Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 6:15:13 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I think you are correct to say that the West is struggling for relevancy in this conflict.

The UK and France have decided to ignore the arms embargo, in the hopes of boosting the non-AQ rebels, who have been losing the internal fight with the fundamentalists among the rebels. But it seems like too little too late. The US is (quite rightly) staying on the sidelines and making noises only. It is unlikely that the Israelis, Saudis and Qataris are acting without green lights from Washington.

At this point in time, it seems like Assad, aided greatly by Hezbollah is getting the upper hand. The Iranians and Russians have sent very clear signals they are standing by Assad. His forces are regaining ground previously lost to the rebels. Initially my sympathies lay with the rebels. Assad is a brutal dictator just as his father was. But the rebels' commitment to democracy and human rights is as questionable as Assad's. And the Israelis are beginning to throw their weight about though whether they are prepared to get the Russians offside over the missiles the Russians are supplying to Assad is yet to be seen.

As thing stand at the moment, there are grave fears that the conflict is going to engulf neighbouring countries like Lebanon, Israel and Turkey. So the most optimistic reading at the moment is that the conflict remains an internal Syrian affair. However I fear there is no easy solution and that there is going tremendous loss of life before any cessation of hostilities or resolution. It's a question of which side is the lesser evil. And even with that low standard, there's no clear answer.



The EU arms embargo has been lifted Tweaks. I will agree it was mainly France and the UK pushing for the move but we are not ignoring it.

I agree with the biggest fear being a global flare up. Hopefully that wont happen, There doesnt seem much clamour for the Uk to get involved anyhow, except from out Home Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 6:49:14 AM   
MrBukani


Posts: 1920
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline
Global flare Up. I wish. Hahahaha. Won't happen. That time has passed. Nobody has ever started a war they have no chance in hell to win.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 7:18:16 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
We won't get heavily involved.

No large oil reserves there.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to MrBukani)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 7:57:21 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The UK and France have decided to ignore the arms embargo, in the hopes of boosting the non-AQ rebels, who have been losing the internal fight with the fundamentalists among the rebels. But it seems like too little too late. The US is (quite rightly) staying on the sidelines and making noises only. It is unlikely that the Israelis, Saudis and Qataris are acting without green lights from Washington.

I am happy you agree the US has chosen the proper path.

I cannot imagine why Israel, SA, and Qatar would require a 'green light' from the US to advance their own national/religious interests.

The war in Syria is already detonating sectarian violence in Iraq. A regional war is not unlikely.

Early on CNN carried many reports sympathetic to the 'democracy-loving' rebels here. I wonder if the same occurred in Europe and AUS, and if the rebels were just not more savvy and quicker in getting their message out to generate sympathy for their side. Does anyone truly believe that free, democratic states can emerge from the conflict between Despotic Fundamentalism and Despotic Secularists? Are there any secularists involved in this regional battle? Seems to be a religious war through and through.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 4:07:19 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The EU arms embargo has been lifted Tweaks. I will agree it was mainly France and the UK pushing for the move but we are not ignoring it.

I agree with the biggest fear being a global flare up. Hopefully that wont happen, There doesnt seem much clamour for the Uk to get involved anyhow, except from out Home Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith.




Tweakable, I got the wrong Minister. I meant Foreign Secretary William Hague. IDS took over from him as Conservative party leader back in 2001.

It strikes me, especially as I have voted Tory, that both of these guys are failed party leaders trying to make a name for themselves in their current Ministerial jobs......

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 5:21:27 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

You are barking up the wrong tree here Butch. The Arab league wont/cant halt this as the two sides are Sunni/Shia. Saudi, Iran, Qatar and others have already taken sides, it would be hard for them to be seen as peace brokers now.


I do understand what you are saying but I am looking at it from the US perspective with the interests of the US my primary concern...and here is why.

Like tweak I do not see an easy solution...in fact maybe we should not even be looking for one. It is not always the best course to jump between combatants in a fight. You may stop the fight for awhile but you only take a chance of getting a bloody nose and put the fight off to a later date. Otherwise perhaps the best solution, and in the end could mean fewer deaths, is to let them fight it out until and someone wins.

OK don't want to stand by then...Say we decide to take direct unilateral action...who do we support? If we pick a rebel group that we think is not affiliated with terrorist and support them they will quickly be accused of being our puppet and loose support. We may dump millions of dollars....kill untold people...and still not achieve our goals. If we give weapons to all rebel groups we risk having these weapons used against us later. Not good options.

Say we do nothing...then as tweak says this civil war could expand into other countries quickly exploding into a war none of us want.... Or the rebels win but dominated by terrorists gain control of Syria's weapons such as chemical and biological agents. Soooo what to do.

As I said before... we put pressure on the Arabs league...heavy vocal pressure... We put vocal pressure on the UN...heavy pressure. I don't think they will act but there is always the chance we can convince the one power that has the ability to end this mess to act... Saudi Arabia. They have the political power to twist arms and the military power, with our support, to back it up.

I don't believe direct military intervention will be necessary... If Assad sees that the Saudi's are serious I believe he will agree to step down and enter peace negotiations.

If an Arab league peace keeping force enters Syria they will have a better chance of keeping the peace than American backed rebels.

But the bottom line is we do not expend American lives or billions of American dollars and there will be a better chance of lasting peace...and by backing an Arab organization we do not come off as an aggressor doing Israel's bidding.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 5/30/2013 5:45:08 PM >


_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/30/2013 9:07:21 PM   
SpanishMatMaster


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline
Hello, tweakabelle.

At this moment I do not know if you are really asking about the possibility of a new Cold War (as in the title) or about the possibility of a warm regional war.

Yes, the "most optimistic" scenario seems to be that the conflict remains local, with many aspects of a proxy war, in that sense classic Cold War stuff, even if much more "Iran against Saudi Arabia" as "Russia against NATO".

Yes, there is a danger of complete involvement of Israel, Turkey or Lebanon. However, this is IMHO a very low danger.
* Israel fears a total conflict which would easily transform in an actual "Vietnam" for them - Syria is huge compared to them and the prospective of Jew occupation troops having to cover this country should make any Israeli shiver. Gaza and the West Bank are already depleting Israels resources. This is the Israel who abandoned south Lebanon for a similar "not winnable" scenario.
* Turkey has been "called back" by the USA lately. Even if Erdogan loves war rhetoric, a war there would inflame again the Kurdish problem with unpredictable consequences. Plus, Iran is a fearful enemy for a power without nuclear weapons to defend its own territory.
* Lebanon's population is what gives me hope that this country does not get severely involved (invasion, occupation) either. They remember the last war, still. They have learned to enjoy peace. For every fanatic wanting an involvement in either side there are 20 people just afraid of war.

All these countries will participate and get involved, but none of them will be involved as in a total involvement, sending his whole army there or falling in a civil war themselves. This danger is too low, the conflict will remain limited.

And as for a Cold War, as I said, I think we are already living a Cold War situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but we are not "returning to the Cold War Days" between Russia and the NATO, they are both not really partisans in Syria.

You did not answer my question so I say nothing about what we should do. Just analysing what things it will happen or are happening already.

Best regards.

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 1:44:07 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
A few people have described this conflict as a "religious war". While there are religious aspects to the conflict, I hesitate to label it as solely a religious war. This is a conflict on many levels. To describe it as being all of one of those levels is an over simplification of a very complex conflict.

The situation in Syria can be seen as a struggle between democratic secularists and an ageing dictatorship. At the commencement of hostilities, this was an accurate assessment of the situation. It still is accurate at one level for some of the players. As time went by, the fundamentalists joined in and now seem to be securing a dominant position in the local anti-Assad forces. It has also become clear that some of the rebels were interested in power rather than democracy, so at another level, there is the clash between "despotic secularists" and the dictatorship. There are also competing interests of the various sectarian communities within Syria - the Allawites, Shia, Sunni, Kurds and others, each with their own specific agenda. Internally within the rebel forces, there is another struggle between the democrats, the despotic secularists and the fundamentalists. If the rebels succeed in toppling Assad, this will be Part 2 of the Syrian Civil War, as the secular and fundamentalist forces clash for control and power

To that mess, we can add the external players. Lebanese and Syrian politics are difficult to separate at the best of times. Hezbollah has aligned itself with Assad, while other Lebanese Muslim sects support the rebels. Anti-Assad forces are using Lebanon as a staging base. Turkey, anxious to assert itself as a regional power outranking Egypt and even Israel, has chosen to align itself with the rebels offering them support supplies and sanctuary, as well as international diplomatic support. Israel intervenes whenever it feels Hezbollah is getting to strong for its liking. Israeli interventions are likely to continue, and one cannot discount the possibility of yet another Israeli land grab at some point in the future. The Saudis and Qataris are arming and financing the rebels, including the fundamentalists. I don't see this happening without tacit approval from the US.

On top of all that, there is the greater games being played out by the US and Iran, both of whose regional proxies are active in the conflict, and the old Copld War warriors of the US and Russia. Toppling Assad and replacing him with a leader more amenable to Western interests, or one who would align Syria with the Sunni coalition of Gulf States, the Saudis etc would be a coup for US interests. Iran is desperate to ensure its ally doesn't fall from power. Russia is Syria's traditional ally, arms supplier and international patron is equally anxious to protect its interests. The UK and France seem determined to ensure Assad's downfall

So the conflict is operating on many levels, with numerous players and interests involved, all with conflicting goals, interests and strategies. There is even an oil factor, with Syria being a minor oil exporter. Even if the Syrians could somehow work it all out between themselves, there are a variety of competing international interests to be catered for, which would complicate any internal resolution to the point of potentially torpedoing it.

All up little cause for optimism and a great deal to be pessimistic about. The only certainty is that the poor Syrian people, caught up in events completely beyond their control, will continue to be slaughtered by all sides. Even whether Syria itself survives events as a unified State is being increasingly questioned.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/31/2013 1:55:56 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 4:03:08 AM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline
A very accurate assessment.

However no winner will be good for the Israelis, and the "deep pockets" are Qatar, the House of Saud, and the other Anglo-American oil puppets of the Gulf protectorates. Russia has started to ship their excellent S-300 systems, so a no fly zone will be costly and both hard and dangerous to enforce, and due to the bald faced lying about Libya, any UN resolution is likely to be shot down by both Russia and China.

Another European (French and English) colonial mess to clean up. The world should demand the EU clean its own diapers out this time.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 5:29:14 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Yes, the "most optimistic" scenario seems to be that the conflict remains local, with many aspects of a proxy war, in that sense classic Cold War stuff, even if much more "Iran against Saudi Arabia" as "Russia against NATO".

Yes, there is a danger of complete involvement of Israel, Turkey or Lebanon. However, this is IMHO a very low danger.
* Israel fears a total conflict which would easily transform in an actual "Vietnam" for them - Syria is huge compared to them and the prospective of Jew occupation troops having to cover this country should make any Israeli shiver. Gaza and the West Bank are already depleting Israels resources. This is the Israel who abandoned south Lebanon for a similar "not winnable" scenario.
* Turkey has been "called back" by the USA lately. Even if Erdogan loves war rhetoric, a war there would inflame again the Kurdish problem with unpredictable consequences. Plus, Iran is a fearful enemy for a power without nuclear weapons to defend its own territory.
* Lebanon's population is what gives me hope that this country does not get severely involved (invasion, occupation) either. They remember the last war, still. They have learned to enjoy peace. For every fanatic wanting an involvement in either side there are 20 people just afraid of war.

All these countries will participate and get involved, but none of them will be involved as in a total involvement, sending his whole army there or falling in a civil war themselves. This danger is too low, the conflict will remain limited.


I'm not sure that I am as relaxed about the possibilities of external intervention as you are. As you note, all these countries are already involved at one level or another. To a certain extent, this involvement places them at the mercy of events. There has been reports of infighting in Lebanon between various Muslim sects sparked by the Syrian crisis. This could easily escalate, despite the experiences of the civil war and the aversion of the Lebanese to another one. Or Israel could sense an opportunity to strike at Hezbollah, or decide to grab some more Arab land .....

While the chances of Turkish involvement escalating are lesser, a few more car bombs in Turkish border towns (as has happened already) and the Turks may feel compelled to "defend their borders"...... It's neither difficult nor far-fetched to envisage any number of scenarios that might suck neighbouring countries into the Syrian quagmire.

I do hope your analysis proves correct but I wish I was more confident it will.

quote:

And as for a Cold War, as I said, I think we are already living a Cold War situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but we are not "returning to the Cold War Days" between Russia and the NATO, they are both not really partisans in Syria.

You did not answer my question so I say nothing about what we should do. Just analysing what things it will happen or are happening already.


It is correct to state that neither the US not Russia are partisans in Syria at the moment, it is also correct to state that both powers have considerable investments in one side or the other. For the time being, Syria seems to have replaced Lebanon as the site of greater power jockeying, rivalry and competition in the Middle East. Neither can afford for their side to lose. A rebel loss would would be a tremendous setback to the US's anti-Iranian policy. Russia cannot afford Assad's downfall strategically or politically.

As for what we should do ...? Assuming the "we" to mean the West, the most important thing is to stay out of it, and strengthen not remove regional arms embargoes. Until the internal situation resolves itself, or both Assad and the rebels signal they are ready for peace, there is little we can or should do to influence the outcome. While I would love to see Assad (and all dictators) removed from power and having to account for his barbarity, the rebels are far to close to AQ and fundamentalism for my liking. As things stand, a rebel victory would mean replacing the black kettle with the black pot.

Surely by now it's my turn to ask you a question! What do you suggest the West does? What would you like to see happen?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/31/2013 5:32:28 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 5:34:53 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The situation in Syria can be seen as a struggle between democratic secularists and an ageing dictatorship.

Yeah right. Typical sociological nonsense. Think geopolitics and money. Qatar engineered and funded this whole business. They want to build a pipeline through Syria so they can pump their LNG production directly into Europe through Turkey. That would knock Gazprom's profits for a loop, and Syria isn't about to jeopardize its relationship with Russia by allowing that to happen. Qatar wants Assad out of the picture, but Russia will defend its interests.

Russian military forces have been put on Regional War status. Russia has four regiments of S-300 air defense systems groups comprising 8,700 personnel, 185 warplanes, and 240 armored vehicles forward-staged in its Southern Military District where they can enter the Syrian conflict within hours, and the Russian naval forces now in the Mediterreanian carry Mach-2 Yakhont (SS-N-26) anti-ship missiles, which are arguably the best of their kind in the world.

Russia has a lot at stake here, and it isn't kidding. Israel would be wise to keep its hands in its pockets and its mouth shut. And if Obama is smart, he'll do the two things he does best: Talk, and nothing.

K.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/31/2013 5:42:13 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 6:17:18 AM   
SpanishMatMaster


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline
Hello, tweakabelle,

well, I know that some of this countries have already "intervened" and IMHO will continue doing so, even more. But I see still a difference between a one-time bombing ride and a full-scale invasion, for example. The last I consider very improbable (and I do not think Israel mad enough to believe that they can defeat in Syria the same organisation they could not defeat in southern Lebanon after decades of trying).

So, as long as we make this clear difference (limited intervention vs. full-scale involvement) I am indeed convinced that the last is very, very improbable.

"Neither can afford for their side to lose."

On the contrary. Both can, IMO. I see no "tremendous setback" nor something Russia "cannot afford". You will see in few years, after the situation has settled in one way or another, how unimportant this was for the looser. You will not see, nor any "tremendous setback", not an "unaffordable situation" in either side.

You are overestimating the importance of Syria IMO. You will see :) .

quote:

Assuming the "we" to mean the West"


Ah, ok. You did not tell me until now which was my role to play :) . I am the West, let us say the NATO. Ok.

Well, I think that the west should try to impose their own party there. Everybody else is doing this, so instead of just shouting and critisizing and attempting to stop the unstoppable... join the party.

Find a group of rebels which identify with the western values. Then give them all possible support: Logistics, weapons, information and diplomatic support. And give them a chance. Demand from them civil behaviour (and send observers to that purpose).

Stop whining about the interventions of others - they do not matter, we have more money and means. Match and surpass them on support.

Give Iran a way out if they completely abandon their nuclear program, for example. Then Syria is theirs. Such things are doable.

Do **not** bomb anybody nor invade. Unless somebody else does the same before.

This is cruel, yes, and cynical. But on the long term I hope that the right side would win soon enough to justify the massacre and compensate all the damage already done.

Best regards.

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 6:36:48 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is correct to state that neither the US not Russia are partisans in Syria at the moment...

You and SMM are both wrong. The CIA has already been exposed facilitating weapons shipments to rebel factions. We are most definitely partisans in every way short of boots on the ground. As for Russia, Zaslon Special Forces units attached to the Russian SVR have already been ordered into the conflict zone, and the AP is reporting Russian plans to sign a contract for delivery to Syria of MiG-29/M2 "Super Fulcrum" warplanes.

Nor is there any prospect for peace talks to save the day. The Syrian Army is regaining control, giving Assad no reason to negotiate, and the fractious opposition groups have been unable to agree on representation or to craft a unified position.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/31/2013 6:41:20 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 6:43:52 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Global flare Up. I wish. Hahahaha. Won't happen. That time has passed. Nobody has ever started a war they have no chance in hell to win.



Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto foresaw that the struggle would become a prolonged war of attrition that Japan could not hope to win. For a year or so, he said, Japan might overrun locally weak Allied forces — but after that, its war economy would stagger and its densely built wood-and-paper cities would suffer ruinous air raids. Against such odds, Yamamoto could “see little hope of success in any ordinary strategy.” His Pearl Harbor operation, he confessed, was “conceived in desperation.” It would be an all-or-nothing gambit, a throw of the dice: “We should do our best to decide the fate of the war on the very first day.”

During the Second World War and for years afterward, Americans despised Yamamoto as an archvillain, the perpetrator of an ignoble sneak attack, a personification of “Oriental treachery.” Time magazine published his cartoon likeness on its Dec. 22, 1941, cover — sinister, glowering, dusky yellow complexion — with the headline “Japan’s Aggressor.” He was said to have boasted that he would “dictate terms of peace in the White House.”

Yamamoto made no such boast — the quote was taken out of context from a private letter in which he had made precisely the opposite point. He could not imagine an end to the war short of his dictating terms in the White House, he wrote — and since Japan could not hope to conquer the United States, that outcome was inconceivable.





< Message edited by Yachtie -- 5/31/2013 6:44:47 AM >


_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to MrBukani)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 7:02:46 AM   
Rogue886


Posts: 17
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Nobody has ever started a war they have no chance in hell to win.


Yes they have, the US did in Vietnam.

_____________________________

Discipline is the bridge
Between Learning & Accomplishment ~ Jim Rohn ~

(in reply to MrBukani)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 7:20:31 AM   
Rogue886


Posts: 17
Joined: 5/17/2010
Status: offline


Personally I`d like to see ALL forign troops withdrawn from the entire area & Let them sort it out themselves rather than get involved in Civil Wars which is what the entire conflict is. Forign powers should NEVER get involved in civil wars, as it`s IMPOSSIBLE to tell the sides. Of course this is just my opinion & I`m sure loads of others will disagree with it.



_____________________________

Discipline is the bridge
Between Learning & Accomplishment ~ Jim Rohn ~

(in reply to Rogue886)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 8:13:21 AM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline
They (Gulf oil interests) really would like to run a high capacity oil pipe through Syria as well. Having to run the oil to Europe through the Persian gauntlet and then in tankers small enough to use the Suez canal while the Egyptians feel like keeping it open, is not a pleasant thing for either the Gulf oil sheiks or the multinational oil criminals.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 8:39:09 AM   
kaMarr


Posts: 4
Joined: 3/8/2013
Status: offline
Suez crisis of 1956 - do we really want to head down that road again...... or the Gulf Wars of last century..... just for a fossil fuel that may be on the verge of running out.


This is my opinion and may not be totally relevant to this thread....... GREED begets Wars WARS begets Greed what a viscous CIRCLE OF LIFE whilst those that just want to live their lives in a productive and peaceful manner, are ousted from their lands...............................



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Time to make the best of this mess we are living in Now!!!!!


(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 9:46:49 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The UK and France have decided to ignore the arms embargo, in the hopes of boosting the non-AQ rebels, who have been losing the internal fight with the fundamentalists among the rebels. But it seems like too little too late. The US is (quite rightly) staying on the sidelines and making noises only. It is unlikely that the Israelis, Saudis and Qataris are acting without green lights from Washington.

I am happy you agree the US has chosen the proper path.

I cannot imagine why Israel, SA, and Qatar would require a 'green light' from the US to advance their own national/religious interests.


I can think of a few possibilities, although it may be just speculation. However, in the past, if the U.S. government doesn't like something that another country does, we've made our displeasure known. Since we project a great deal of power around the world, other countries are in a position of having to analyze and anticipate our possible response to a geopolitical crisis or similar situation. This may not mean that they have to have a "green light" from the U.S., but it's not something that would be inconceivable or unimaginable.

quote:


The war in Syria is already detonating sectarian violence in Iraq. A regional war is not unlikely.

Early on CNN carried many reports sympathetic to the 'democracy-loving' rebels here. I wonder if the same occurred in Europe and AUS, and if the rebels were just not more savvy and quicker in getting their message out to generate sympathy for their side. Does anyone truly believe that free, democratic states can emerge from the conflict between Despotic Fundamentalism and Despotic Secularists? Are there any secularists involved in this regional battle? Seems to be a religious war through and through.


It may very well be a religious war, although we're talking about a region where the line between religion and secular politics is blurred. In any case, I seriously doubt that any free, democratic states can emerge from this conflict. I don't know if any secularists are involved in this regional battle, but I would imagine if they live in a country with so much turmoil and violence, they must be involved in some way. The question remains whether they would have enough political power to make a difference if and when the dust ever settles. Right now, it just looks like complete chaos over there, and it's hard to imagine what the final picture will look like when the conflict finally subsides (if it ever does).

There's also the question of whether the conflict will spread throughout the entire region and beyond. What should our response be, if any? I tend to agree that it would be best for us to stay out of it, but would other countries interpret that as giving them an implied "green light" to interfere? It would be different if we were neutral and isolationist as a general rule, but when we choose to intervene in some crises but not others, it might make some wonder just exactly what "rule" we're following when decisions of such magnitude are made.

It may not be our role to give a "green light" to things around the world, but it seems that we're in a perpetual "yellow light" situation. You know, that moment when the light turns yellow and you have to make that split-second decision whether to speed up and drive through or come to a screeching halt? When the analogy is applied to world affairs, taking the cautious approach might be the wiser course of action.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? - 5/31/2013 1:48:08 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

It may not be our role to give a "green light" to things around the world, but it seems that we're in a perpetual "yellow light" situation. You know, that moment when the light turns yellow and you have to make that split-second decision whether to speed up and drive through or come to a screeching halt? When the analogy is applied to world affairs, taking the cautious approach might be the wiser course of action.

Well thought out comments, Zonie.

Take a careful look at what has been happening in Iraq these past few months. You might come away with the impression that the sectarian war has already spread.

The US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan (where we ought not to have been from the gitgo) shows our waning interest in the Middle East. Surely well known that the American people will not tolerate our open involvement in another ME war. Libya was the last gasp for that game.

Middle Eastern oil became a major interst to the West when Winston Churchill converted the British navy from coal burning ships to oil burning. Oil has twice the energy density of coal.

The Japanese have long been dependent on foreign oil (see the US oil embargo against them in 1940 or whenever) The Japanese are currently involved in a very strenuous effort to develop technology for extracting methane hydrate as a practical fuel source. Methane hydrate is found along the continental shelves in seeming great abundance. This new fuel source may be the root cause of recent conflicts between Japan and China over Islands in the China Sea.

The development of methane hydrate, tar sands guck, and shale oil, and to a lesser extent non-carbon energy sources will lessen the security value of the Middle East to the US. We are already repositioning our forces into the Pacific. We really don't have a dog in that fight. They can fight over their bloody prophets all they like.

ETA: Forgot to mention the melting of the polar ice and the opening of new fuel exploration there will also contribute to the coming insignificance of the Middle East.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 5/31/2013 2:04:53 PM >

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Syria: A Return to Cold War Days? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109