, isn't it still the policy of this country to topple fuckers like him? Wasn't that what Libya was stated to be about...

Yes, he's aided attacks against israel, but we know that should the rebels take over they'd continue that.

How do we know that actually? Have the rebels stated as such? If they had, I highly doubt we'd be supporting them. I can not find a credible source to back your assertion. Perhaps you've got a source I'm not seeing? If so, look forward to reading it.

Maybe with a different group, but the Arab world is unified in their hatred of Israel.

That's another big bold claim that I'm not sure you can back. Though given Israel's attitude towards the Arab world historically, it's not hard to see why they wouldn't be fans and would feel like they have to get Israel before Israel gets them.

Al-Assad has not launched attacks against the West. He's a rat, but he stays in his nest for the most part.

So as long as he fucks up his own people, and not the West, it's all good? God I hope that isn't what you meant there dude...I really like to think you're a better person then that.

Power abhors a vacuum. If Al-Assad is toppled, we will see Islamists take over, just as they did in Iraq and Egypt.

Uh, we installed the government in Iraq? Egypt does have a Muslim Brotherhood backed leader, but he has not shown open and naked hostility towards Israel, quite the opposite in fact. You look like an alarmist here dude with a fundamental mistrust of anything Islam.

Strongman dictators are bad, but they at least kept/keep true radicals like Al-Qaeda out of power.

While oppressing the population and committing hideous crimes against them...crimes that we over and over say we're against and won't tolerate.

We've learned that it's easier to deal with a stable, centralized enemy than an unstable "ally."

Until you know, the population rises up, takes that guy out, and then we have to deal with a new government that's justifiably pissed we supported somebody who killed off their family. The world is changing, the Arab Spring taught us that. I don't think the old game will work anymore, then again, I don't think it ever really did too well.

Taking out a dictator like Al-Assad would be a piece of cake. After all, the US, UK, Australia, and Poland removed Saddam in a few months.

Oh sure it would, but personally I'm no fan of forcing a change in a foreign land. I'm more a fan of the idea of helping an existing populist revolution. Which is the tact we're taking so far.

But dealing with a new, resurgent Al-Qaeda-esque regime in Syria would be far more destabilizing and costly.

It would, but again, can't find a credible source to back up your alarmist claims.

Of course, I have to be realistic: with all the bad press Al-Assad has been justly receiving, no country can simply decide to switch sides and offer support to Al-Assad. And since we know from experience that decentralized radicals groups are incredibly difficult to destroy, it's only a matter of time until Al-Assad is toppled from power.

I tend to think that's the way it's going as well.

If we're going to face an Islamist Syria, I'd rather we not arm them first.

You don't know however that were going to have extreme radicals in power. This sounds like yet another pro-Israeli paranoia rant and battle cry out of you that frankly alarms me. You need to do some deeper research on these matters before spouting off like this.

---

At 5/10/13 12:54 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Um, wat? 0_o

What he's saying is that some dude on the Internet who reads the news is not in a position to call the man who has to know everything about foreign politics and has access to a huge network of experts on foreign policy an idiot.

---

At 5/10/13 09:31 PM, Warforger wrote: What he's saying is that some dude on the Internet who reads the news is not in a position to call the man who has to know everything about foreign politics and has access to a huge network of experts on foreign policy an idiot.

It's not reading the news, it's basic observable, objective history.

If these people are such "experts" why do they continue to purposefully make decisions that put us (Americans) and our soldiers in danger? oes that sound like something an "expert" in foreign policy would do?

I mean, you could make an argument that electricians are experts in electricity. But would you really trust one if he shocked or zapped himself on every single job he took on?

---

At 5/11/13 01:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It's not reading the news, it's basic observable, objective history.

Oh please you know you're biased as hell; it's impossible not to be. And yes these people do in fact know their history, ALOT more than you do.

If these people are such "experts" why do they continue to purposefully make decisions that put us (Americans) and our soldiers in danger? oes that sound like something an "expert" in foreign policy would do?

You mean like using unmanned drones to go after targets? You mean deploying more Afghan troops so that US troops can withdraw? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, you could make an argument that electricians are experts in electricity. But would you really trust one if he shocked or zapped himself on every single job he took on?

Except they quite clearly haven't. Look they're people they make mistakes, the thing is they tend to succeed alot more than they fail, and people don't care about success they only care about failure. Well you at least do.

---

At 5/10/13 09:22 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Riiight, because I will totally trust the guy saying that his enemies are worse then he is....this is the sort of thing we developed agencies like the CIA for. So we could investigate these things. Because my knee jerk is to say someone like assad who has every reason to lie in this situation to save his own skin...will lie to save his own skin.

What he says, given our history, is very believable.

No, that is not entirely true. Much of Iraq right now has no problem with us. But the media only tends to report on the extremists actions and then people like GW Bush exaggerrate and use that to justify big flashy intervention on the "they're bad, they hate us, we get to kill them now. It's self-defense". There's more to it then simple "us vs. them"

I'm talking about those in power, not the average everyday civilians.

Yes, but that's usually because we tend to support the wrong sides of the argument, or we didn't bother to do our homework properly, or we didn't care what happened after our interests were served.

So we should blindly support the rebels without doing our homework?

How? Because the Muslim Brotherhood is protesting and screaming for Israel's blood? Iran does that on a near weekly basis, however no substantial conflict has come yet. Also last I checked Egypt's President has not echoed these sentiments and in fact organized a cease fire between hamas and Israel. Your seeming bias of "muslims are the enemies of my people and therefore we can never ever trust them" is showing through again.

Your ad hominem implications are completely wrong.

Radicalism anywhere is a problem, what can you do about it though really? Trying to crush it just breeds more radicals. If it's not radicalism infecting the government, then I'm a fan of careful monitoring, but hands off unless it becomes unavoidable.

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?

al-Qaeda is anywhere there's instability. Hell we gave them that great foothold in Iraq.

Yeah, let's topple that stronghold regime in Syria, too! Nothing bad can come from that!

And again, this comes off as "all I give a fuck about is Israel...because I'm a Jew and Jews live there". That's really fucked dude.

To you, but my primary concern are the NATO countries.

How do we know that actually? Have the rebels stated as such? If they had, I highly doubt we'd be supporting them. I can not find a credible source to back your assertion. Perhaps you've got a source I'm not seeing? If so, look forward to reading it.

It's common sense. The Middle East is a breeding ground of radicalism, and like many, many, many revolutions, the moderates get left out.

That [the Arab wolrd is unified in their hatred of Israel]'s another big bold claim that I'm not sure you can back

Hmm, I don't see any of the Arab nations being on good terms with Israel, except perhaps Jordan, and they're facing problems from radicals too.

So as long as he fucks up his own people, and not the West, it's all good? God I hope that isn't what you meant there dude...I really like to think you're a better person then that.

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.

Power abhors a vacuum. If Al-Assad is toppled, we will see Islamists take over, just as they did in Iraq and Egypt.

Uh, we installed the government in Iraq? Egypt does have a Muslim Brotherhood backed leader, but he has not shown open and naked hostility towards Israel, quite the opposite in fact. You look like an alarmist here dude with a fundamental mistrust of anything Islam.

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.

We've learned that it's easier to deal with a stable, centralized enemy than an unstable "ally."

Until you know, the population rises up, takes that guy out, and then we have to deal with a new government that's justifiably pissed we supported somebody who killed off their family. The world is changing, the Arab Spring taught us that. I don't think the old game will work anymore, then again, I don't think it ever really did too well.

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.

Oh sure it would, but personally I'm no fan of forcing a change in a foreign land. I'm more a fan of the idea of helping an existing populist revolution. Which is the tact we're taking so far.

I don't believe that the rebels will continue to be friendly with us once they win. That's my belief.

It would, but again, can't find a credible source to back up your alarmist claims.

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.

Of course, I have to be realistic: with all the bad press Al-Assad has been justly receiving, no country can simply decide to switch sides and offer support to Al-Assad. And since we know from experience that decentralized radicals groups are incredibly difficult to destroy, it's only a matter of time until Al-Assad is toppled from power.

You don't know however that were going to have extreme radicals in power. This sounds like yet another pro-Israeli paranoia rant and battle cry out of you that frankly alarms me.

Battle cry? I'm advocating simply sitting back and doing nothing. You're the one who has the battle cry of arming the rebels.

---

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.

---

At 5/14/13 10:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: stuff

So If you advocate sitting back and letting the Syrians handle this on their own, what are you saying we as the American Government should do?

Have talks with these people, and tell them how best to govern once they depose Assad?

I'm all for that and think it's a good idea, but we can't also be naive and think as soon as the dust does settle they'll get together and sing kumbaya. That doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to them, or that we discriminate the new government in any way, but we should keep tabs on certain groups, and monitor who it is that's coming to power, such as an Al-Qaeda affiliate or radical Islamist.

I mean we should offer help to them in any way possible but it has to be done in the shadows as odd as that sounds. Because honestly involvement whether good or bad is what gives these guys ammo.

They can just point and say "HEY LOOK OVER THERE! THAT'S THE OPPRESSIVE IMPERIALIST INFIDEL!". I mean we could send them aid in funds and that's it, but if we start doing so in organized relief efforts that will require some sort of armed security to ensure the safety of those workers.

And all it takes is an American with a gun, for them to immediately pin blame or suspicion on of coming to invade.

I mean again we can avoid that if we just ensure such people don't get in power. But here's where it becomes messy, whose right for us, may not be right for them.

We really can't tell and honestly sometimes we have to stop this whole world policing, I know giving aid to oppressed people and deposing dictators sounds good on paper and in theory, but in practice it might not be seen as such to others, and we may cause more harm than good.

---

At 5/14/13 10:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

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.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been used quite often as an example of bungled US foreign policy in the Middle East, especially in regards to supporting the muhajideen in Afghanistan. I'm surprised that you are using that argument, especially when it's important to remember that al-Assad and the rebels have more than one group on their enemy lists.

Remember, they're not angry at al-Assad just because he's a strongman dictator. al-Assad is the last of a long dying breed: the pan-Arab Socialist movement, or Ba'athism. Saddam, Hafez and Bashar al-Assad, Gamal Nasser, Anwar Sadat, and Hosni Mubarak were all Arab socialists, leaders left over from a movement whose heyday was in the 60s and had been falling ever since. Ever since 1967, the secular Pan-Arab movement has been declining and in its place radical Islamism has risen. This civil war is a continuation of the decline and the final death knell of the Arab Socialist movement that once dominated the region.

This isn't a fight against an evil strongman dictator in the name of democracy. It's also a fight against a secular Arab socialist who is an out-of-date, out of touch leader who, according to the people, has lost touch with Islam and fundamental Islamic beliefs.

The rebels aren't just fighting al-Assad because he's treated his people badly, but because he and his system are obsolete.

As for your idea of "let's only give aid to those who promise to uphold democracy and human rights, etc," let me say that if that were practical, I would be 100% for it. It would be wonderful to believe that we have the capability to either influence the rebels into becoming moderate or to believe that we would be able to tell who the right people are to give weapons to. But unfortunately, we are talking about aid of a group that is part of an ongoing process of Islamization of the region and rejection of secular Arab socialism.

The civil war is so much more than a modern conflict-it's part of a decades-long process that has a distinct pattern: overthrow of secular Arab leaders and a return to Islamic fundamentalism. That's why I don't trust the Syrian rebels, because they represent more than their name implies.

---

I would also like to add that had we not taken out Saddam in 2003 (note: I regret that we did) his regime would be in major trouble too right now.

---

I'm moving to Brazil. It's the only country not having to deal with Muslim or Jewish bullcrap.

---

At 5/22/13 04:46 AM, GameChild214 wrote: I'm moving to Brazil. It's the only country not having to deal with Muslim or Jewish bullcrap.

yet... give it time.

At 5/22/13 06:30 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Well it looks the US is just going to send aid to rebels and not send US military.

no need to get our own people killed for the sake of raising the flag of radical islam over another nation. we shouldn't even be sending them aid.