Topic: USA and allies prepare an attack on Syria

[Mooning Freddy]

It's finally happening.

http://fox4kc.com/2013/08/27/united-states-great-britian-prepare-for-attack-on-syria/

After more proof arrived that Assad crossed Obama's "red line" by using chemical weaponry on his citizens, USA, France and Britain prepare a "powerful punitive strike". Assad threatens to retaliate but it's unlikely for him to do so without risking his demise.

Is this the final chapter of the civil war raging for two years? Stay tuned! 

[DoctaMario]

Oy, this is very bad. The US military forces are already stretched and now we're going into Syria? I had a feeling this was going to happen eventually, but still, it would be better if it didn't.

[Nagumo]

I'm curious, what's America's motivation for the attack? You know, aside from the use of chemical weapons, which I doubt is the sole reason. I'm guessing it has something to do with the balance of power? 

[Gunlord]

I'd wager at least some of it probably has to do with our support for 'the underdogs' all throughout the Arab Spring. Most of these dictators are generally cruel tyrants, and few would shed a tear if they were to disappear. We're just speeding that along.

...Of course, the problem is that the rebels are often *just* as bad, if not even worse. IMO our involvement in these uprisings is a fool's errand--even if Assad used chemical weapons, if he goes down there's no guarantee that whoever replaces him will end up being any less willing to use them!

[Mooning Freddy]

It has to do with America and its allies having to prove their seriousness. If America set a red line for someone, and he breaks it, US has got to take an action or else they would be regarded as irrelevant. Nagumo and Gunlord both hit right.

As for now, US doesn't intend to overthrow the government in Syria, only "punish" it.

[DoctaMario]

I'm not up on all of it, but there's got to be something of interest there in Syria, whether it's oil or something else. The US doesn't mess around with countries that don't have something of interest (see why no military action has been taken in parts of Africa) to be plundered.

I less and less believe the "We're doing it to help them out because we care about human rights" line the US government gives every time they send the military in. There's something else there, this isn't merely a human rights campaign.

[Ratty]

I'd wager at least some of it probably has to do with our support for 'the underdogs' all throughout the Arab Spring. Most of these dictators are generally cruel tyrants, and few would shed a tear if they were to disappear. We're just speeding that along.

...Of course, the problem is that the rebels are often *just* as bad, if not even worse. IMO our involvement in these uprisings is a fool's errand--even if Assad used chemical weapons, if he goes down there's no guarantee that whoever replaces him will end up being any less willing to use them!

I'd like to believe that but the truth is America and the rest of the super powers love dictators as long as they do what they're told. They can make it much easier to get whatever goods or services you want from a country. Even if their allies are forced to publicly scold them every now and then. Egypt's dictator was one of the best friends the US had in the region. Don't forget the fact that dictators in the middle east have tended more toward secularization (it's easier to secure power when you squash religious squabbles and don't have to contend with religious laws that might conflict with your decisions) and "westernization" insofar as it relates to building a military. Leading to a backlash against both among many in the general population once the dictatorships eventually crumble.

[TheouAegis]

Maybe the US military has new weapons and they want to test them on something. Hard to test new military technology without military movement.

[Mooning Freddy]

Don't forget the fact that dictators in the middle east have tended more toward secularization (it's easier to secure power when you squash religious squabbles and don't have to contend with religious laws that might conflict with your decisions) and "westernization" insofar as it relates to building a military. Leading to a backlash against both among many in the general population once the dictatorships eventually crumble.

Have no doubt that the spirit of secularization in mideastern states that have undergone military revolutions after the fall of the Ottoman empire and the end of the mandates, such as Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, was an ideological no less than political decision. It has to do with the spirit of French and British republicanism.
Ataturk is the best example: he believed that the only way to modernize Turkey and make it count is to make it more like a secular European republic. So he disposed of any remains of sultanic traditions, separated between church and state, and switched the Turkish alphabet from an Arabic to a Latin one.

So you can understand the rise in Muslim fundamentalism in those states today - the reason is that the secular state failed to "deliver the goods", i.e. improve the economy and solve the problems of inequality and corruption. So movements like the Muslim Brotherhood claim they have the answer - Islam is the answer.

[Ratty]

Have no doubt that the spirit of secularization in mideastern states that have undergone military revolutions after the fall of the Ottoman empire and the end of the mandates, such as Egypt, Syria, and Turkey, was an ideological no less than political decision. It has to do with the spirit of French and British republicanism.
Ataturk is the best example: he believed that the only way to modernize Turkey and make it count is to make it more like a secular European republic. So he disposed of any remains of sultanic traditions, separated between church and state, and switched the Turkish alphabet from an Arabic to a Latin one.

So you can understand the rise in Muslim fundamentalism in those states today - the reason is that the secular state failed to "deliver the goods", i.e. improve the economy and solve the problems of inequality and corruption. So movements like the Muslim Brotherhood claim they have the answer - Islam is the answer.

Of course, though I think the ideology of it as a way to "advance" the country was more deeply held during/right after Britain and France were carving up the middle east after WW1 than it is with more modern dictators. The kind of backwards Colonial thinking that didn't understand that culture is intimately tied to environment since it's mostly a product of the particular needs and resources of the inhabitants of a given area. A European business suite is less than ideal attire for a jungle or an open desert, imported and hastily mandated ideas might hang even less comfortably on a populace. Not to suggest cultures can't or won't become more similar as they continue to change and grow over time, especially with modern globalization. Just that it can't be forced and some very directly, even if not obviously, environmentally influenced beliefs/practices are more likely to remain the same for practical reasons in a given environment.

[Mooning Freddy]

The period of de-colonization gave rise to national leaders who were educated in the West and who were more European than Europeans. Indira Ghandi tried to turn India into a secular state as similar as possible to Great Britain. Obviously, such a goal was impossible, but it didn't mean she didn't try. Central Africa had an array of dictatorial leaders who were educated in France or Belgium and nevertheless turned into tyrants and mass-murderers as they learned more about modern authoritarianism and ways to gain absolute power than about democracy. They all tried to combine local culture with "western" political concepts like parliamentalism, elections (usually fake), and militarism.

I should tell you that the most interesting of the mideastern rulers today is king Abdullah II of Jordan. He's technically an absolute monarch; but only technically. One of my lecturers thesis was, and he says so after studying Jordanian history and politics thoroughly, was that the king is a prisoner of his own court. He believes that the king genuinely intended to lead liberal and democratic reforms in his country from 1999 when he ascended to throne, preparing thorough plans for that cause, but failed, because the opposition of conservative elite groups in his country was too strong.

It's actually quite amazing how he speaks English better than Arabic, and how his sincerity made the reporters think he's drunk. 

Interview with King Abdullah II

Drunk?: Jordan's King Abdullah II's Now-Infamous Interview With The Atlantic

[Rugal]

Syria using chemical weapons on its civilians is a hoax orchestrated by the government in order to have an excuse to invade them.

[Lelygax]

This theory is totally plausible, they haven't shown any proof yet and I doubt they will. USA did similar things before to have a excuse to invade a country so they can be doing the same thing again.

Someone needs to find this kind of news in Syria newspaper or something like that to be more certain.

[Rugal]

America took down WTC. I won't put anything above them.

[X]

America also used the same tactics when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They claimed it was to end the war, but in reality the war with Japan was drawing to a close. Japan was only months away from surrender however America had an agenda in mind. The two atomic bombs were nothing more then a science experiment on a massive scale as American had no idea about what the effects of a nuclear device would be like, so they made a claim. And to this day, any one of those scientists whom are still alive will tell you that the day the bomb was dropped it was the biggest mistake and the most painful regret of their lives. It wasn't necessary, it was just a science experiment that in my opinion should never have happened.