Community Blogs
Insurrection!
As many of you know, I am in opposition to the international adventurism with which we as a country seem to be obsessed lately. I regret ever having supported the Iraq invasion. In retrospect--hindsight is always better than foresight--we accomplished very little at great cost. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but so what? The world is full of bad guys running countries. Are we going to depose every tinpot dictator we don't happen to like?
Saving innocent lives is a worthy endeavor, but oppression and mistreatment happens all over the world and has been going on since the beginning of recorded history. If enough residents of a country object to their government, they can depose it by coup, revolution, insurrection or, if available, the ballot box. Why our government thinks it is somehow our responsibility to right all the wrongs of the world defies logical explanation. We have expended many American lives and gobs of money in Iraq, Libya, Kosovo and Afghanistan, along with something very quietly going on in Uganda, with very little to show for it.
Besides the loss of life and resources, we are stressing our military, especially air power, to dangerously near the breaking point and reacting to this manufactured crisis with draconian budget cuts. The Air force was caught unawares by the Administration's precipitous campaign in Libya to depose another tin pot dictator who constituted no threat whatsoever to the United States. Now, our President and his Secretary of State seem to be desperately searching for an excuse to intervene militarily in Syria.
Let me engage in a bit of hypothetical hyperbole. Let's say that several domestic militias, most of whom hate the government, banded together and mounted an insurrection with the purpose of deposing the government of the United States. Let's say they were supported by a bunch of right-wing extremist organizations and even some disaffected citizenry. What would be the reaction of the government? Wouldn't we attack them, militarily if necessary--I believe the Posse Comitatus Act permits military intervention ion the event of insurrection--with whatever force needed to defeat them, including lethal force. I believe the majority of the country would support this action.
Now, what is the difference between this hypothetical and what Basheer Assad is doing in Syria? He is defending his legal government against an armed insurrection--an attempt to overthrow him and his government. Oh, that's right, he is a "bad guy" and we don't like him, and he is militarily attacking a ragtag group of revolutionaries masquerading as civilian protestors.
I maintain that what Assad is doing in Sryia is none of our--or anyone else's--business. If enough Syrians support the insurrectionists, they will prevail. From recent reports, that does not seem to be the case despite Hillary's unseemly appeal for the populace to rise up; they seem uninclined to do so. I fear we will find some excuse/justification for intervening militarily, probably with air power and SOF (Special Operations Forces) at least initially. Realize that Iran is a strong supporter of the Syrian government and Mr. Assad. Any military intervention could easily open a Pandora's Box of escalation.
Let's just stay home and fix our own problems. Or don't we have enough to keep us busy?
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
33 Comments
jman99 - Mar 02, 2012 6:08 PM
That's the reason. If you can get Syria, You don't have to invade Iran.
You will note how very quiet Israel has been about what is happening to its neighbor.
Carl Hicks - Mar 02, 2012 6:56 PM
I was against it from the beginning and didn't put the full puzzle together on the
mabufactured fiscal crisis until recently.
I do support working with UN peace keeping forces in situations such as
Libya,Kosovo,etc,but only when civilian populations are under mortal threat by
their own government and the action taken is agreed upon and carried out by a
multinational force,since in this day and age a civilian uprising is suicidal against
a military.I have no doubt we will have troops in Syria before the troops
withdraw from Afghanistan ( in order to give the CIA a base of operations on
Irans border ). Don't let the humanitarian action story fool you. Iraqi oil is back
under the control of the west and Irans is next .
Carl Hicks - Mar 02, 2012 7:08 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120228-707926.html
aneuhauser - Mar 03, 2012 12:38 AM
Governments have been abusing their populations for centuries. Africa is full of so-called governments doing exactly that, either by force or by economic corruption. We seem to be picking and choosing our "humanitarian" incursions with very murky justification. I say let them stew in their own juice.
aneuhauser - Mar 03, 2012 12:44 AM
Jacob Pickard - Mar 03, 2012 3:49 PM
If Isreal is smart they'll gain a little wisdom from Monty Python and the life of brian, "The only people I hate more than the Roman's are the peoples front of Judeah!"
geno53151 - Mar 03, 2012 3:54 PM
* The U.S. Agriculture Department sale of 120,000 tons of red winter wheat to Iran will be delivered by May 31. It is not clear how the country will pay for the wheat given monetary sanctions and it is not certain the Treasury Department approved the deal in advance, as required. """
Great. Food to feed their people while the leaders can divert resources to build up their Military.
At same time """President Barack Obama warned that he is not bluffing about attacking Iran if it builds a nuclear weapon,""".
reformed trucker - Mar 03, 2012 7:26 PM
Maybe they're going to brew some tasty lager with that. Oh, wait... that's right.
Never trust anyone who doesn't like beer. ;)
"At the same time 'President Barack Obama warned that he is not bluffing about
attacking Iran if it builds a nuclear weapon'." - geno
He's done a great job at picking off bad guys. Obama, the war monger. Man, that
has to frost some of his lefty peacenik base. I can see the Obama '12 bumper
stickers now...
jman99 - Mar 03, 2012 8:11 PM
While true in one way not in another. Iran needs Syria not to be controlled by by any other but Iran.
Same way the USA need Iran to be controlled by the USA and not the Russians. Your allies' far border is a better place to fight than your own border.
Re read your copy of the "Art of War".
The Persian have been at this a lot longer than the Americans.
Jacob Pickard - Mar 04, 2012 7:41 AM
The Saudi's hate Iran, and visa versa. Iran, also known as Persia in the past, has had their tentacles in the middle east for millenia.
The arabs would like nothing more than to beat the persian's back.
This is the same dynamic that was at play in the Iran/Iraq war.After we decimated Iraq l it eft a power vacum in the region that the Saudi's easily filled.
It's a cold war re-run. The Saudi's are very active in Syria as is Iran. It is turning into a proxy war, much like Lebannon's civil war.
jman99 - Mar 04, 2012 8:16 AM
The Iranians could nicely ratchet this whole thing up a notch which is why Obama can't give int to Benny when he comes to call this week.
All the Iranians need to do is say: "we are going to allow inspectors, but only inspectors we trust, so only inspectors from China, India, Pakistan and Russia"
This is a good move as none of these have cultural ties to Israel.
This nicely bypasses the heavy western weighted IAEA and put the whole question on an East vs.West footing.
geno53151 - Mar 04, 2012 10:39 AM
Obama Administration cutting our military forces and budget. China's armed forces already exceed ours in numbers. They are already catching up to our technology. While we cut back on nuclear weapons, they are increasing theirs.
They build new state of the art Manufacturing facilites as we replace ours with strip malls. Example, Delco plant in Oak Creek leveled.
Not too worry, as with almost everything we purchase is made in China, we can always buy Militay supplies, ammunitions (ETC) from them at a cheap price if we ever go to war with them.
Carl Hicks - Mar 04, 2012 12:36 PM
corporations!
Carl Hicks - Mar 04, 2012 2:06 PM
like a bunch of friends going on a road trip,would you use the guy with the nicest
newest car or the older beater.
jman99 - Mar 04, 2012 3:44 PM
Obama Administration cutting our military forces and budget. "
Well given that China is socialist, this overwhelmingly proves Obama is no socialist
"China's armed forces already exceed ours in numbers. They are already catching up to our technology. While we cut back on nuclear weapons, they are increasing theirs."
Ditto what I said above.
"They build new state of the art Manufacturing facilites as we replace ours with strip malls. Example, Delco plant in Oak Creek leveled."
That's because American would rather buy things than make them. Going on for 60 years now, not Obama's fault.
"Not too worry, as with almost everything we purchase is made in China, we can always buy Militay supplies, ammunitions (ETC) from them at a cheap price if we ever go to war with them. "
Well that was the model for Iraq.....
geno53151 - Mar 04, 2012 5:13 PM
Obama is willing to let that happen.
jman99 - Mar 04, 2012 5:29 PM
With over three time the population of the USA, there is no way to stop them short of killing off 600,000,000 or so of them.
It is a number game.
As they industrialize they will have three times the engineers and scientists while out pool shrinks.
We do have the advantage in lawyers and stockbrokers.
geno53151 - Mar 04, 2012 8:13 PM
referee33 - Mar 04, 2012 8:29 PM
sirlaughsalittle - Mar 04, 2012 9:04 PM
for an excuse to intervene militarily in Syria." - Al
I'm not familiar with comments made by Hillary, but I think it's safe to assume
that her position is consistent with the President's. I've seen no indication from
statements he's made that he has any desire to intervene militarily. In fact the
statement he made in August indicates to the contrary:
"The United States cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria. It is up
to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders, and we have heard their strong
desire that there not be foreign intervention in their movement. What the United
States will support is an effort to bring about a Syria that is democratic, just, and
inclusive for all Syrians. We will support this outcome by pressuring President
Assad to get out of the way of this transition, and standing up for the universal
rights of the Syrian people along with others in the international community."
If you read his statement in its entirety you'll discover that he strongly condemns
the brutality that's being inflicted upon the Syrian people. I'm proud of him for
taking the high moral ground on this issue. After all, he could have just as easily
adopted the sadistic, anti-Christian, let-them-stew-in-their-own-juices position.