# Slaughter In Syria



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I haven't read in to the Syria situation at all, I've just been noticing the headlines everyday. How long is the international community going to stand by and watch the massacres continue? And what are the reasons for the inaction? Comments?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I've been wondering about this a lot, it really saddens and sickens me. The two arguments I've heard most often given are, "We don't know who the 'good guys' are" and "our military budgets don't allow it" (speaking of the UK, anyway). Then, of course, there is the, "we can't police the world" line.

Maybe I'm just a big, pathetic, sloppy, weak sissy, but I can't see any justification for allowing innocent people to have their lives stolen from them. I find the euphemisms particularly offensive - it's very often, "let's let them sort it out". No, it's not that we're letting them "sort it out", it's that we're turning a blind eye while communities are being ruthlessly murdered. I mean, for goodness' sake, do we have no empathy any more? Can people not imagine what it would be like to live in such a country? What if your family was about to be slain - what if you had that child who appeared on the news who was bleeding from its chest, and you just had to watch its breathing slow and slow as it died - would you say, "don't worry folks over in Europe and the U.S. - your budget is tight, so forget about us."

Jesus H. Christ, I ******* hate human beings a lot of the time.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Unfortunately, the suffering and misery of the common folk aren't top priorities in these situations. I'm wondering what the geo- political reasons are. The US acted quickly in Libya, what's different about Syria. In fact, I believe the US was backing and arming the Syrian government in their promise to fight Al Quaeda.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've got to go to work now. Will check you comments later. Thanks!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I had an internet friend from Syria, who I stopped talking to a year ago for stupid dramatic reasons. Back then, I was hearing about Syria and how it was fairly stable, even kind of nice place to live, I even considered traveling there some day, but ever since all this Arab spring stuff, its just freaky how things changed and not to know how my former friend is doing. Last I talked to her, she weirdly denied anything bad was happening in Syria, said it was false news.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

This sounds syrious!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Reflecting beyond Syria, maybe it's time for a composite stealthy "World Force" to start dealing with the bad guys of these countries-of-the-month, early on. Of course, who's good today could be bad tomorrow. Vicious cycle...with absolutely no help from Globalization, I might add. LOL


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I heard some more arguments about this earlier today, and now I'm much less decided. I'm aware now that perhaps my extreme emotional attachment to the suffering of others is just a cloud preventing me from recognising the best solution to the problem. I don't know. :/


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've been wondering about this a lot, it really saddens and sickens me. The two arguments I've heard most often given are, "We don't know who the 'good guys' are" and "our military budgets don't allow it" (speaking of the UK, anyway). Then, of course, there is the, "we can't police the world" line.

Maybe I'm just a big, pathetic, sloppy, weak sissy, but I can't see any justification for allowing innocent people to have their lives stolen from them. I find the euphemisms particularly offensive - it's very often, "let's let them sort it out". No, it's not that we're letting them "sort it out", it's that we're turning a blind eye while communities are being ruthlessly murdered. I mean, for goodness' sake, do we have no empathy any more? Can people not imagine what it would be like to live in such a country? What if your family was about to be slain - what if you had that child who appeared on the news who was bleeding from its chest, and you just had to watch its breathing slow and slow as it died - would you say, "don't worry folks over in Europe and the U.S. - your budget is tight, so forget about us."

To play the devil's advocate here, who do you propose should bankroll your hypothetical intervention? Do you imagine that the American and to a far lesser extent the British taxpayers have an endless supply of money? When do the other nations of this planet begin to take a share of the responsibility? Are you willing to give up your cushy stint at the university to help fund this proposed intervention? Are you willing to put you family member in harms way... possibly have them lose their life in some skirmish for what reason...?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Bashir Assad and esp. his late father were considered to be more moderate leaders in Syria. Relative to other Middle Eastern regimes, that is. I don't know exactly what's going on there, apart from superficially, I've just been getting news from short news bulletins on radio. I don't know the full story, eg. is the government fighting off radical Islamists or something like that? My impression is that the current regime in Syria is on the whole a secular government. The Assads are of the Christian minority in Syria, that's probably part of the reason they're not huge fans of Islam. Just my semi-random thoughts out aloud here, as usual guys...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> To play the devil's advocate here, who do you propose should bankroll your hypothetical intervention? Do you imagine that the American and to a far lesser extent the British taxpayers have an endless supply of money? When do the other nations of this planet begin to take a share of the responsibility? Are you willing to give up your cushy stint at the university to help fund this proposed intervention? Are you willing to put you family member in harms way... possibly have them lose their life in some skirmish for what reason...?


Another devil's advocate line. This morning on radio, I heard President Obama or some USA big wigs are apparently thinking of maybe invading Iran for not ostensibly not cooperating with the nuclear inspection thingy. Some announcement was made by USA officials to that effect in last 24 hours.

Just a counterpoint to your opinion above. They're okay with going to Iran, maybe, but not Syria, it seems. Hidden agendas there, maybe? Double standards?

I'm more for non-intevention overall myself. You don't impose democracy by war, I think. There are exceptions but I don't know/think these qualify. But anyway...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Another devil's advocate line. This morning on radio, I heard President Obama or some USA big wigs are apparently thinking of maybe invading Iran for not ostensibly not cooperating with the nuclear inspection thingy. Some announcement was made by USA officials to that effect in last 24 hours.
> 
> Just a counterpoint to your opinion above. They're okay with going to Iran, maybe, but not Syria, it seems. Hidden agendas there, maybe? Double standards?
> 
> I'm more for non-intevention overall myself. You don't impose democracy by war, I think. There are exceptions but I don't know/think these qualify. But anyway...


I voted Republican. Yes, I think the Obama administration is sinister and full of conspiracies, but why does the immorality of the Obama administration justify a hot headed invasion of Syria?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Another devil's advocate line. This morning on radio, I heard President Obama or some USA big wigs are apparently thinking of maybe invading Iran for not ostensibly not cooperating with the nuclear inspection thingy. Some announcement was made by USA officials to that effect in last 24 hours.

Just a counterpoint to your opinion above. They're okay with going to Iran, maybe, but not Syria, it seems. Hidden agendas there, maybe? Double standards?

I'm more for non-intevention overall myself. You don't impose democracy by war, I think. There are exceptions but I don't know/think these qualify. But anyway...

Why does any nation go to war? How many instances can you think of when military forces were employed solely for ethical and humanitarian purposes. You know as well as I that Iran has at least two things that make it of strategic importance to the US: Oil and an on-going nuclear weapons program. Undoubtedly the US hand is being force by the Israelis. What do you imagine the outcome would be if the Israelis carried out the repeatedly proposed attack on Iran? Can you imagine the instability in the oil market if such a scenario played out. What would the impact of sudden rationing of oil and a doubling of oil prices be for the US?... Australia?... Europe?... China? Personally, I'm all for leaving the Israelis and Iraqis and the rest of the Middle-East on their own to sort things out. I'd rather we invested more efforts at fixing things here at home including the development of alternative energy sources. At the same time, I am more than aware of the danger of isolationism which history taught us well.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Such a cozy armchair deflection from all that is wrong and the immediate suffering in our own back yard, so to speak. Homeless in the greater urban areas of our homeland, people murdered over ______ football club allegiances? Teenage runaways from problem homes hooking on the streets. An old lady battered for a bit of cash for some junkie's fix? The elderly who froze in their homes too poor to pop for a heating bill this winter, and many other winters...

Ahhhh! but those distant innocents, in a society and government where it seems they have all agreed to be volatile and kill each other off, well that is something to (Very Safely) get all worked up about. 

I find it hypocritical and massively self-indulgent. Syrians as the catalyst to get our adrenaline up, go 'emotive,' grab a tissue and blow our noses and wipe our eyes. We all do the same, in a way, with our reflex sympathies for plane crash victims, while underlying it is an adrenaline thrill it is not / was not US.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ahhhh! but those distant innocents, in a society and government where it seems they have all agreed to be volatile and kill each other off,


(Y)ou're serious?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> To play the devil's advocate here, who do you propose should bankroll your hypothetical intervention? Do you imagine that the American and to a far lesser extent the British taxpayers have an endless supply of money? When do the other nations of this planet begin to take a share of the responsibility? Are you willing to give up your cushy stint at the university to help fund this proposed intervention? Are you willing to put you family member in harms way... possibly have them lose their life in some skirmish for what reason...?


See my second post.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I haven't read in to the Syria situation at all, I've just been noticing the headlines everyday. How long is the international community going to stand by and watch the massacres continue? And what are the reasons for the inaction? Comments?


I praise your noble questions. But reality is ultimately motivated by self-interest of those running the country that you are a citizen of. (Self-interest is also meant include collective self-interest).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I would imagine that even if the "international community" (I guess we now just equate this to the USA and Great Britain) saw a great deal of potential profit from invading Syria, we'd be a lot more hesitant than we were in Iraq or Libya, just because the situation is so very much more complicated. 

For instance, there was a fair chance we could invade those countries without destabilizing the entire region; with Syria, there is no chance of that, especially as we're on the verge of a potentially very painful, costly conflict between Israel and Iran anyway. 

The demographics are even more complicated than Iraq's. Wikipedia says, "Syria's population is 74% Sunni Muslim (includes Turks and most Kurds), and 16% other Muslim groups, including the Alawi, Shi'a, and Druze, and 10% Christian, with a Syrian Jewish community of a few dozen." Throw in 400k Palestinians and 2 million Kurds; it makes "Kurdish Sunni / Arab Sunni / Arab Shiite" seem almost monolithic. 

Also, long borders with Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel - and the Golan Heights. 

In short, it's just a cluster-jigamaroo of immense proportions. No one with political sense is going to stick their hand in that cauldron, and it is very unlikely that we'd be able to improve the situation if we did.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> I voted Republican. Yes, I think the Obama administration is sinister and full of conspiracies, but why does the immorality of the Obama administration justify a hot headed invasion of Syria?


As far as I know, Obama (and Hillary Clinton) have never openly advocated this. What they may have talked about behind closed doors is a different matter.

The erstwhile Republican candidate Jim Perry did indeed raise the subject of a no-fly zone over Syria, during a debate--to his credit, I will add--but one of his opponents, Newt Gingrich, I think, objected that this wouldn't work, because Syria, unlike Libya, isn't particularly dependent on air forces when it comes to its military clout.

Just pointing out the obvious fact that whoever gets elected in 2012--even it's Santorum--will have a complicated situation to deal with. And, at the risk of being labelled an extreme cynic, I'll add that Iran's nuclear program seems to me the best possible protection against a multinational oil grab.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

You guys here on Talkclassical sure do love talking about depressing subjects...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...What do you imagine the outcome would be if the Israelis carried out the repeatedly proposed attack on Iran? Can you imagine the instability in the oil market if such a scenario played out. What would the impact of sudden rationing of oil and a doubling of oil prices be for the US?... Australia?... Europe?... China?...


As I understand it, Australia gets most of it's oil from Asia - eg. Singapore and the Timor Sea. I can't speak for eg. USA, Europe or China, but we in Australia have access to oil through those countries, so we would probably not be effected much if certain things happen in the Middle East.



> ...Personally, I'm all for leaving the Israelis and Iraqis and the rest of the Middle-East on their own to sort things out. I'd rather we invested more efforts at fixing things here at home including the development of alternative energy sources...


I agree with that, as I said, I'm for no or minimal intervention in this case.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As I understand it, Australia gets most of it's oil from Asia - eg. Singapore and the Timor Sea. I can't speak for eg. USA, Europe or China, but we in Australia have access to oil through those countries, so we would probably not be effected much if certain things happen in the Middle East.

Sid... you do understand how "supply and demand" works, right? The oil producing nations (OPEC) establish the price for oil based upon supply and demand. One of the reason oil prices have been steadily increasing is due to increased world demand... especially from China, Japan, Korea, India, etc... If the supply is severely curtailed due to something such a disruption in pipelines and/or shipping from the Middle East this will impact the prices of oil for the entire planet. Even worse for Australia is the fact that the great superpowers, the US, the EU, and China will be first in line for the available oil. Suppliers know who their biggest buyers are and aren't about to lose their business. The US is also in the best position militarily to ensure that the oil continues to flow.

I agree with that, as I said, I'm for no or minimal intervention in this case.

Unfortunately, alternative energy sources are years away and due to deregulation the US citizens have become gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks that have resulted in making us even more dependent upon foreign oil. We probably need to develop our own reserves to a greater extent (especially in Alaska) instead of holding on to them. We also need to develop better relations with the oil producing nations of the Americas such as Canada, Venuzuela, etc... The potential for growth in South America almost equals that of Asia.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

How much oil is being consumed daily just to support the US military machine? It's insanity!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

How much oil is being consumed daily just to support the US military machine? It's insanity!

Quite likely a minuscule amount compared to what is used daily to power cars, trucks, large industries, as heating fuel, in the production of plastics and other materials, etc...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's something in the area of 360,000 barrels a day.

Total US consumption is close to 19 million barrels a day.

Still, only 35 nations in the world consume more oil than
the US Dept of Defense.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

I've read an interview with some members of Cherkezian (North Caucasian) diaspora in Syria. They always supported the government and just make their bussines. Now they have problems. They believe that the conflict began because of some islamic extremists from neighbouring countries. They agree that the regime is autocratic, but they want to live quite and just make their bussiness, so they prefer an autocratic regime and do not support rebels.

Also, you should remember that Asad is Shiite (Shiah) and the majority of Syrian people are of Sunnism branch of Islam. Maybe some of the rebels are radical sunnites? Maybe, it is a part of conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran? I do not think so.

I do not idealise Asad. And I think that Human Rights Watch report is quite objective. But I believe that foreighn intervention is always a bad think. Saddam Hussein was a dictator. Ok. What we have now? A Civil War? Is it better? I suppose, not.

BTW, as far as I know, most *middle-class* Damacus citizens suppot Asad. So, it is mostly low-class rebels from provincee, I suppose, who fight. Do you belive that those people will build a real Western democratic society instead of that autocratic regime?

Or they will begin killing women, etc, as in Lybia there the killed a favorite women-journalist of their ex-dictator? *That was a woman, just a woman - and they cut her tongue and killed her!* That "democratic" rebels!


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

It seems pretty clear to me that there are several reasons why military intervention by the West in Syria has not been taken up.


Syria poses no real threat to the West, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan. Whilst it turned out that Iraq did not actually pose any threat because there were no WMD, there was a reasonable presumption that it did possess some which might have been capable of inflicting serious damage at least against Israel, if not further afield. The threat from Afghanistan was, of course, the fact that it was a breeding and training ground for Al Qaeda. 


The West is not dependent upon Syria for oil, or anything else for that matter. There is therefore little economic incentive to get directly involved militarily. 


The West would find itself in serious disharmony with Russia and China if it used direct military intervention. Remember that these two countries vetoed a UN Resolution a few weeks ago. The cost of another "cold war" that might ensue if these two countries became badly offended has to be weighed up, and it's probably far too risky to be worth the effort. 


Public opinion in the USA and Britain and probably other European countries is not likely to be sympathetic to another war which could involve large casualties. Many of T-C's mid-teen whippersnappers probably aren't old enough to recall how reviled and horror-struck the public in these countries quickly became after the last Iraq war turned out to be a much more complex business than had been anticipated. If there are any wide-eyed innocents with a Quixotic outlook, you might go and ask your parents if they fancy getting deeply involved in another war in the Middle East. 


In the USA, I can't see Obama wanting to get involved in another Mid-East war at the present time, purely out of fear of messing up his Party's re-election chances. European nations wouldn't even think about it in the absence of a lead by the USA. Nor would the UK and in any case there are serious budgetary issues here that would tell against getting involved in any further open-ended military ventures of this sort. 


Even if a military campaign organised by the West was successful in ousting the present Syrian regime, no-one is clear kind what kind of regime might replace it. It could be run by a bunch of extreme Islamists that make the present set-up look positively nice. 

Lastly, I wonder if there is anyone here who has expressed an opinion in favour of military action has considered how they might react if say they could anticipate actually losing a close relative (a brother, sister, father etc) in the conflict. Would they accept this eventuality as a worthwhile price to pay for securing victory against the present Syria set-up?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Moscow-Mahler said:


> I've read an interview with some members of Cherkezian (North Caucasian) diaspora in Syria. They always supported the government and just make their bussines. Now they have problems. They believe that the conflict began because of some islamic extremists from neighbouring countries. They agree that the regime is autocratic, but they want to live quite and just make their bussiness, so they prefer an autocratic regime and do not support rebels.
> 
> Also, you should remember that Asad is Shiite (Shiah) and the majority of Syrian people are of Sunnism branch of Islam. Maybe some of the rebels are radical sunnites? Maybe, it is a part of conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran? I do not think so.
> 
> ...


Assad is not even a normal kind of Shiite; the Alawis are a minority among Shiites, and it'd not be too surprising if a conflict between the two communities developed.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler (Jul 8, 2010)

*science*
Thanks, I have not know it.

***
From the fragment of Human Rights Watch' report, which I have read I understand that the actions of army are very violent and non-human indeed. Still, I do not understand the pre-history of that conflict. Assad does not look like a crazy person, a maniac. He was not so violent during his previous years. Ok, Hussein poisoned curds, etc, and made some other crimes, but Assad were not "famous" in that way. At first, he looked like quite westernised man, at last on tv. He is really afraid of something, I suppose.

And if middle-classed people from Damascus really support him (as Russian TV shows - a big crowds of pretty westernised people in Damascus, who praise Assad) they are afraid also.

In Russia mostly middle-classed Moscow protests, in Syria I see an opposite picture.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

What Moscow-Mahler says gels with my gut instinct.

Assad might be better than the alternative, eg. Islamic extremism. It's only my hunch. Often the West idealises the underdog without knowing who the underdog is.

Closer to Australia, there was the situation in the 1990's with Malaysian leader Mohammed Mahathir, himself a secular kind of authoritarian ruler of the country. The media here though represented him as the devil, and our Prime Minister then - Paul Keating - called him "recalcitrant" (whatever that means, it's not good by the sound of it).

Anyway, Mahathir's opponent was the trendy Anwar Ibrahim. The press here presented him as like a hero. But an acquaintance who lived in Malaysia later told me that Mr. Ibrahmin was a fundamentalist Muslim. Look at his wife, she always wore the hijab in a country where it's optional. Some of his policies that were not reported here where to make the hijab compulsory, this acquaintance said. Mahathir dealt wit Ibrahim by locking him up on what's thought to be false charges. This was criticised by the West, but we didn't know, weren't told of the "real" side of Mr. Ibrahim.

So to draw parallels with Syria - although Malaysia has not had a civil war since the 1960's, when Australia got involved, but anyway - in both countries, there is opposition, but is it the type of opposition that's better than who's in power already? Or can it be potentially worse? Do we know enough? (eg. a British journalist was killed in Syria in the weekend amongst the fighting, another is severely wounded, the last we heard). Is it a case of better the devil you know? Is any intervention into these volatile countries fruitless and doomed to failure/complications, no matter how good the West's intentions?...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Sid... you do understand how "supply and demand" works, right?...


Yes, of course. But Australians have had a gutful of fighting USA's wars, basically. If you want to fight an insane war for oil, as you have, then go ahead. I don't see why we have to support it (but our government still supports the USA, I'm just saying a large part of the Australian public here doesn't really).



> ...Unfortunately, alternative energy sources are years away and due to deregulation the US citizens have become gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks that have resulted in making us even more dependent upon foreign oil. We probably need to develop our own reserves to a greater extent (especially in Alaska) instead of holding on to them. We also need to develop better relations with the oil producing nations of the Americas such as Canada, Venuzuela, etc... The potential for growth in South America almost equals that of Asia.


Energy efficient vehicles have been developed, eg. hybrids are now on our roads. There was the water powered car developed decades ago but it was too slow. I think a quicker version has been developed but vested interests (eg. oil industry) do not support trials, let alone mass production, of these.

& speaking of South America, in Brazil, biofuel - eg. I think from ethanol, made from sugar cane - is the most commonly used fuel for vehicles. Well over 50 per cent. Of course, it's not as simple as everyone doing that, new land has to be found to grow the sugar cane plants, which contributes potentially to deforestation. Then there's the fact that less sugar cane goes for food and more for fuel. So prices - supply and demand - comes into the picture yet again.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The real agenda with ethanol was to prop up sugar cane prices. It's not a real biofuel (if there is ever such a thing) because as you already suggested, sugar cane needs heaps of resources to grow in the first place.

Me think the future is with (liquid) hydrogen. It will take a while for the infrastructure to be set up (for example, liquid hydrogen fuel stations, and its economics, to put a long story short). Hydrogen is also one of the most abundant elements in the known Universe. Plus its emission (byproduct) when the vehicle burns it, is nothing more than small quantities of harmless water vapour. It's slow to catch on for now because it is expensive but that is no different to something relatively new, put simply.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I listened to a fascinating conversation between journalist Tariq Ali and Oliver Stone on C-Span last night. Some frightening subjects were discussed including a war with Iran. According to Ali who is very knowledgeable on world affairs and history, getting into a conflict with Iran would be a huge mistake. Unfortunately, there are foolish politicians who are crazy enough to commit this monumental blunder. Stone also impressed me with his knowledge of world affairs. He's been doing a lot of traveling, and meeting with foreign leaders around the world. 

Unfortunately as Stone pointed out, the majority of Americans don't seek alternative/independent news sources to gain a different perspective. They are easy prey for the lies and distortions presented by the corporate media. Cheer leaders for the war machine.

There is a book out containing the conversations of Stone and Ali. I think I'm going to pick up a copy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The real agenda with ethanol was to prop up sugar cane prices. It's not a real biofuel (if there is ever such a thing) because as you already suggested, sugar cane needs heaps of resources to grow in the first place.

Yes... we get our share of Ethanol here made from corn, which is one of the US' largest cash-crops... but it only amounts for a small portion of the overall make-up of the gasoline (although there are cars with specially constructed engines which can burn a much higher Ethanol content.

(I) think the future is with (liquid) hydrogen. It will take a while for the infrastructure to be set up (for example, liquid hydrogen fuel stations, and its economics, to put a long story short). Hydrogen is also one of the most abundant elements in the known Universe...

I agree with with regard to Hydrogen... although some technologies suggest we will not even need to utilize liquid Hydrogen:






Not long ago I saw a video of a similar car being developed by GM. At the time of the video the price of the car was some $10 million US making the vehicle clearly price prohibitive, but the engineers and developers were certain that as the technology spread and was refined the price would continue to fall.

I have a friend who is involved in developing the application of similar technologies for use in heating homes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with you *starthrower* on Iran. I don't know who is behind the current push to invade that, I mean in the USA government? But sounds like the usual military-industrial complex stuff. Also, you guys virtually being in economic recession, bordering on meltdown, may have a lot to do with it? A war always, if temporarily, puts the incumbent government or leader up in the opinion polls.

I think invading Iran is at the USA's or anyone else's peril. But esp. the USA, look at history. The USA backed the ousting of Iran's last democratic government in the 1950's, under Mossadegh. They installed the Shah, who was basically a brutal dictator behind the veneer of Western style capitalist economy. Then in 1979, the Islamic Revolution which ousted him, it came across as a bitter backlash to what the USA did back in the 1950's, meddle in Iranians politics and their lives, their sovereignty. No wonder the first thing the revolutionaries did was to storm the USA embassy in Teheran & take hostages. They are more anti-American than probably any other country in the region, and that says a lot. No wonder. Now on with the motley, we're geared up for another invasion. Will anybody learn from history? Do they know it or have they forgotten it? Or do they want to forget it? The latter, methinks...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Iran is anti-American for good reason. The US demonized Saddam for invading Kuwait, but totally backed him in his invasion of Iran, including aid for his horrible chemical weapons attacks on Iranians and Kurds. Other countries in the region possess nuclear weapons including Iran's enemies, so why wouldn't they want them to protect their own country?

I wish more citizens would pay attention and see through the short term opportunistic government decisions that always come back to haunt us. I wonder how many Americans realize that their tax dollars paid for the University Of Nebraska to print hundreds of thousands of Islamic jihad propaganda school books to brainwash Afghan children during the Soviet occupation? And then America invades Afghanistan after we trained two generations of Afghan children to hate a kill the infidels. This is insanity.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Anyone see this press report issued a few weeks ago:

_TEHRAN-Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. "Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel._

source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I wonder what happened to all the Americanism versus Communism textbooks?


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

No one wants to touch *Syria* as it would lead to a showdown between *Iran* and the *Saudis* and it would draw in the rest of the Arabs. Big war, big hike in oil prices many deaths and *Israel* might get a bit nervous and nuke someone.

Slighty off topic but I do feel for the people in *Syria* but I can see why some countries think the West is a bit hypocritical. People running around with *AK47*'s and RPGs in one country terrorist in another "free x army" freedom fighter etc.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> No one wants to touch *Syria* as it would lead to a showdown between *Iran* and the *Saudis* and it would draw in the rest of the Arabs. Big war, big hike in oil prices many deaths and *Israel* might get a bit nervous and nuke someone.
> 
> Slighty off topic but I do feel for the people in *Syria* but I can see why some countries think the West is a bit hypocritical. People running around with *AK47*'s and *RPGs* in one country terrorist in another "free x army" freedom fighter etc.


I believe RPG deserves to be bold as well.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I haven't read in to the Syria situation at all, I've just been noticing the headlines everyday. How long is the international community going to stand by and watch the massacres continue? And what are the reasons for the inaction? Comments?


Any type of military action has to be taken through the United Nations and both the Russians and Chinese have vetoed such action.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

moody said:


> Any type of military action has to be taken through the United Nations and both the Russians and Chinese have vetoed such action.


Good! These military interventions are disastrous for the most part. From what I've been reading in books by Bill Moyers, Steven Kinzer, Tariq Ali, and James Carroll, US foreign policy decisions since the end of the second world war have been based on communist paranoia and what is expedient for the short term, and have mostly come back to haunt us. The creation of the CIA in maintaining a national security state with anything goes tactics of assassinations, torture, the toppling of democratic regimes in favor of right wing dictatorships has been a "march of folly" to quote the late historian Barbara Tuchman.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

regressivetransphobe said:


> (Y)ou're serious?


Absolutely. To really change anything, you would have to revise the language, thought, and ethos of that population at large. But THAT would be cultural imperialism.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Absolutely. To really change anything, you would have to revise the language, thought, and ethos of that population at large. But THAT would be cultural imperialism.


It seems to me that most of the news out of the Middle East for the past year or so is that Arab and Muslim people have been demanding political and democratic reform from autocratic governments, and sometimes even managing to get something like it. This is not necessarily the Arab's 1848. And even if it is, 1848 did lead to a lot more democracy throughout western Europe.


----------

