What To Do About Syria

[russtafa]

There are Christians in the U.S. who murder obstetricians and invoke name of Jesus to justify the heinous act. Using your logic, russtafa, the few are representative of the whole and we'd be justified in killing all cross kissing chrissies.


How repulsive is that? An unwashed Australian with a smelly, filth encrusted dicklet. Take a bath and clean up your act. Really, you are the perfect example of an unthinking hate-filled, knee-jerk conservative jerk-off. You do your 'cause' considerably more harm than ... well you don't do it any good at all, which is why I haven't clicked the ignore button yet. Keep up the 'good' work hate-boy

cheers i do my best

[Stavros]

It's the Arab League's problem, not ours. If those countries aren't willing to marshal their military assets to save the lives of Syrian civilians, why is Uncle Sam expected to intervene??
In case you haven't noticed, the U.S.A's rep in the Middle East when it comes to military intervention is lower than shit.
At best we make the situation worse.
I feel for those people with all my heart, but they need to ask themselves why their Arab brothers are watching them being slaughtered in the thousands and stand by and do nothing.
THe Saudis and Egyptians alone have the military might to overthrow the Bashir regime in 48 hours. Ask them why they choose not to act.
Newsflash, the world is a shitty place. There are crises happening all over the globe, all the time.
Captain America can't save everyone.

Giovanni, the Arab League may be able to set a tone of outrage, withdraw their ambassadors, and embarrass the Syrians, but in practical terms intervention is a very risky strategy. Not only would it be unpopular, there would have to be a coherent exit strategy, and unlike Libya, it is not clear that such an intervention would succeed. Libya was a success in part because it did not have a conventional army, as is the case in Syria, and in part because the rebels were being armed from external suppliers, being trained by officers from the Qatari armed forces, and had vital air cover and support from the French and the British.

The history of inter-Arab interventions has been poor, suggesting the precedents warn against it. For example,

In 1962 the Imam al-Badr was overthrown in a coup a week after inheriting the leadership of Yemen from his father. The coup had been mounted by Arab Nationalists supported by the Egyptian leader Nasser who at that time was still in his prime as the man who ‘defeated’ Britain France and Israel in the Suez crisis in 1956, he was pro-Soviet (they were the source of most of his armaments) but who was to the Royal Arab regimes in the 1960s as aggressive a threat as the Ayatollahs have been since 1979.

The result was a war in which the Egyptians fought alongside Yemeni, against a smaller group of Yemeni who supported the Imam, backed by Britain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. A group of mostly British mercenaries also got stuck in on the Imam’s side. The logistics for the so-called Royalists were provided by Britain, whose primary concern was the security of the port and oil refinery at Aden on the south coast. And yet, Britain acknowledged secretly to Kennedy that it actually preferred the Republican option, but to do so would have been a victory for Nasser, and Britain didn’t want that, nor did either King Hussein or King Feisal of Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, the arms were supplied by the Israelis who took them across the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia, but the war ground to a stalemate and was overtaken by Egypt’s defeat in the 1967 war, and in 1969 the Imam fled to Britain where he died, so eventually the republicans got what they wanted, sort of. The moral being: the intervention prolonged an internal dispute in which most of the parties wanted the Republicans to win anyway, but not if it meant a victory for Nasser. It cost millions of $$, thousands of lives, and exacerbated existing tensions in the Yemen which then split into two states.

Even before this civil war had ended, a guerrilla war broke out in Dhofar in neighbouring Oman. The guerrillas, who claimed to be Marxist revolutionaries, were fighting a weird autocrat, Sultan Said bin Taimur, who owned the only car in the country, and a man who thought education would be the ruin of Oman. Oil exploration in the interior at this time had failed, so the man had little money. Nevertheless, the British, along with the Saudis, the Jordanians and the Iranians, put together a military force which took on the guerrillas and fought them to a standstill. I once met a soldier who had been there and who assured me that if was the fact that British officers led the campaign which were the cause of its success. The guerrillas were being supplied, in a half-hearted fashion by the Chinese, but were a small group who, crucially, had little or no support among the majority population in the east and north of Muscat. When Said bin Taimur was visiting London in 1970, the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, put him under ‘house arrest’ in Claridges (an exclusive five-star hotel, where he lived until his death shortly after) so that his son, Qaboos could take over and begin the modernisation of Oman, which he has done. The guerrilla war ended and the rest is history.

As for Syria’s intervention in the civil war in Lebanon in 1976, that also can be argued prolonged the violence, but was complicated by the personal fight between Hafiz al-Asad and Yasser Arafat –anyway, it took the Lebanese nearly 30 years to get rid of them. From where I am sitting, intervention by another Arab state looks like a terrible option.



And anyway, for the Syria revolution to succeed, it is the people themselves who must make it. It is possible that there could be defections in the army, maybe even disaffected politicians around Asad, if the going gets bad enough for them to measure their chances in a new regime….difficult to predict the future on this one.

[Ben]

Maybe the focus should be Iran...

The current state of US neo-con foreign policy discourse:

[Dino Velvet]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...56131b5927d2c4

US softens stance on arms for Syria rebels
By BRADLEY KLAPPER, Associated Press – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration opened the door slightly Tuesday to international military assistance for Syria's rebels, with officials saying new tactics may have to be explored if President Bashar Assad continues to defy pressure to halt a brutal crackdown on dissenters.
In coordinated messages, the White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration's previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.
"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."
The administration has previously said flatly that more weapons are not the answer to the Syrian situation. There had been no mention of "additional measures."
At the State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used nearly identical language to describe the administration's evolving position.
"From our perspective, we don't believe that it makes sense to contribute now to the further militarization of Syria," she told reporters. "What we don't want to see is the spiral of violence increase. That said, if we can't get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures."
Neither Carney nor Nuland would elaborate on what "additional measures" might be taken but there have been growing calls, including from some in Congress, for the international community to arm the rebels. Most suggestions to that effect have foreseen Arab nations such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — and not the West — possibly providing military assistance.
Other officials said discussions are now under way about adding a military component to a package of humanitarian and political aid to the opposition that's to be discussed at a major international conference on Syria this week in Tunisia.
More than 70 countries have been invited to meet Friday in Tunisia for a "Friends of Syria" meeting. The meeting follows the failure of the UN Security Council to endorse an Arab plan that would have seen Assad removed from power.
The meeting of the "Friends of Syria" in Tunis is not likely to produce decisions on military aid or even recognition of Syria's disparate opposition groups, according to U.S. officials. But countries are considering creating large stockpiles of humanitarian aid along Syria's borders, the officials said.
U.S. officials stressed that discussion of military assistance is still preliminary. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy. To maintain the pressure against Assad, Washington is trying to keep as many countries as possible involved in the international coordination against Syria's government — even if there is no consensus strategy on arming the rebels.
This week's talks will seek to clarify some of the confusion. The U.S. is trying to get a clearer picture of what promises countries such as Syria's Arab neighbors are making to elements of the opposition; which rebels each government might support; and some agreement on what types of assistance would be helpful or damaging.
The backdrop to the discussions is the increasing fear that Syria could descend into an all-out civil war.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon on Tuesday disputed reports that Iranian ships docked at a Syrian port over the weekend.
Iranian state-run Press TV said Saturday that an Iranian navy destroyer and a supply ship had docked in the port of Tartus to provide training to ally Syria's naval forces, as Syria tries to crush the opposition movement.
But Defense Department press secretary George Little said Tuesday the U.S. military saw no indication that the ships docked or delivered any cargo. Little said Tehran's ships went through the Suez Canal and now appear to be going back through the canal again.
Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21...ath/?hpt=hp_t3

Inside Syria: 'I can guarantee ... people will starve to death'

Editor's note: CNN correspondent Arwa Damon recently spent some time in Baba Amr, a neighborhood in Homs, Syria, a city that has been a flashpoint in a months-long uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. Government forces have shelled parts of the city – especially Baba Amr, a bastion of anti-government sentiment – for more than two weeks, damaging houses and other buildings and leaving many dead and wounded.
Damon was one of the few international reporters in Syria, whose government has been placing restrictions on journalists and refusing many of them entry. Below is the latest in a string of edited accounts of what Damon and her team saw and heard from activists in Homs:
Virtually no food has come into Baba Amr since the shelling began more than two weeks ago, activists say. So, the residents who are gathered in makeshift bunkers collect what food they can find there and carefully ration it – though those supplies are running out.
Some of what they’ve gathered comes from, among other places, stores that have been hit by artillery fire.
“We take the products to distribute so they don’t go to waste. We keep track of everything we took to reimburse the owners,” an activist says.
In hard-hit Baba Amr, hundreds live in makeshift shelters, having left their homes out of necessity – many have been destroyed – or fear. Navigating the rubble-strewn streets of Baba Amr is made more difficult, activists say, by frequent shelling by government forces and by government snipers. Under cover of darkness, teams head to stores to gather what little supplies are left, quickly loading lentils, diapers and cracked wheat into vehicles.
At one of the shelters, a woman shows off the dwindling food supply.
“There is no food. There is only cracked wheat and rice,” she said.
Another woman, who is at the shelter because her home was destroyed, volunteers at a medical clinic in the neighborhood. She said she had coffee and two cigarettes for the day, and nothing for two days before that.
“I can guarantee you this, people will starve to death," she said.
Baba Amr has been "completely cut off and services are pretty much nonexistent," Dima Moussa, a Chicago lawyer and a Syrian opposition activist, told CNN on Tuesday.
"Communicating with the activists in the area is becoming harder, so getting complete information about casualties is becoming difficult, and we think that the numbers far exceed those that we have been reporting, since we're only reporting those that we can confirm," she said.
The neighborhood has been "completely cut off and services are pretty much nonexistent," Moussa said.
Al-Assad has denied reports that his forces are targeting civilians, saying they are fighting armed gangs and foreign fighters bent on destabilizing the government. But many accounts inside the country say Syrian forces are killing civilians as part of a crackdown on anti-government opposition.
More detailed coverage of what's happening in Syria:
Monday, February 20: 'What is the world waiting for? For us to die of hunger and fear?'
Saturday, February 18: Residents bracing for the worst in Homs
Friday, February 17: Syrian protesters hail 'resistance'
Friday, February 17: In one Syrian town, full-throated cries of defiance
Thursday, February 16: Farmers, teachers, carpenters armed with rifles fear massacre
Thursday, February 16: Wounds ooze, doctors cry in Syrian city
Wednesday, February 15: Activists say trying to flee from homes under attack is virtually a suicide run
Tuesday, February 14: Fearful residents prepare for a bloody battle

[russtafa]

gee nobody ever hears about the disgusting shit going on in that failed experiment of a country called Zimbabwe because that dictator is black ,funny that the news media never brings that place to the attention of the world.i don't suppose the media[left wing] is biased .non of those other shit holes in Africa interfere in that country because their own backyards aren't to sweet.go the left wing do gooders and their shit they should have their noses rubbed in it .Malcom Frazier[ex PM for Australia] was one of the supporters of that fuck up ,the pick should have a rope around his neck

[trish]

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/i...bwe/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ugabe-zimbabwe

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...abwe.html?_r=1

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...n-Despot-again

[russtafa]

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/i...bwe/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ugabe-zimbabwe

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...abwe.html?_r=1

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...n-Despot-again

that's fuck all and what are the leaders of Africa doing about it?,sweet F.A or the world leaders?How about the rock stars=Bono,Geldolf,=sweet F.A .And why aren't the media in an outrage?

[trish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17110754

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46463594.../#.T0R_EswxOHk

http://www.voanews.com/zimbabwe/news...139872613.html

http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/20...on-and-misery/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/wo...pagewanted=all

[Stavros]

gee nobody ever hears about the disgusting shit going on in that failed experiment of a country called Zimbabwe because that dictator is black ,funny that the news media never brings that place to the attention of the world.i don't suppose the media[left wing] is biased .non of those other shit holes in Africa interfere in that country because their own backyards aren't to sweet.go the left wing do gooders and their shit they should have their noses rubbed in it .Malcom Frazier[ex PM for Australia] was one of the supporters of that fuck up ,the pick should have a rope around his neck

Russtafa there is nothing to stop you starting a thread on Zimbabwe if it interests you that much; this is a thread on Syria. I sometimes feel you would be best advised to either read the papers on a regular basis or keep your mouth shut. There have been numerous stories in the press in the last seven days on Zimbabwe, its not a forgotten crisis at all.

Another set of links below, including an article by RW Johnson which is now ten years old but still one of the most perceptive accounts of Mugabe's rise to power, aided curiously enough, by a man called Ian Smith...it may be beyond your patience, but that's the price one pays for scholarship. The long and the short of it is that Mugabe suited the interests of people who were more concerned to end the war in Zimbabwe than what happened after it, as was the case in well -make up a list, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ar?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ns?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...us-Christ.html

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n04/rw-john...-came-to-power

[trish]

Its even been in FOX

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012...nking-reforms/

G'night all, it's past my workday bed time.