The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Middle East: Israel invades Gaza
[Tycho?]![[Tycho?]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5018289/uploads/userpics/934/nHG8VEMRTY5QM.gif)
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
Welcome back to the Middle East Thread, 4th edition.
Below is the old OP, I'll try and write something objectively informative about recent events in Syria and Egypt.
*****************
An awful lot has changed since we last had an OP. What follows is a bit of a primer, with some information on the region in general and some of the specific events that have taken place over the past year and a half or so.
This is the thread for talking about the goings on in these countries, including current events, history, travel and general interest. Discussion is pretty wide ranging but usually holds pretty close to whats going on in the region, and with all the revolutions and wars and attacks there is usually no shortage of things to talk about. For discussion of things like Islam please see Ham's thread on the subject.
We all know arguments can be common in this sort of discussion, especially around Israel/Palestine. So far everyone has conducted themselves very well, but we'll keep a reminder to play nice. Cite your sources, avoid attacks on other posters, and generally be willing to let a point drop; people have been debating this for decades, we probably wont be solving much here anyway.
Below is a bit of a primer. It is by no means complete, and as it was assembled mostly through memory it can't be called perfectly accurate or unbiased. Suggestions for more resources are welcome, especially media like photos, videos and maps.
Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well.
Israel and the Palestinians
The latest flare-up.
Things were looking rocky for several days as militant groups in Gaza fired rockets into Israel, while the IDF launched airstrikes into Gaza. These generally didn't result in any casualties, and so didn't get a lot of press, especially in the West. However, things heated up when an IDF jeep on a patrol of the border was hit with an anti-tank rocket. Israel responded by assassinating al-Jabari, the head of the military wing of Hamas. From there violence escalated rapidly, and as of this writing on November 18th the attacks are frequent from both sides. Israel doesn't seem inclined to launch a ground operation, but I think they would do so in retaliation from a successful attack from Gaza. Below are videos of the attack on the jeep and the assassination. In our new social media world, both these videos were instantly uploaded to the internet by both sides for propaganda purposes. Its anyone's guess as to when this current conflict will end.
The Arab Spring
Also called the Arab Awakening, perhaps more appropriate seeing how its lasted a lot longer than a season. This has been the biggest change in the region for at least several decades. It describes the uprisings, revolutions, protests, civil wars, interventions and continuing instability that have occurred all over the region.
Syria
Fallen Regimes:
Tunisia
Egypt
Yemen
Libya
Bahrain
Resources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/11/syria-in-ruins/100402/ Photos of the Syrian civil war. NSFW: shows blood, and death.
Below is the old OP, I'll try and write something objectively informative about recent events in Syria and Egypt.
*****************
An awful lot has changed since we last had an OP. What follows is a bit of a primer, with some information on the region in general and some of the specific events that have taken place over the past year and a half or so.
This is the thread for talking about the goings on in these countries, including current events, history, travel and general interest. Discussion is pretty wide ranging but usually holds pretty close to whats going on in the region, and with all the revolutions and wars and attacks there is usually no shortage of things to talk about. For discussion of things like Islam please see Ham's thread on the subject.
We all know arguments can be common in this sort of discussion, especially around Israel/Palestine. So far everyone has conducted themselves very well, but we'll keep a reminder to play nice. Cite your sources, avoid attacks on other posters, and generally be willing to let a point drop; people have been debating this for decades, we probably wont be solving much here anyway.
Below is a bit of a primer. It is by no means complete, and as it was assembled mostly through memory it can't be called perfectly accurate or unbiased. Suggestions for more resources are welcome, especially media like photos, videos and maps.
Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well.
Israel and the Palestinians
The latest flare-up.
Things were looking rocky for several days as militant groups in Gaza fired rockets into Israel, while the IDF launched airstrikes into Gaza. These generally didn't result in any casualties, and so didn't get a lot of press, especially in the West. However, things heated up when an IDF jeep on a patrol of the border was hit with an anti-tank rocket. Israel responded by assassinating al-Jabari, the head of the military wing of Hamas. From there violence escalated rapidly, and as of this writing on November 18th the attacks are frequent from both sides. Israel doesn't seem inclined to launch a ground operation, but I think they would do so in retaliation from a successful attack from Gaza. Below are videos of the attack on the jeep and the assassination. In our new social media world, both these videos were instantly uploaded to the internet by both sides for propaganda purposes. Its anyone's guess as to when this current conflict will end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MmNn5WpJH0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6U2ZQ0EhN4The Arab Spring
Also called the Arab Awakening, perhaps more appropriate seeing how its lasted a lot longer than a season. This has been the biggest change in the region for at least several decades. It describes the uprisings, revolutions, protests, civil wars, interventions and continuing instability that have occurred all over the region.
Syria
Syria, the mess on everyone's mind at the moment. The uprisings in Syria took a bit longer to develop than those listed above. There were no large protests for several months after the events in Tunisia and Egypt. When protests did start, a crack down by the Assad regime began, with soldiers being called in to help quell the protests. While for a very long time this was characterized by Western media as the army attacking peaceful "activists", the reality is a bit more complicated than that. Violent attacks against Syrian army personnel started much earlier than was widely reported, with soldiers being shot and nobody claiming responsibility for it. Much like Libya, the total foreign-press blackout made it difficult to know what exactly was going on inside the country. Most media outlets have relied on youtube videos smuggled out by these "activists", though they are often not exactly trustworthy. While the conflict was pretty opaque, it was clear that there were widespread protests against Assad, and that significant and increasing violence was being used to put down the uprising, and later to defend it. The conflict has gotten worse and worse over time, with a large escalation occurring in 2012. It is now without any doubt a civil war that is being fought in Syria, and an increasingly bloody one at that.
Syria's sectarian landscape is a big part of the problem. Assad is an Alawite, which is basically a sort of Shia muslim. While his regime is secular, this religious element is playing a large role as Alwaites make up a minority in the country. Not surprisingly, most of the rebels have been Sunnis. Alawites and Christians in Syria have so far remained mostly loyal to the regime. Sunnis on the other hand have been fleeing the violence in droves, with hundreds of thousands going to Turkey and Jordan and other countries like Lebanon. Turkey, only a short time ago being an ally of Assad, became frustrated and finally enraged at Syria's treatment of the rebels and began openly supporting the overthrow of the regime. Many other states have followed in this support, including Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and most of NATO, particularity the US. These countries, particularly those in the Gulf, have begun funding and arming the rebels.
A word on the rebels. While they are often portrayed as being simply "The Free Syrian Army", that is in fact but one of several disparate rebel groups, which have no unified leadership. There are opposition groups in exile, and opposition groups inside Syria, along with a variety of armed groups, including foreign and local mujihadeen, all fighting Assad in one way or another. This makes Syria an especially complicated and messy conflict. For despite large scale rebel offensives (involving suicide bombings and the occasional tank or armoured car) in Damascus and the wealthy city of Aleppo, the rebels have still not broken Assad nor his supporters in over a year of fighting. Despite their optimism, it is far from certain that Assad will fall, especially seeing how Assad's own father himself violently put down a rebellion in the 80s, to the cost of tens of thousands of lives. Assad the older survived, and his son may as well. In the mean time, the only certainty seems to be more violence, and more instability. With refugees flowing out and arms and fighters flowing in, along with an increasingly involved -though divided- international reaction, this is a conflict that has a very real chance of spilling over into neighbouring nations. It has already done so to some degree in the Lebanon, with fighting occurring in the north of that country along similar pro- or anti-Assad lines.
Recently an assortment of rebels groups got together in Qatar (a key backer of Syrian and Libyan rebels) in an attempt by foriegn powers to unify the rebels into a more coherent force. Since then France has taken the lead in suggesting the West actively arm the rebels, however this has yet to be met with wide support. Many rightfully do not trust giving arms to groups that openly work with the likes of al-queda.
Above all, this is still a conflict that can change by the day, and has no end in sight.
Syria's sectarian landscape is a big part of the problem. Assad is an Alawite, which is basically a sort of Shia muslim. While his regime is secular, this religious element is playing a large role as Alwaites make up a minority in the country. Not surprisingly, most of the rebels have been Sunnis. Alawites and Christians in Syria have so far remained mostly loyal to the regime. Sunnis on the other hand have been fleeing the violence in droves, with hundreds of thousands going to Turkey and Jordan and other countries like Lebanon. Turkey, only a short time ago being an ally of Assad, became frustrated and finally enraged at Syria's treatment of the rebels and began openly supporting the overthrow of the regime. Many other states have followed in this support, including Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and most of NATO, particularity the US. These countries, particularly those in the Gulf, have begun funding and arming the rebels.
A word on the rebels. While they are often portrayed as being simply "The Free Syrian Army", that is in fact but one of several disparate rebel groups, which have no unified leadership. There are opposition groups in exile, and opposition groups inside Syria, along with a variety of armed groups, including foreign and local mujihadeen, all fighting Assad in one way or another. This makes Syria an especially complicated and messy conflict. For despite large scale rebel offensives (involving suicide bombings and the occasional tank or armoured car) in Damascus and the wealthy city of Aleppo, the rebels have still not broken Assad nor his supporters in over a year of fighting. Despite their optimism, it is far from certain that Assad will fall, especially seeing how Assad's own father himself violently put down a rebellion in the 80s, to the cost of tens of thousands of lives. Assad the older survived, and his son may as well. In the mean time, the only certainty seems to be more violence, and more instability. With refugees flowing out and arms and fighters flowing in, along with an increasingly involved -though divided- international reaction, this is a conflict that has a very real chance of spilling over into neighbouring nations. It has already done so to some degree in the Lebanon, with fighting occurring in the north of that country along similar pro- or anti-Assad lines.
Recently an assortment of rebels groups got together in Qatar (a key backer of Syrian and Libyan rebels) in an attempt by foriegn powers to unify the rebels into a more coherent force. Since then France has taken the lead in suggesting the West actively arm the rebels, however this has yet to be met with wide support. Many rightfully do not trust giving arms to groups that openly work with the likes of al-queda.
Above all, this is still a conflict that can change by the day, and has no end in sight.
Fallen Regimes:
Tunisia
A geographically small nation at the northern-most tip of Africa. Population of 10 million, virtually all Arabs. Its capital Tunis is on the Mediterranean and is the site of Carthage of old. For the last 23 years it has been run by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He ruled his country with an iron fist, violently stifling any dissent, and censoring communications. He was secular, with a pro-Western stance.
All this was changed by a man named Mohamed Bouazizi, who sold fruit from a small stall. He was very poor, and was routinely harassed by police. When they stole his fruit and insulted him in late december, he finally had enough. On December 17th he lit himself on fire in protest. He died a very painful death 18 days later.
The resulting protests were totally unprecedented. The masses of people took to the streets peacefully and demanded the president step down. The security response was botched, and Ben Ali fled the nation on January 14th, holing up in Saudi Arabia, having taken millions in gold and loot with him.
After the resignation of the president various members of the governing party attempted to take control by forming interim governments. Protests broke our periodically, forcing out members of the old regime, including the Prime Minister. Elections were held in 2011, with an Islamist party winning the most seats.
All this was changed by a man named Mohamed Bouazizi, who sold fruit from a small stall. He was very poor, and was routinely harassed by police. When they stole his fruit and insulted him in late december, he finally had enough. On December 17th he lit himself on fire in protest. He died a very painful death 18 days later.
The resulting protests were totally unprecedented. The masses of people took to the streets peacefully and demanded the president step down. The security response was botched, and Ben Ali fled the nation on January 14th, holing up in Saudi Arabia, having taken millions in gold and loot with him.
After the resignation of the president various members of the governing party attempted to take control by forming interim governments. Protests broke our periodically, forcing out members of the old regime, including the Prime Minister. Elections were held in 2011, with an Islamist party winning the most seats.
Egypt
Egypt is the heart of the Middle East. With 80 million people it is the most populous Arab nation. Its one of the very few nations that measures its history in thousands of years. Like in millenia past, almost the entire population of the country lives around the Nile Delta. The capital Cairo is a huge city of many millions. Egypt is the center geographically, culturally as well. Pop music, movies and literature spread from Egypt to the rest of the region. Politically and diplomatically it has often acted as a bigger brother to other Arab nations, especially under the rule of Nasser who promoted a pan-arabism.
Of late though, Egypt hasn't looked so bright. During the rule of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has been stagnant, weak, and poor. People have been tired of it for much of these 30 years he ruled. Mubarak ensured he stayed in power though, through rigging elections, intimidating and jailing dissenters, and banning opposing political parties. Corruption was rampant, and a very young population had fewer and fewer jobs. With the uprising in Tunisia as inspiration, the young tech-savvy and the old alike took to the streets of Cairo and other cities on January 25th. Their rallying point was the now famous Tahrir (Liberation, Freedom) Square.
A strong police response followed. Using water cannons, thugs with steel bars, and even live ammunition they attacked the peaceful crowds without mercy. The headquarters of the ruling party were set alight. All of this was being broadcast live via al-Jazeera and other channels, Tahrir square being in view of TV stations and hotels frequented by journalists.
The police were routed by the crowds, and fled from the streets. The military was called in, and the internet was shut down in the entire country. It did not stop the demonstrations.
On February 11th, Mubarak finally resigned and fled Cairo.
After this SCAF (Security Council of the Armed Forces) took power and dissolved the exiting government, promising to hold elections within 6 months. Elections were eventually held, but it was a tumultuous time. Protests were frequent, demanding more rapid reforms and judicial action against members of the old regime. Clashes with the military and police were common, with around 40 protesters being killed in November of 2011. As this was going on, the only other significant political power in Egypt was the Muslim Brotherhood, the old and usually banned political party. Despite the Brotherhood being often at odds with SCAF, the two groups did spend some time working together as well. For example they combined to dismiss demands to give smaller political parties more time to organize themselves before the election. The Brotherhood was also almost totally absent during the protests, and typically did not come into direct conflict with the military as much as the secular protesters did. A controversial and frankly bizarre move saw the two leading candidates in the election barred from running for pretty spurious reasons.
In May 2012 the first free elections ever were held in Egypt, though like everything else that has happened there lately is was highly controversial. The Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi narrowly won the presidency, a post whose powers had yet to be defined by SCAF. Since then Morsi has gone about ruling in an aggressive seeming way, forcing some military officials into retirement and testing the extent of his powers. I am personally a bit suspicious of this, and I still strongly suspect that the military council holds the real power in Egypt, with Morsi being mostly a front-man who can be replaced via coup if he gets out of hand. While Egypt has been looking a bit more stable lately, I still consider it to be in a revolutionary state. Some big (or small) event could still cause mass protests of the sort that could topple the government again. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and SCAF will now be working together from preventing that from happening.
Mubarak has since been in court for his actions during the protests. He was found guilty of some charges, leading to a charge of life in prison, though we was cleared on a variety of charges relating to the crackdown he in fact ordered. In any case he is an old man and in very poor health, with some saying he is virtually dead as it is.
Of late though, Egypt hasn't looked so bright. During the rule of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has been stagnant, weak, and poor. People have been tired of it for much of these 30 years he ruled. Mubarak ensured he stayed in power though, through rigging elections, intimidating and jailing dissenters, and banning opposing political parties. Corruption was rampant, and a very young population had fewer and fewer jobs. With the uprising in Tunisia as inspiration, the young tech-savvy and the old alike took to the streets of Cairo and other cities on January 25th. Their rallying point was the now famous Tahrir (Liberation, Freedom) Square.
A strong police response followed. Using water cannons, thugs with steel bars, and even live ammunition they attacked the peaceful crowds without mercy. The headquarters of the ruling party were set alight. All of this was being broadcast live via al-Jazeera and other channels, Tahrir square being in view of TV stations and hotels frequented by journalists.
The police were routed by the crowds, and fled from the streets. The military was called in, and the internet was shut down in the entire country. It did not stop the demonstrations.
On February 11th, Mubarak finally resigned and fled Cairo.
After this SCAF (Security Council of the Armed Forces) took power and dissolved the exiting government, promising to hold elections within 6 months. Elections were eventually held, but it was a tumultuous time. Protests were frequent, demanding more rapid reforms and judicial action against members of the old regime. Clashes with the military and police were common, with around 40 protesters being killed in November of 2011. As this was going on, the only other significant political power in Egypt was the Muslim Brotherhood, the old and usually banned political party. Despite the Brotherhood being often at odds with SCAF, the two groups did spend some time working together as well. For example they combined to dismiss demands to give smaller political parties more time to organize themselves before the election. The Brotherhood was also almost totally absent during the protests, and typically did not come into direct conflict with the military as much as the secular protesters did. A controversial and frankly bizarre move saw the two leading candidates in the election barred from running for pretty spurious reasons.
In May 2012 the first free elections ever were held in Egypt, though like everything else that has happened there lately is was highly controversial. The Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi narrowly won the presidency, a post whose powers had yet to be defined by SCAF. Since then Morsi has gone about ruling in an aggressive seeming way, forcing some military officials into retirement and testing the extent of his powers. I am personally a bit suspicious of this, and I still strongly suspect that the military council holds the real power in Egypt, with Morsi being mostly a front-man who can be replaced via coup if he gets out of hand. While Egypt has been looking a bit more stable lately, I still consider it to be in a revolutionary state. Some big (or small) event could still cause mass protests of the sort that could topple the government again. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and SCAF will now be working together from preventing that from happening.
Mubarak has since been in court for his actions during the protests. He was found guilty of some charges, leading to a charge of life in prison, though we was cleared on a variety of charges relating to the crackdown he in fact ordered. In any case he is an old man and in very poor health, with some saying he is virtually dead as it is.
Yemen
Protests in Yemen started early in 2011, like in most of the rest of the Arab world. Though Yemen immediately looked different. The country has been in particularly bad shape for some time. The government in the south has been fighting against Houthi rebels in the north of the country, and slightly more recently have been fighting islamist fighters mostly in the east. After a few months of protests active fighting started, and the president was injured in an explosion, and fled the country. In early 2012 there was an election, in which the only candidate was the former vice-president, who was already acting as president after Saleh fled. He won with 99.8% of the vote. Despite the elections, the violence has continued. The focus now is mostly against Islamic Fundamentalists in the east of the country. The US has been heavily present here, supplying the Yemeni government with the usual assortment of money, weapons, training and intelligence. The US military and CIA have also been conducting a variety of covert operations in the country including drone strikes and special forces operations. While ostensibly targeting "al-queda" affiliated groups, much of the violence has been directed towards traditional tribal rebels as well as revolutionary opponents of the regime. The level of violence in the country remains very high, and seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Libya
Libya wasn't really a revolution, it was a war. From the very start things went ugly. Protests started in February 2012, and were strongest in the eastern part of the country dominated by Benghazi, where Gaddaffi and his tribe were less powerful. These initial protests were immediately met with extreme violence by the regime. Soldiers fired into crowds with machine guns, and as the uprising continued, with mortars and apparently even airstrikes. The capital Tripoli was a warzone that Gadaffi regained control of, however protesters/rebels managed to seize several cities, with their base being in Benghazi. Gaddaffi sent his forces to the east, to crush the rebellion. The rest of the world became rapidly involved in the conflict, likely because Gaddaffi has few international allies, despite having been sold arms by the West in the last several years. So when Libyan forced seemed poised to re-claim Benghazi, a UN Security Council resolution was passed declaring a no-fly zone over the country, which might as well have been a declaration of war. This was politically led by France, Britain and Italy, and militarily organized mostly by the US via NATO. Gaddaffi's forces were broken almost over night as NATO aircraft took control of the skies and commenced airstrikes on Liyban army positions, military bases, and assorted targets in Tripoli itself. The rebels, now assisted by NATO and Qatar and other nations were able to move out of Benghazi, and eventually took Tripoli from Gaddaffi's home tribe. Wikipedia lists around 30 000 deaths coming from this conflict.
After the fighting died down, the country was left, and remains in, a state of uncertainty. The varied rebel groups haven't really disbanded, and tribal loyalties still largely trump a national identity. Ethnic militias, being now extremely well armed, hold most of the power, and seem to be in a sort of stalemate. The state of Libya is extremely weak right now, and will require more reform or some sort of dramatic shake-up, possibly involving violence, before any sort of long-term stability can take hold.
A recent attack on a US consulate in Benghazi resulted in the death of the ambassador there, with significant political fallout. Western-supported militia have since cleared out many radical islamic groups, however it is still unclear which groups are really in charge in Libya.
After the fighting died down, the country was left, and remains in, a state of uncertainty. The varied rebel groups haven't really disbanded, and tribal loyalties still largely trump a national identity. Ethnic militias, being now extremely well armed, hold most of the power, and seem to be in a sort of stalemate. The state of Libya is extremely weak right now, and will require more reform or some sort of dramatic shake-up, possibly involving violence, before any sort of long-term stability can take hold.
A recent attack on a US consulate in Benghazi resulted in the death of the ambassador there, with significant political fallout. Western-supported militia have since cleared out many radical islamic groups, however it is still unclear which groups are really in charge in Libya.
Bahrain
Poor little Bahrain, everyone has forgotten you. The tiny, virtual city-state on the Gulf has been so far the only uprising to have really failed. It started as the rest did, though had a slightly different flavour to it as the protests were largely by the repressed Shia majority against the Sunni minority rulers. Despite the sectarian bent, the protests were peaceful, and the demands of the protesters were fairly reasonable; calling for equal rights and an end to rule by the monarchy, not an outright revolution. The uprising was crushed quite brutally given its size. Its Shia protesters and strategic position meant other nations were worried it may fall into Iran's influence if the protesters gained power, and the Saudis fear an uprising of their own Shia population. The US also has its 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain, which it is loathe to see threatened. As such there was no international outcry when Saudi Arabia sent in armored personal carriers to help shoot and round up protesters. Among the arrested are students, bloggers, and doctors who have given medical aid to wounded protesters. They face many years in jail for their "crimes". While protests are still occurring the country, it will take some large shift and likely some international assistance for them to succeed.
Resources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/11/syria-in-ruins/100402/ Photos of the Syrian civil war. NSFW: shows blood, and death.
[Tycho?] on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
For any newcomers, this is basically what we've been talking about:
Karzai is just in it to make a buck. He'll get some memories, some pats on the back by powerful people, maybe feel like he accomplished something. After the US withdraws he'll retire in Miami or something.
Karzai may not have been the best, and yeah he was corrupt, but he's a shining beacon compared to the previous 20 years of Afghan leaders. Could have been better, but it could have been a lot worse too. Well. A bit worse.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/01/world-hollande-france-obama-us-syria.html
Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Iraq were opposed.
I would pay so much money to read a transcript of the Iraqi representative's private statements. Comedy gold, I know it.
I'm not terrible familiar with Algeria. IIRC they weren't that enthused with intervention in Libya and blamed the shit that went down on Mali and a major terrorist attack that got several foreign workers killed in Algeria on the Libyan military intervention.
Tunisia doesn't surprise me since they are still sorting out their revolution. Egypt is in a similar boat. The other advantage of voting no here, is it makes it easier justifying not sending in any military assets, which they might not be in the position to commit right now.
Iraq is also not a huge surprise here being prominently Shiite and having ties to Iran. I suspect behind the scenes they probably support Assad, but given the mess their state is in, they probably have no interest in further embroiling sectarian issues that blew up before the Arab Spring by openly supporting Assad. Plus, they also still want to maintain some favor with Washington and openly backing Assad would hose that prospect for them.
Me too, I guess, though its been a few years since I've thought about it.
That region is unstable for all the reasons the Middle East is. With such big reserves of natural gas and other resources, it attracts the "interest" of all neighbour regional powers, as well as all the great powers. Make no mistake, a new version of the Great Game is afoot, and Central Asia will have its time in the spotlight- likely for all the wrong reasons.
This viewpoint seems to assume a rather sordid view that the primary goal of the executive branch is to impose its will on the country and stick it to the political opposition, rather than reflect the will of the people in a responsible manner.
I don't think a proper functioning of democracy can be painted as a 'loss' for those engaged in it. I think more of Cameron for going to parliament like he's supposed to, and then abiding by the result like he's supposed to. I don't think less of him.
If Obama doesn't get authorization from congress and he abides by it, as far as I'm concerned that's a win for Obama, congress, and everyone involved. Not a loss.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Well for one, that is the sole goal of the government in the UK. A prime minister hasn't had a vote result like that since Yorktown. This is a loss for Dave, plain and simple, and a basically unprecedented one.
Democratically, going to Congress is a win for everyone. Politically that remains to be seen.
http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons
We'd have to see the whole report.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Politically (domestically), I think he suffers zero. The voters are really really tired of interventions in the Middle East and seem to oppose going into Syria by overwhelming margins. Obama personally is not running for re-election, and the republican have absolutely no moral standing to go after the democrats as being 'weak on national security' given the hash they've made of things lately. Is their big theme in 2014 going to be "Vote republican, because WE would have invaded Syria and Iran!"
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
If he gets authorization, Obama can attack Syria with the backing of Congress. If he doesn't, he can realistically back out and use the vote as cover for doing so.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
The rebels have repeatedly attacked civilian areas, most notably with suicide bombings in busy markets. Also more standard things like shelling, and driving people out of their homes.
This is a highly sectarian war. To a large extent it is Sunnis vs the Alawites[Shia], Christians and other groups. The rebels get support from certain sectors of the populace, as the government does from different sectors. Killing the other sides support unfortunately makes sense.
The rest of your post I agree with.
I think you overstate slightly much of an ally of ours Saudi Arabia is. But more importantly, any weapon that gets the US to depose Assad is a good weapon for the rebels. The rebels are a bitter, fractured, angry set of radicals. I would bet many of them would absolutely trade 1,400 civilians for overthrowing Assad in a heartbeat. Even if it was their 'own' civilians.
And I quite agree it's unlikely they were set off accidentally. I think, and have always thought, it was most likely they were set off deliberately. I think some elements in the rebel camp are realizing that with inspectors arriving and greater scrutiny, it is likely to come out that it was the rebels, and not Assad, who used the weapons, so they are deploying a pre-emptive (if ineffective) defense of "Yeah it was us, but it was totally an accident"
Now, the other alternative is that this 'rebel' the reporter talked to is actually an Assad supporter trying to discredit the rebels.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
That is a pretty darn thin article for such allegations.
Most Historians think Hitler did not use chemical weapons. Now who did unquestionably use WMDs in WWII? The United States. And Saddam used chemical weapons in a war in which we were expressly encouraging and helping him! That's not exactly helpful parallel to draw.
"Assad now joins a list of the US military in WWII and an ally of the CIA in the Iran-Iraq war who have used these weapons in times of war"...a bit less motivational.
Kerry's speech was, as usual, terrible overall. If that's the level of effort the administration is going to put forth into convincing congress to authorize war, I wouldn't be surprised if the vote is a no. But then, that would be a win as far as I'm concerned, and may even be what the white house wants.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Paul doesn't let facts get in the way of his message.
and maybe the CIA's interception of army communications saying the attack was successful was planted by the rebels as well.
sometimes a ducks a duck.
I think he was referencing Zyklon-B use during the Holocaust.
As far as I can tell, this argument about Saudi Arabia is completely backwards.
It seems to be widely known that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels and want Assad ovethrown. They'd probably be delighted if the US got in a shooting war with Assad.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/meast/syria-neighbors/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-saudi-idUSBRE97T0IS20130830
So if someone was going to be surreptitiously supplying chemical weapons to the rebels, Saudi Arabia sounds like the exact country to be doing it.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
He specifically mentioned their use in war though. The holocaust was more of a mass murder than a war.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I don't think number 10 thinks he's not suffered as they're trying to stitch up the leader of the opposition. Deputy PM (Liberal party) has accused them of "the Labour party seemed to take this as an opportunity for party political point-scoring," No10 has accused Miliband of get this: "spend the entire time buggering around moving the goalposts is hard to see as anything other than playing politics."
Because the thing is Miliband and Labour were being painted as ineffectual and dithering prior to the Syria vote. Now Miliband has overseen one of the largest political for gin policy foundering in Westminster's long history. It's pretty good for the opposition, which given the binary nature of first past the post means it's bad for the government.
Getting tory Gov ministers to go on record stating essentially that labour "politicking" was "letting down america" and by inference British public wishes being worth less than a foreign government is election campaign gold.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
- The determining factor to sway the opinion of the American public would be detailing what the specific "danger to our national security" consists of.
- No matter the side, both groups are willing to go to the most extreme measures just to prove a point to the rest of the world.
- During the debate in the House of Commons, I found the Prime Minister's argument heavily relying upon American intel which in itself was probably a determining factor in the way the vote swung in favor of the opposition.
- I cannot agree wholly in one way or another with whoever it was that decided to drop chemical weapons on people. I have seen the result of the(previously mentioned) actions that a group of folks will go to for their belief. Rebels or Syrian Army, whoever it is needs to answer.
Should it be from us? I am honestly still undecided.
So he would have been fine with Hitler gassing Jews as long as it had happened during peacetime?
This is why John Kerry shouldn't give speeches.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
This seems like cherry picking to me. Many murdered in the holocaust were those captured during the war.
I think when you use chemical weapons to slaughter people, you are declaring a war on them.
The problem with the holocaust was that it was a mass murder. Murder is always bad, regardless of the weapon used. Quibbling with the means used in the holocaust implies you would have been fine had it used other means. The holocaust would not have been a single iota more moral or less objectionable had they refrained from using gas.
Warfare is different. While all genocide and mass murder is inherently illegitimate, some war is legitimate. But we view using weapons of mass destruction in an otherwise legitimate endeavor as still being illegitimate.
But of course, we seemed fine with Assad slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians as long as he wasn't using chemical weapons, so maybe it really is the case that we are fine with some forms of mass murder but not others. Who knows. This entire incident has been an unending cavalcade of mixed messages and conflicting signals.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I wouldn't expect them to release it to the public anytime soon. Bits and peaces may get out but besides that its going to take awhile for the public to be privy to the knowledge that the president, and house of representatives have. One of the shitty things about intelligence work.
I mean intelligence stuff about ww2 is still classified.
Problem is you have valuable ways of gathering intel that have to be protected and very few people can be trusted to keep a secret
I think you are trying to hard to see issues that are not there. Kerry mentioned hitler because holy shit the dude was a fucking monster. A monster who also used chemicals to kill people. The war helped him to kill more people. With chemicals.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/02/217194998/to-keep-polio-at-bay-israel-revaccinates-a-million-kids
I bet most folks don't realize this is kind of a big deal. There are three endemic countries with Polio still: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. For the most part we have gotten rid of polio across most of the world including the Middle East. The levels are high enough to send the Israeli government into a flurry of emergency vaccine but also has the chance to spread to its neighbors who are either in Refugee overwhelm mode or lacking the infrastructure at the moment to do the same without outside help. This is bad.
Also the strain is from Pakistan and they feel it was probably a worker from Pakistan working in Israel or somewhere in the Mid East that brought it over.