Discussion » Current Events » WHy not Syria?

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:
    <p>Bashar Al-Assad is killing his own people and the international community is watchin passively. Why not doing the same way as the US and EU did to Kaddafi?</p> <p>High Priest</p>
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    OP means what the UN coalition is doing to Gadaffi.

  • くり
    くり wrote:

    it s not oil at all. Western oil company has always get along with Libia before, as Ghedaffi is a much more reliable business partner than the chaos currently going on...

    reasons in my opinion are:

    1.syria army is much more well equippend, trained and bigger than libia's one: and possesses chimical and biological weapons

    2.Besides Libia's neighbours are Egypt and Tunisia, both we all know i guess whats happened... On the contrary, Syria is bordered by a mixture of the most unstable countries in the world: Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey, Starting a war there would be a further  risk for the stability of the region..

    3. no allies. Gaddafi has no friends and even his own children want to marginalize. With an unprecedented move, the Arab League has supported the establishment of a no-fly zones in Libya that were strictly respected.

    On the contrary, Bashar al-Assad has  has allies inside and outside the region - for exsample:  Iran (and, therefore, Hezbollah and Hamas)

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    bro,on the contrary, what does Bashar al-Assad have??

  • くり
    くり wrote:

    On the contrary, Bashar al-Assad has  has allies inside and outside the region - for exsample:  Iran (and, therefore, Hezbollah and Hamas)

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    it's ok, bro~the needless obtrusive eyesore will quit the scene sooner or later...don't worry,huh~

  • くり
    くり wrote:

    agreed, UN is just bullshit, what did they do against  Ratko Mladic?What did they dowith Sharon and the massacre of Shabra and Shatila?and about the many crimes of US? bullshit, just a bunch of morons paid by US dollars...

  • くり
    くり wrote:

    dont understimate the american gun industry, one of those most successfull american companies...was Obama the one who had to decide, and Syria is a pain in the ass for many reasons, better Libya

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    @TAFA... your comments are interesting, but I thing that the situation that is going on in the Arab world doesn't depend  on the allies and lobbies alone, it's a problem that starts by the civilians who are determined to finish the (regims) those Presidents who are puppets of the superpowers.

    Watching how determined the population is  to soldier on in spite of the mass killing  by Assad, I'm afraid it's may lead to the end of the monarchy and those new in power may act like new Egyptian leaders who seem to be more nationalistics.

    High Priest

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "possibly another [war] in South China Sea in developing."

    This is what fenqing really believe.

  • くり
    くり wrote:

    Thanks HP:

    I'd say  that the role of civilian is of course important but I think that syrian dissidents are right now paying the consequences of america's militar operations in Afganistan,Iraq and Libya.

    As these wars are very costly (in 2008 analyst estimate the cost of Iraq war around 3 trillion usd) the military support of Washington in remote causes  will  be more limited and selective.

    Considering than that the EU does just what washington decides...the sirian dissidents are just ALONE.


    Gaddaffi was a treath even to his sons...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    America/NATO/EU/UN is an evil monolithic imperialistic bully not only for the wars it participates in, but for the wars it doesn't participate in.

  • 随便叫兽
  • くり
    くり wrote:

    ayelia,

    what?

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:

    I haven't really followed the news coverage of this as much as I followed the Libyan conflict, so my initial response to the original post would be : 

    1) The decision to intervene in Libya was made only after the Arab League and African Union had given the go ahead. To my knoweldge this hasn't happened in Syria. 

    2) I'd guess the reason this hasn't happened in Syria yet is because the comparative time-length of atrocities: the Libyan conflict had months of front-page coverage and daily updates that shamed the Western world into acting. Syria hasn't quite reached that point yet. 

    3) The scale of atrocities in Libya were, at least to my mind, far more extreme than what is currently happening in Syria. That could just be because I haven't been paying enough attention to the Syrian conflict, but at the moment I would guess this is another reason. 

     

    Finally, the premise of this post is the same kind of backward-thinking that comes up a lot in these kind  threads: if something is true in both Situation A and Situation B, that must mean Situation A = Situation B and so responses to Situation A should logically be the as the responses to Situation B. Here, the idea is that innocent people were being killed in Libya and the West intervened, so surely the West should intervene in Syria because innocent people are being killed.  

    However, what's worse is the armchair politicians on here then take this as an indictment of government processes that they have very little experience of and trot out the old cliches like 'it's because of the oil' or 'it's because of religion'. 

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    (In case anyone's wondering, I'm a sincerely apologetic American with a pretty solid anti-war background.)

    "becouse us president election susport by the richest peoples in their country.and most of them are Israelite. politics are dirty business.."

    What an astonishingly ignorant and clearly anti-Semetic statement.

    Sorry, @Shan Lei, but Anglo-Saxon Protestants remain far wealthier and more numerous than Jews.

    In fact, the Israeli political lobby was extremely suspicious of Obama's (secret Muslim!) candidacy and there was a considerable rift between him and Joseph Lieberman, one of the most influential Jewish Democrats (now Independent) in the Senate, partly because he seemed like he was more conciliatory to the Palestinians. Too bad he hasn't really followed through.

    It's not my intention to defend American silence on Israeli settlement policies. There is a distinction to be made between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

    ...

    If it wasn't obvious, I'm mostly in agreement with Daniel here, although I am deeply suspicious of the American military-industrial complex in particular.

    I think it's absolutely fatuous to say that so-called Western nations are hypocritical because they're unwilling to ignite World War III by invading Syria. Seriously. This is disgusting. Y'all don't give a shit about protecting innocents from war. You care nothing about geopolitics or security. This is just a transparent excuse for  expressing ugly nationalistic sentiments against America, the EU, and maybe Israel.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    ...in a region where history and religion are virtually synonymous.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    The question from the OP, if one pays attention could see it as an ironic question. Because, what is going on in Syria, if you read and listen to the comments of people running out of the country seeking for shelter, you can see that there  more attrocities directed to the population as it was in Lybia. Tanks, air strike and snipers are used  trying to stop discents.

    We can see double standard on the treatment of this situation. As some members have suggested above, Syria is a strategic partner of the US, once you talk about the US you see Israel...So it's better to try and salvage the current leaders.

    Some people think Assad is a Pro western and he is there to protect Israel as everyone know that his dismissal would give terrorist groups from inside or from Lebanon an open gate to operate in disturbing Israelis.

    Superpowers have done a better job in dividing different geopolitical groups. UA is an organization full of puppets working for their interests. They can't do anything to stop NATO in mingling in the region's Biz. Arab League alike, this is even what led Osama Bin Laden to criticize the Saudi Arabia King for letting the US tropps to be deployed in his kingdom in order to attack Irak and demot Sadam Hussein On power.

    Overall, these wars are the expressions of interests. There's is need of oil from Lybia, and there is need to keep an ally to be in power to avoid any set bakc. But things are getting a little bit complicated because the population is the one standing up against nepotists and willing to get rid of them no matter what it takes.

    @Scott, I hope you got much joy labelling the High Priest of a Bigot. In this forum, I often take deep breath before I counter attack. If the US is country that is based its foundation on fundamental rights; that implies, each one can chose to believe or not. But under the same flag both can express themselves and come up with a concessus. Why are we are so intolerant if someone expresses his belief on a certain community? Does that make him a Bigot? Remember brother, insult and violence are weapons of the weak. I'd urge you and I to be more civil. Be warned!

    High Priest  

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Scott, If you're going to flamebait, keep it relevant. Or at least provide links and clearer references to the shit High Priest has said in previous threads.

    @HP

    "Syria is a strategic partner of the US"

    That's news to me. Is that why Obama issued economic sanctions against Syria in late May?

    "you can see that there  more attrocities directed to the population as it was in Lybia."

    No. We can't see shit without the press or some other independent agency gathering this information for us, and in neither case is there anyone with the resources or authority to do so.

    But it's a moot point, anyway. Even if you could somehow prove that they were similar in terms of harm inflicted upon civilians, it's still absolutely fatuous for you to equivocate two vastly different countries in separate regions. As has been pointed out before, Syria has more allies. Attacking Syria would cause untold devastation.

    You're basically saying that the Western countries are self-interested because they WON'T start World War III.

    It's absolutely ludicrous at its face. Your arguments do a poor job of hiding your anti-Western biases.

    There's a lot ot hate about US/EU/NATO military policy, but you're framing your arguments in such an abrasive and ignorant manner that you're discrediting those who have legitimate reasons for opposing military action.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Sure Obama took some stances against Syria in late May, but some analysts think Obama's responses have been limited comparing to Washington's role in a NATO-led campaign against kaddafi's forces and its call for his ouster.  Even some Human right activitists took the opportunity to criticize Obama administration for not doing enought to curb Assad's efforts to crush a monthlong uprising against is autocratic 11 years rule. There's double standard for Assad

    Jay Carney, White House spokeman talked about some sanctions are underway but stopped short of urging him to step down.

    Washington is mindful of its limited ability to influence Damascus, which is already under a set of U.S. economic sanctions and is closely allied with U.S. foe Iran.

    The Obama administration is also worried about stoking instability on U.S. ally Israel's borders and wants to avoid another military entanglement in the Muslim world, where it is involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    My view here is that, the US and EU, are trying to offer them much more time to put the uprising to bed.

    get info on the situation before posting. Here is BBC guide to Syra's situation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13855203 

    High Priest 

     

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Russia is a slight heavywheight Scott, Russia had had the same position in different cases, even in Lybia one__But that didn't stop the US and the EU to go ahead and pretend to protect civilians.

    High Priest

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "Syria is a strategic partner of the US"

    "Washington is mindful of its limited ability to influence Damascus, which is already under a set of U.S. economic sanctions and is closely allied with U.S. foe Iran."

    "Russia is a slight heavywheight"

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Go upstairs and u can read me mentioning about Arab League's role.

    Scott, be a pro-active rather than a retro active. I know what was my stance on the rape thread and I'd stick to it all my life. My stance is preventive and I'm against any form of rape.

    Let me tell u something Scott, don't consider me as your competitor...We use this mean with different purposes. I remember you insulting yourself an idiot for attacting me in one of the threads. Using B word is a little harsh? I leave it to you to answer.

    By all means, I think USA and EU should do whatever they can to save innocent lives fighting for freedom, but as we have been seeing in Libya, it's never that simple.

    This is the violation of other sovereignty. I'm against it and it's amere slogan to have access on the nation's matter. We got innocent people in myanmar, in Yemen, Bahrain, in the Congo DR, people should stop thinking that the USA and EU are really concerned about civilians. Open your mind.

    High Priest

     

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc