A Possible 'Syrian War'

[WinePusher]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[Punchy]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[Replying to post 2 by Angel]

If, in my opinion, Assad has used chemical or biological warfare on the people of Syria, and there are international laws prohibiting such action, then it is the responsibility of the international community to enforce those laws. I do not believe that the people of America wish to get involved in another conflict.

I for one, do not believe we (United States) should be involved in the middle east at all, militarily. There has already been too much money, munitions, and men sacrificed for the benefit of Israel.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

Imperialism has had its day and it doesn't work. humanitarian aid isn't perfect but it works and is temporary just ask why the british are not there anymore.....

Yes, it has worked so well in Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Eygpt, ... In fact, where would you say that governmental humanitarian aid has worked as a foreign policy in the absence of governmental control?

[bluethread]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[Replying to post 2 by Angel]

If, in my opinion, Assad has used chemical or biological warfare on the people of Syria, and there are international laws prohibiting such action, then it is the responsibility of the international community to enforce those laws. I do not believe that the people of America wish to get involved in another conflict.

I for one, do not believe we (United States) should be involved in the middle east at all, militarily. There has already been too much money, munitions, and men sacrificed for the benefit of Israel.

Do you believe that these United Stated should surrender our sovereignty to the 'international community"?

[Punchy]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[Replying to post 2 by Angel]

If, in my opinion, Assad has used chemical or biological warfare on the people of Syria, and there are international laws prohibiting such action, then it is the responsibility of the international community to enforce those laws. I do not believe that the people of America wish to get involved in another conflict.

I for one, do not believe we (United States) should be involved in the middle east at all, militarily. There has already been too much money, munitions, and men sacrificed for the benefit of Israel.

Do you believe that these United Stated should surrender our sovereignty to the 'international community"?

I am a most adamant supporter of our national sovereignty, however, if it is the UN and the internationals that make these rules, it should be the UN that enforces them. Quite honestly, I wish we were not a part of the UN at all. I believe we could better serve the world by preserving freedom right here in America.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by bluethread]

The Peace Corps
Red Cross
and even some churches

have a long and successful history of humanitarian aid. Just because you can find some examples of tragic events involving HA does not mean it is entirely unsuccessful. Imperialism has never been successful.

We are not sovereign over Syria. Boots on the ground solves nothing your desire for blood is duly noted. Unless your willing to go there yourself or send your kids you should probably reconsider your position.

[Angel]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

To add more to my previous post, it would be moral to stop the Syrian government from slaughtering innocent people (assuming that's being done deliberately). The problem is that no one has the resources (unlimited military, unlimited money, etc) to stop every act of evil, especially when we have our own major problems to deal with. There's probably no perfect line to walk here but my family and country comes first.

[Darias]

I would like to preface this post by saying that I by no means claim to be an expert on issues like these, but I believe it's safe to say I'm somewhat informed on such topics, having received a BA in international studies and a minor in Islamic studies. I normally don't bring up my education, but I just wanted to establish that I'm not simply a random blogger who's formed an opinion after reading a couple of op-eds online.

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

It already is. The US has been arming Syria's opposition -- terrorists and their sympathizers among them -- for some time now. We as taxpayers have already subsidized savagery.

Of course it makes perfect sense why al-Qaida would naturally ally with rebels of any Middle Eastern nation. Anyone who's read bin Laden's Letter to America already knows that jihadists oppose states that are seen as western puppets; in this case, Syria is backed by Russia and Iran. In the eyes of al-Qaida, Russia is still viewed as a godless nation and the Shi'ite Iranians are believed to be apostates.

To briefly answer your question, no, it shouldn't; it will only make things worse. When the US invaded Iraq, it ushered in swaths of foreign insurgents, which intensified existing religious and ethnic tensions to say the very least, just as al-Qaida intended. Syria's religious and ethnic makeup is even more complicated than Iraq's.

In my opinion, if the only way to win is with a full scale war then we should not get involved if we can't afford it. If we can drop a few bombs here and there, sort of like how it went in Libya then I'd probably be okay with that. The only exception I could make to more full scale assault is if we had an international coalition helping us but from what I can tell we don't or maybe not yet.

Define "win."

[center][/center]

How exactly does a global consensus, which benefits from appeasing US leadership, justify military action? The imposition of majority opinion only means might not right.

Furthermore, it's not as though this is a crippled, former US ally like Saddam's regime, or an isolated dictatorship like that of Gaddafi's. There's a reason why the US hasn't invaded North Korea, and it's for the same reason attacking Syria is unwise. Syria, unlike Libya, is allied to major countries like Russia and Iran; therefore, US military action in Syria could seriously escalate into something far worse.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you support the initiation of intervention or not; your tax dollars will, with or without your approval. Given the nature of taxation, you can just forget about consent.

And no, the United States government cannot afford another war, anymore than it can afford the next soldier. However, defense spending isn't grounded in fiscal sanity. The world's reserve currency is the US dollar which is debt based and backed by the sale of oil in lieu of gold. These wars are being waged on borrowed and freshly printed money in order to maintain the hegemony of both the US dollar and government around the world.

[center][/center]

The Syrian conflict is mostly a case of bad guys fighting bad guys at this point, so it makes sense to steer clear. I support Obama's caution here.

However, a full scale effort to assist the refuges is certainly called for. I'm disappointed in Obama's lack of leadership here.

We might have won over the Syrian people if we'd stayed out of the war, but led a dramatic very public effort to assist the refuges. As it stands, I'm guessing we've blown a historic opportunity. Generations of Syrians will now remember the U.S. as the sleepy self absorbed country that couldn't be bothered in Syria's time of great need.

Yes, this point is crucial. I honestly don't know whether military intervention is a good idea or not. There are international laws that prohibit the usage of chemical weapons, so if the Syrian government did in fact use chemical weapons there has to be repercussions. I agree with Angel's analysis, that bombing runs targeted at specific facilities that manufacture chemical weapons are the best route to go.

But the main point that the United States should bear in mind is that this really is a case of bad guys fighting bad guys. The Syrian government vs. the Syrian rebels. Neither side is on the right side of history.

This is a good point.
Yes, if that law is to have any meaning, the Syrian government has to pay some penalty, suffer some loss which would discourage other actors from using these weapons.

But....

Now we are in effect saying, it's ok to slaughter 100,000 people by other means, but it's not ok to slaughter a few hundred people with chemical weapons. Not an easy message to sell...

Personally, I doubt that dictatorships in the current state of chaos the Syrian regime finds itself in can ever be talked out of doing what they see as necessary for their survival.

My vote is, take all the resources we might have used in a war with Syria, and flood the refuge camps with free services.

In the end, over the long run, the real power in Syria is the Syrian people. We should be making it utterly clear that we are on their side, whoever wins the current shoot out.

However, it seems this is not to be. I expect the Syrian people will largely hate us for decades to come.

Thank you both for the cops' n' robbers analysis. All this talk of "good guys," "bad guys," and "history"... it's like we're discussing a Star Wars film instead of the real world.

What I'd like to know is, where was Kerry's theatrics months ago when evidence was presented at the UN that showed sarin gas had been deployed by rebel forces? Where was the global condemnation when Turkey, a US ally, arrested Syrian terrorists in possession of about 5 lbs of sarin? Where was the chorus of talking heads in the mainstream media mindlessly repeating the White House's call to action to stop the terrorists?

Could it possibly be that US foreign policy isn't "guided by a higher standard" to stamp out chemical weapon use? God forbid.

Don't hold your breath if you think the State Department will simply shovel money at refugees if the state cannot benefit from that in a way that outweighs the costs.

And who could honestly think Syrians would be appreciative of an extended US troop presence on the ground, or the installation of a US-backed regime? Did anyone learn anything from the Iraq War at all?

So the real question is, what are some of the actual reasons the US wants to engage itself in Syria, apart from the "chemical weapons" excuse?

It is important to note that while Syria doesn't export much oil compared to other oil exporting nations, it is pretty much the only eastern Mediterranean country that does so; it has a great deal of untapped black gold just under it. This matters because it supports the regime financially, as it sells oil to Russia and China. Even the rebels want in on it, which is why oil sale bans were lifted in Europe.

It should come as no surprise that the US has an interest in securing oil reserves for itself and for corporate interests. It's 21st century mercantilism. Even John Bolton admitted to it:

The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.

But supply alone isn't the driving factor for war. No, that all has to do with dollar hegemony via petrodollar warfare, as I previously mentioned.

Apart from the obvious intention to secure further hegemony and influence in the Middle East, the US got involved in Iraq and Libya primarily for the sake of the petrodollar, both of which wanted to sell oil in Euros or gold backed currency in lieu of the US Dollar.

Iran understands that the only way to escape US military intervention is to have a nuclear weapon or to sell its oil with the US Dollar and comply with the whims of the State Department; virtually all political movements in Iran, from supporters of the government to those oppressed by it, favor the former option.

More more details on currency warfare, please check out these sources:

• Currency Wars: Oil, Iraq, and the Future of US Hegemony
  
  Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
  
  Interview With William R. Clark, Author "Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar"

War doesn't always have to be the answer. But considering our trillion dollar military budget its the only one we know.

War, especially concerning the preemptive, aggressive sort, is a tool used by the state to advance its own interests -- not a solution to a humanitarian crisis. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that a great deal of taxpayer dollars are diverted to "defense" spending, even under the leadership of Nobel Peace Prize winners. War is waged in the interests of the state, and usually ends up creating more long term problems for that state to deal with as often as it aggravates existing problems for the victims of this game of Risk we call "US intervention."

[center][/center]

The problem with "humanitarian aid" is that it becomes a tool of whoever controls the territory. The only way to assure true "humanitarian aid" is to control the territory. As nonPC as it sounds, we are learning, hopefully, why imperialism is the only foreign policy that works. That is why this is a loose/loose for us. The imperial nations, Russia, China and Iran are calling the shots.

Neither a US occupation (in the spirit of direct rule), nor the installation of a US "friendly" "democracy" (aka dictatorship) would mean that funding would fall into the hands of the people. This is because the sole purpose of foreign "aid" is to financially assist regimes or terrorists, depending on which group the DoD deems "ally" at the time.

[center]

[img]http://media1.policymic.com/site/articles/items/16043/1_image-large.jpg[/img] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg[/img]

[/center]

Any humanitarian benefit that may arise from such spending does not change its underlying purpose; states are not benevolent agents. It is not as though Uncle Sam hands out money out of the goodness of his own heart. Foreign policy is driven by state interests only; these are typically defined as those actions which promote state hegemony in the short term, and which insure the continuation of the petrodollar. Foreign policies typically ignore long term consequences, also known as blowback, such as terrorism, expensive prolonged wars, and nation-building. Imperialism stretches an empire to its limits and ultimately results in an economic collapse, e.g., the fall of Rome.

And it would be odd to leave out the United States from a list of imperial nations, since it is, after all, the world superpower.

[center][/center]

Imperialism has had its day and it doesn't work. humanitarian aid isn't perfect but it works and is temporary just ask why the british are not there anymore.....

What does aid do, and who does it "work" for? Aid does not address the issues it is claimed to deal with, but instead ends up financing wars and hurting local economies, such as small farmers. Aid typically does more harm than good, if any at all. In that sense it is counterproductive concerning its stated objective; it is instead another useful tool for keeping developing and impoverished nations dependent on the world's nanny state.

[center][/center]

there's a great case against it, with that NYTimes piece. However, Bret Stephens at the WSJ also makes a great case for it. The issue of course is timing. We are in the position we are because of failed timing on the part of Obama. I kind of feel we have no choice but to go in, though I don't want to. If we don't go in, then the resulting population will be so radicalized that it'll become another barbarian stronghold, like Iraq and Iran became after fighting their prolonged war against each other.

Putin is now making up a lie that Saudi Arabia has threatened it with terrorists who will attack its upcoming winter games, as an excuse to attack Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria. An Lebanese paper, sympathetic to Assad and Hezbollah, has "confirmed" the integrity of the charge lol. It's a mess.

Blaming Obama for a timing issue seems more like a pointless partisan criticism, especially when you fail to explain what the difference is in acting sooner rather than later.

No one has a choice but to accept the reality that conflict will break out; it doesn't matter what you or anyone else wants. Foreign policy is not like voting for a contestant on American Idol. There's no negotiating your life and property because you are owned, and the state will take what it wants from you and make you like it.

Furthermore, you are presenting a false choice between radicalism and interventionism -- never mind the fact that interventionism is a direct cause of anti-Americanism, radicalism, and terrorism. You mention Iraq and Iran, but it is painfully apparent that you don't understand how they came to be what they are today, as I will explain later.

And if you think that Russian leaders are the only ones who lie, then you're not going to like fact that all states lie, especially these United States. You're in for a rude awakening if you keep reading.

That's why I struggle to find a side to support in this mess. What does it say when a red line is the usage of chemical weapons on a thousand people, but the murder of 120,000 does not qualify for intervention?

And the need for intervention is solely on the basis that if we don't punish those who use chemical weapons, the weight of the global opposition to the usage of such weapons will amount to nothing more then lip service. In other words: Meaningless! But then where we on Saddam against the Kurds, which gassed 3 times the amount of people who have died in Syria, and where were we when Egypt used it against the Yemeni population?

There is also a case against staying out of the conflict. We supported Saddam in his war on Iran, to prolong the conflict and encourage let two devils weaken each other out, and we ended up with a more radical Iran and a more radical Iraq. Iran then went on to be the #1 state sponsor of terrorism around the world, and Iraq went on to invade Kuwait. The longer the conflict goes on, the more radical the populations that remain become, as the good, the decent, are thinned out in genocide, while either Assad wins and empowers the Iranian-Soviet pact that they are fighting on behalf, not to mention the full on genocide of every individual against Assad, or, Syria will become a terrorist state for Jihadists who have Europe and the United States in their crosshairs.

Iraqi's thank us for toppling Saddam, and in the same sentence wish us to be doused in kerosene and tossed into the inner depths of hell. Innocent Syrian refugees will not acknowledge that they were treated in Israel, for free, lest they be slaughtered by one of their fellow "innocent" family member back home. And most of these people that are treated by Israel return home to curse the Jew and Israel lol. They are an odd people. But some are at a point of desperation, because of the tribalism of the region, that they know that Israel is their only hope. Not the Turks. Not the Jordanians. Not the Egyptians. Not the Saudi's. But the Israeli's, the only decent people in the region.

I'm 55% in favor of invasion, 45% against it. But I think the relevant question isn't one of whether one is for or against intervention. The question is one of timing... intervention is inevitable, but when will it be appropriate to enter into this conflict? And what would our aims be?

1. There is no red line. Condemnation of chemical attacks is neither sincere nor consistent.

2. The US was driving the Iran-Iraq war. The CIA gave Saddam intelligence on Iranian troops, knowing ahead of time that Iraq had and would use sarin gas among other chemical weapons agaisnt them. The US didn't simply "fail" to condemn the chemical attacks, it wanted them to happen; it helped them happen.

3. Would you, or anyone else for that matter, care to explain exactly what message does it send to the world when the United States takes on a "moral" mission to stop chemical attacks in Syria, the very same US that knew about Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, but instead publicly blamed the gassing on Iran? I'll tell you; it proves yet again that US leadership is quick to defend atrocities committed by its allies, and quick to pretend to be a moral champion when rival proxy states misbehave. This is why the US did not condemn anti-communist Nasser when his government gassed Yemenis. And much more recently, this is why the State Department strongly supported the Arab Spring in places like Libya, but not in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain.

4. Why did the Bush administration condemn Saddam's use of chemical weapons a decade later? Well, because Iraq had become a liability. Saddam invaded Kuwait in part because it thought it had US support, but when it stopped selling oil with the US dollar shortly before "shock and awe," that's what warranted regime change. The tragedy of 9/11 just so happened to wet many Americans' appetite for war, and that administration took advantage of those cries for blood and revenge in order to push for more US involvement in the region -- more of the same involvement that Islamic militants attacked Americans for in the first place.

5. Most states use terrorism to their advantage, including Israel, and the United States. Aid to rebel groups in Syria also falls under state-sponsored terrorism, mostly because the opposition is al-Qaida affiliated.

6. The Islamic Republic of Iran exists today largely because of Operation Ajax. The CIA and MI6 assassinated the democratically elected Mossadeq and a western-friendly king was installed. His horrible human rights legislation led to an anti-western, anti-American revolution, headed by radical religious figures pretending to be liberal. And that's how a theocracy was born.

7. Many Shia Iraqis may have been grateful when Saddam fell, but no Iraqi was grateful for the US occupation and the western installed regime led by al-Maliki. He now goes after political rivals of the Sunni faith (such as the Vice President), accusing them of "treason." His regime has a positive relationship with Iran, much to the chagrin of short-sighted policy makers that failed to take that into consideration when attempting to fill a power vacuum in the region. This disaster verging on failed-state status is passed off as "freedom" and "democracy" by the State Department.

Would you be grateful for something like this? No.

8. The state of Israel, like the US -- like all states -- is not innocent. Aside from illegally seizing land from Palestinian farmers and subsidizing Israeli settlements on that private land, it has been known to use white phosphorus on densely populated civilian areas. It, like the US, has also used depleted uranium. The US also used agent orange and killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam. So please do tell me what business, what right, what moral authority does this state have to intervene -- even if it starts a war solely in the "interests of saving lives"? What message does it send apart from "Do as I say, not as I do," or, "Do as we say and we'll look the other way"?

9. As for your video, I would take it with a grain of salt. It's made by an institute created by a man who worked for Israeli intelligence; it usually translates Israeli state media, so it's aim is to paint that government in a holier light than it deserves.

I do not believe that the people of America wish to get involved in another conflict.

[center]
Actual Quote[/center]


The US government is not a force for good in the world, it's just force -- force and opportunism. That's nothing to take pride in, but it's nothing to be ashamed of either, since we are not the government and the state doesn't belong to us -- nor are its leaders accountable to us.

Call a spade "a spade," condemn evil for what it is, and don't make exceptions for your favorite party or country.



-

[marketandchurch]

9. As for your video, I would take it with a grain of salt. It's made by an institute created by a man who worked for Israeli intelligence; it usually translates Israeli state media, so it's aim is to paint that government in a holier light than it deserves.

Darias, MERMI just brings to us that which we do not see, because we do not speak Arabic or watch Arabic media. But the clips you see are not Israeli TV. They are Middle Eastern sources of all varieties, from Al-Hafiz, Al-Nas, Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, Al Arabiya, and so on.

Unless you are saying that Israel now pulls the strings of all these channels. All they do is translate what these Arabs say. If you disagree with their translations, fine, but show where you differ. Here's one of Bashar admitting that he slaughters his own people in Sudan:

[marketandchurch]

8. The state of Israel, like the US -- like all states -- is not innocent. Aside from illegally seizing land from Palestinian farmers and subsidizing Israeli settlements on that private land, it has been known to use white phosphorus on densely populated civilian areas. It, like the US, has also used depleted uranium. The US also used agent orange and killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam. So please do tell me what business, what right, what moral authority does this state have to intervene -- even if it starts a war solely in the "interests of saving lives"? What message does it send apart from "Do as I say, not as I do," or, "Do as we say and we'll look the other way"?

The West Bank is Israeli territory. It can and should do with it as it pleases. These are former Jordanians, they should be compensated by the state of Jordan, who should take its citizens back, and should take the lead on these matters, since it put its former West bankers and citizens of Jordan's West Bank, in the position that they are today, by choosing to take part in Egypt's bid for beach-front property in the holy land.

Israel is acting purely on the grounds that the region is changing, we might as well fight for a favorable outcome.

• 1.) Libya, Iraq, and Yemen are engaged in a brutal civil war, Lebanon is on the verge of falling into one too,
  
  2.) Terrorists run the Sinai,
  
  3.) The Muslim Brotherhood present a disturbing challenge for the stability of Egypt,
  
  4.) Jordan is on the verge its own Arab Spring and the Palestinians will finally make a state that has the potential of devolving into a Hamas-run state, the West Bank will also be Hamas-run as well if Fatah would only allow for elections...
  
  5.) Turkey is cracking down on every bit of political dissent to take the state in an Islamist direction, and
  
  6.) Iran is the puppet behind Iraq, Assad, and Hezbollah, not to mention Hamas.

Given that reality... Israel has no choice, given the instability of a region that is about to consumed in bloodshed, but to act in any direction favorable to it, as the only Island of calm and stability. If has remained silent on the Syrian conflict until now, and it now feels that it is in its interest to take out Assad.

[marketandchurch]

That's why I struggle to find a side to support in this mess. What does it say when a red line is the usage of chemical weapons on a thousand people, but the murder of 120,000 does not qualify for intervention?

And the need for intervention is solely on the basis that if we don't punish those who use chemical weapons, the weight of the global opposition to the usage of such weapons will amount to nothing more then lip service. In other words: Meaningless! But then where we on Saddam against the Kurds, which gassed 3 times the amount of people who have died in Syria, and where were we when Egypt used it against the Yemeni population?

There is also a case against staying out of the conflict. We supported Saddam in his war on Iran, to prolong the conflict and encourage let two devils weaken each other out, and we ended up with a more radical Iran and a more radical Iraq. Iran then went on to be the #1 state sponsor of terrorism around the world, and Iraq went on to invade Kuwait. The longer the conflict goes on, the more radical the populations that remain become, as the good, the decent, are thinned out in genocide, while either Assad wins and empowers the Iranian-Soviet pact that they are fighting on behalf, not to mention the full on genocide of every individual against Assad, or, Syria will become a terrorist state for Jihadists who have Europe and the United States in their crosshairs.

Iraqi's thank us for toppling Saddam, and in the same sentence wish us to be doused in kerosene and tossed into the inner depths of hell. Innocent Syrian refugees will not acknowledge that they were treated in Israel, for free, lest they be slaughtered by one of their fellow "innocent" family member back home. And most of these people that are treated by Israel return home to curse the Jew and Israel lol. They are an odd people. But some are at a point of desperation, because of the tribalism of the region, that they know that Israel is their only hope. Not the Turks. Not the Jordanians. Not the Egyptians. Not the Saudi's. But the Israeli's, the only decent people in the region.

I'm 55% in favor of invasion, 45% against it. But I think the relevant question isn't one of whether one is for or against intervention. The question is one of timing... intervention is inevitable, but when will it be appropriate to enter into this conflict? And what would our aims be?

1. There is no red line. Condemnation of chemical attacks is neither sincere nor consistent.

2. The US was driving the Iran-Iraq war. The CIA gave Saddam intelligence on Iranian troops, knowing ahead of time that Iraq had and would use sarin gas among other chemical weapons agaisnt them. The US didn't simply "fail" to condemn the chemical attacks, it wanted them to happen; it helped them happen.

3. Would you, or anyone else for that matter, care to explain exactly what message does it send to the world when the United States takes on a "moral" mission to stop chemical attacks in Syria, the very same US that knew about Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, but instead publicly blamed the gassing on Iran? I'll tell you; it proves yet again that US leadership is quick to defend atrocities committed by its allies, and quick to pretend to be a moral champion when rival proxy states misbehave. This is why the US did not condemn anti-communist Nasser when his government gassed Yemenis. And much more recently, this is why the State Department strongly supported the Arab Spring in places like Libya, but not in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain.

4. Why did the Bush administration condemn Saddam's use of chemical weapons a decade later? Well, because Iraq had become a liability. Saddam invaded Kuwait in part because it thought it had US support, but when it stopped selling oil with the US dollar shortly before "shock and awe," that's what warranted regime change. The tragedy of 9/11 just so happened to wet many Americans' appetite for war, and that administration took advantage of those cries for blood and revenge in order to push for more US involvement in the region -- more of the same involvement that Islamic militants attacked Americans for in the first place.

5. Most states use terrorism to their advantage, including Israel, and the United States. Aid to rebel groups in Syria also falls under state-sponsored terrorism, mostly because the opposition is al-Qaida affiliated.

6. The Islamic Republic of Iran exists today largely because of Operation Ajax. The CIA and MI6 assassinated the democratically elected Mossadeq and a western-friendly king was installed. His horrible human rights legislation led to an anti-western, anti-American revolution, headed by radical religious figures pretending to be liberal. And that's how a theocracy was born.

7. Many Shia Iraqis may have been grateful when Saddam fell, but no Iraqi was grateful for the US occupation and the western installed regime led by al-Maliki. He now goes after political rivals of the Sunni faith (such as the Vice President), accusing them of "treason." His regime has a positive relationship with Iran, much to the chagrin of short-sighted policy makers that failed to take that into consideration when attempting to fill a power vacuum in the region. This disaster verging on failed-state status is passed off as "freedom" and "democracy" by the State Department.

Would you be grateful for something like this? No.

-

I said it myself in my post that the US supported Saddam to encourage the Iraq-Iran conflict, the thinking behind the act being akin to had Hitler started fighting Stalin, we would arm which ever one was losing thinking that the encouraging of the fighting of these two demons would help usher in their collapse. Saddam was never an allies, we saw him as the lesser devil in a region full of devils. And we payed dearly for that gamble, because both regimes only became more toxic afterwards. Saddam went on to start a few more wars and fire missiles at some of it's adversarys in the region, and Iran went on to be the greatest state sponsor of terrorism around the world. Sometimes our choices in life is not between a good choice and a bad choice, but between a horrific choice, and an even more horrific choice. I brought up the case in Egypt using it on Yemen, and the silence by the same folks now putting a fatwa on Assad, did you read anything I write or are you just using my post to restate my points as your own?

Obviously the Shia Iraqis are grateful for the toppling of Saddam, and the Kurds, which make up most of Iraq, but even had we not stayed in Iraq, they still would have hated us. They despised Saddam most, but they hated America third behind Israel, and Saddam. They have always hated us, and believe it or not... they hate each other just as much. Iraqi's hate fellow iraqi's, they hate the muslim brotherhood, some of them hate Iran and some of them don't, some of them support Syria and some are in Syria fighting to kill Assad, a black and white "We made them angry at us" thinking is comfortable, it makes life more digestible, but not respectful. They hate, okay? They don't like. Liking others is not in their vocabulary to those who view many of their own countrymen with contempt. They are a tribal culture is everything is on the basis of blood. We dont think in those terms so we couldn't possibly imagine the full ramifications of that.

We will never have democracy in this region, and we should no enforce onto them. We should essentially destroy every state, and make them all emirates where territory is run by the local tribes and their local laws. Oil revenue can be split up and shared equally by all the tribes but there is no need for the existence of Iraq, or Iran, or Libya, or Syria. They should be broken up to their truer original form, as they were when the Arabs ran the empire, and even under ottoman rule. It was much stabler then.