Arab spring uprises Tunisia/Egypt/Libya/Syria

As much as I dislike Obama, the evidence presented so far to the public is sketchy and unreliable at best and to me, certainly not actionable enough to draw American or Coalition assets and/or soldiers directly into the conflict. Perhaps there is more known to the military that the public is unaware of I have no way of knowing obviously. But based on what has been said so far, I think Obama is doing the right thing.

The whole chemical weapons being a "red line" is stupid anyway. Why is killing a few dozen people with chemical weapons any worse than slaughtering them with machine guns and mortars? Ten's of thousands have died already but if a few get killed by chemical weapons then the U.S. has to get involved?
 
Chemical weapons seem that much more malicious than a machine gun or a mortar. Anyone remember Agent Orange in Vietnam?
 
A defoliant used during the Vietnam war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.[1] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.[2]
 
DK
Chemical weapons seem that much more malicious than a machine gun or a mortar. Anyone remember Agent Orange in Vietnam?

Agent purple as well...but we still let Monsanto run around doing bull crap so I doubt it matters. Also this is the same man that ran on a supposed "tight rope" when it came to Osama Bin Laden and he didn't have much that said it was him. Yet he still made the call, now there is actual evidence though small, that usually means that a person is saying one thing but rather do another.
 
I think the chemical weapons agenda has more weight to it because of Israel being next door.

It's strange that people want us to do something about it, but whenever we do something about it we get demonized or criticized hard.

Obama staying out of it with the most part is the smart bet, seeing that he has scandals (not sure if really scandalous on par like Watergate) that he has to mop up.
 
Wire tapping the AP is a pretty big deal, it might get swept under the rug if people don't notice I guess but then again he has little use for the bill of rights in general lol.

I think if the fighting lingers on and on we will create a no fly zone, could be wrong about that as it would take a bit more work then in Libya but we'll see.
 
The No-fly zone though doesn't always help. Our history with Iraq should tell us that, especially when the American and British jets can't physically attack an offending ground based infantry or vehicle without authorization, and we all know bureaucracy is as fast as grandma on the highway. If anything it just spares the victim population from airstrikes, but it doesn't do anything about about that infantry division making their way to the no-fly zone established areas, unless someone at top gave the ok. But by then the damage could've been dealt already.

On top of that, Syria is the type of fellow that will try to test our resolve in not pursuing them in wider conflict. Iraq made it habit to light up our warplanes radars with SAM beacons during the years between the gulf wars and play a game of chicken with our airmen.

And last I heard, the Syrian government is more trigger happy. Especially with all that brand new Russian military hardware they've been splurging on.
 
We should just send the A-Team or the Avengers into Syria or something.:lol:

Pfft, everyone knows the Justice League does it best.

In other words, the idea of the US intervening in Syria is a joke. So was intervening in Libya, but that's in the rear view mirror. Right now Hillary is the leading Dem in the '16 race by a huge margin. But the joke that is Libya and Benghazi must not be acknowledged for the sake of her higher cause still at stake, they say. And that's another joke.
 
She should feel bad about that affair imo, I don't ever pile on someone as I hope they do it themselves(even though she does not seem to).

It's not cool to lose life in that fashion.
 
In other words, the idea of the US intervening in Syria is a joke. So was intervening in Libya, but that's in the rear view mirror. Right now Hillary is the leading Dem in the '16 race by a huge margin. But the joke that is Libya and Benghazi must not be acknowledged for the sake of her higher cause still at stake, they say. And that's another joke.

In the idealistic world where there is clear cut good vs evil and no shades of gray, an intervention by America into Syria would be celebrated. Unfortunately in the real world anything to do with international crisis has a billion strings attached to it.

The wars the previous decades left a bad taste in our mouths, and I think the vast majority of the Americans would like to stay away from conflict and concentrate on fixing ourselves.
 
The issue is this, when mud is to be slung and deep rooted facts are to be sought in an election for the purpose of being contorted into something even more gross than before, someone loses. In other words, Hillary will have suffering, hell even if she is the nominee, the republican runner (who will most likely be more libertarian in nature but not fully) will bring up facts like Benghazi or voting for Iraq, hell even Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate might come back. We don't know but what is fresh is her handling of the Arab world and our assets there.
 
The lucky old American taxpayer will no doubt be thrilled by the news that the US are getting sucked into another war in the Middle East, this time the ferocious civil war in Syria...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-after-Iran-threw-down-gauntlet-on-Syria.html

Obama has now agreed to directly arm (and presumably finance) the rebel forces, which by the way include Al-Qaeda, against government forces led by President Assad, who has been found to have used chemical weapons against his own people.

While the roots of the conflict hark back to a revolution inspired by the Arab Spring and was initially a pro-democracy/pro-freedom movement, there's little doubt that this initial cause has long since been hijacked and replaced by various other (often competing) interests, including but not limited to sectarianism - but it is also quite clear that Assad's battle for survival is basically a proxy war between Iran and those aligned with Western/US interests in the region. I can see this one dragging on for a very long time... and it still hasn't been properly explained how the US and her allies intend to stop Al-Qaeda/other jihadists from exploiting their position as being on the receiving end of US money and arms.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

Washington’s decision to arm Syria’s Sunni Muslim rebels has plunged America into the great Sunni-Shia conflict of the Islamic Middle East, entering a struggle that now dwarfs the Arab revolutions which overthrew dictatorships across the region.

For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East.

The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years. Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

In years to come, historians will ask how America – after its defeat in Iraq and its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for 2014 – could have so blithely aligned itself with one side in a titanic Islamic struggle stretching back to the seventh century death of the Prophet Mohamed. The profound effects of this great schism, between Sunnis who believe that the father of Mohamed’s wife was the new caliph of the Muslim world and Shias who regard his son in law Ali as his rightful successor – a seventh century battle swamped in blood around the present-day Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kerbala – continue across the region to this day. A 17th century Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbott, compared this Muslim conflict to that between “Papists and Protestants”.

America’s alliance now includes the wealthiest states of the Arab Gulf, the vast Sunni territories between Egypt and Morocco, as well as Turkey and the fragile British-created monarchy in Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan – flooded, like so many neighbouring nations, by hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees – may also now find himself at the fulcrum of the Syrian battle. Up to 3,000 American ‘advisers’ are now believed to be in Jordan, and the creation of a southern Syria ‘no-fly zone’ – opposed by Syrian-controlled anti-aircraft batteries – will turn a crisis into a ‘hot’ war. So much for America’s ‘friends’.


"If you think this ends well, you haven't been paying attention", says the torturer in a recent scene of Game of Thrones.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan? This guy sounds butthurt. So the British weren't involved in Afghanistan either? lol

Anyway, I know this arming of Syrian rebels is going to come bite us on the ass later. These "advisors" are just political word play for "secret deployment for special forces troops".
 
So the British weren't involved in Afghanistan either? lol

Heh heh! The British are the world's greatest experts at invading other people's countries, they've done it so often. They invaded Afghanistan twice in the 19th century, and had their heads handed back to them. Ex-PM Blair still has blood dripping from his fangs, and he's still thirsty, believe it or not.
 
The problem is that the voices are obviously being ignored by the top level if you guys constantly have to go to the streets and demonstrate.
 
They can not ignore such massive numbers which even are greater than the first days during the 25 jan -11 feb days
 
Today, "the first and only democratically elected Egyptian president", and whom the US had supported, was ousted by a military coup.

Egypt is a nation of about 87 million, about half of which appeared to support Morsy and the other half didn't in the election. Since then, economic conditions have deteriorated with the tourists vanishing, jobs lost and electricity and other services drying up.

Their revolution goes on, and I wish them luck.
 
Last edited:
Dotini
Today, "the first and only democratically elected Egyptian president" was ousted by a military coup.

That's what tye foreign Media are reporting? That is not a Military Coup that's the Military doing what the people demand it's the fall of another tyrant the rise of the People again,hopefully this time we won't repeat the same mistakes.Here's to a new Egypt
 
Hmmn, well I can't see this ending up very well. Their doesn't seem to be a solid consensus on who should rule, so instead the army have control almost bringing the country back to square one.
 
lbsf1
Hmmn, well I can't see this ending up very well. Their doesn't seem to be a solid consensus on who should rule, so instead the army have control almost bringing the country back to square one.

We already have an interim President,Will have a government for this transitional phase till the new presidential elections.
 
That's what tye foreign Media are reporting? That is not a Military Coup that's the Military doing what the people demand it's the fall of another tyrant the rise of the People again,hopefully this time we won't repeat the same mistakes.Here's to a new Egypt

CNN is widely reporting a military coup of a democratically elected president, and this is also what his supporters are saying. There is no doubt Morsy was legitimately and democratically elected. Even Jimmy Carter said so.

But you are right that Obama should not term it a coup, since the 1.5 billion dollars in annual US aid would be cut off according to Congressional law.

Late word is that non-essential personnel of the US embassy in Cairo are being evacuated. Obama and US policies are not in favor among the now triumphant opposition to Morsy.
 
Last edited:
We already have an interim President,Will have a government for this transitional phase till the new presidential elections.

Hopefully it will be as simple as you have said, however sadly I don't see it all working that smoothly.
 
Today, "the first and only democratically elected Egyptian president", and whom the US had supported, was ousted by a military coup.

Egypt is a nation of about 87 million, about half of which appeared to support Morsy and the other half didn't in the election. Since then, economic conditions have deteriorated with the tourists vanishing, jobs lost and electricity and other services drying up.

Their revolution goes on, and I wish them luck.

If it is roughly 50/50, this will turn into a bloody civil war.
 

Latest Posts

Back