|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 21, 2012 1:45:47 GMT -5
Obama is threatening to intervene if Syria uses chems. But that would be irrelevant. The arguments against intervention - that the AQ could take power if Assad is overthrown - are as valid regardless of whether chems are used. By the same token the arguments in favor of intervention - 1) to overthrow a dictatorship and promote democracy, and 2) also to make friends among the rebels - are valid regardless of whether chems are used. So, either way, the use of chems or non-use would be irrelevant to the decision to intervene. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 21, 2012 2:52:43 GMT -5
Swampy,
"By the same token the arguments in favor of intervention - 1) to overthrow a dictatorship and promote democracy, and 2) also to make friends among the rebels - are valid regardless of whether chems are used."
You mean like Libya, Egypt, and so on, and on, and on.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 21, 2012 8:54:59 GMT -5
I'd have to say that recent experience leads me to agree with Sir John. The only reason to intervene if chemical weapons are used is a moral one and has nothing to do with US security. I have learned to distrust all mid-easterners (except Israel but to include Pakistan). They all seem to be driven by a fanatical Islamic dictate and (1) seem to want to kill or enslave all non-Muslims and (2) have no fear of death. Putting both of those thoughts together, they will not be controlled by anything except killing them. There may be a few common folk amongst them who are peaceful, but they are so frightened by the fanatics that they will do what they are told to do....
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 21, 2012 9:23:17 GMT -5
I would say Pakistan is divided into four parts, as I understand, and one part is pro-Western. Turkey is an Islamic country and pretty pro-West. Kuwait is definitely pro-West, and, as far as I know, mostly Islamic.
As for Syria, if Assad uses chemical weapons and we intervene, then how far do we go? If we just stop, we won't do anything; if we continue, we'll be supporing the people you say are fanatics and will turn on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 21, 2012 10:28:22 GMT -5
I would say Pakistan is divided into four parts, as I understand, and one part is pro-Western. Turkey is an Islamic country and pretty pro-West. Kuwait is definitely pro-West, and, as far as I know, mostly Islamic. As for Syria, if Assad uses chemical weapons and we intervene, then how far do we go? If we just stop, we won't do anything; if we continue, we'll be supporing the people you say are fanatics and will turn on us. As I understand it, Turkey is moving more and more toward Shiria law and anti-western stance.. As for chem weapons in Syria - at this point I'm leaning strongly toward "let the Arab countries handle it. It is as much their problem as ours".... |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 21, 2012 10:57:30 GMT -5
As I understand it, Turkey is moving more and more toward Shiria law and anti-western stance. Their military would never let that happen. As for letting the Arab countries handle their own, well, I'm not overly confident of their tendencies towards democracy. That said, Iraq does have some semblance of real voting, so who knows? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 11:37:18 GMT -5
Why wouldn't their military let that happen? Their military comes from the people and their people aren't the biggest fans of western society. I spent a year in Turkey while in the Army and I can GUARANTEE you that we aren't their favorite country. That said, some of the nicest people I've ever met are poor, down to earth Turks who are willing to give you the shirt off their back as part of their hospitality. Still, I was more frightened for my safety the year that I was there than any time during the seven years I spent in the Far East, or anywhere else.
|
|
