Ah, here it is: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/thread-title-suggestions-thread.2012649/#post-31306080
Since we were talking about Syria, Assad and ISIS, I'd like to say that inmho neither of those would bring long-term stability for Syria. ISIS is directly threatening the West and is trying to brainwash the children who live under their rule to become martyr for their cause (which looks eerily similar to the Hitler Youth). Assad on the other hand is, according to many sources, responsible for most civilian casualities during the civil war, indeed his violent response to the initial peaceful protests allowed the situation to get out of control, and it must be asked how his family could be seen as a guarantor of stability in the first place. His father bloodily supressed one uprising only one generation ago, and now his son's rule has caused a vicious civil war. Supporting tyrants who have to slaughter their own citizien every 30 years or does not seem like a smart long-term strategy to me.
I think it is fair to let the people of Syria to decide if they want Assad as their president or not. The world is worried about the people of Syria only because there is oil inside their borders. That is sad...
It is safe to say that given the choice, most Syrians would want Assad gone, considering his rule is based on benefitting a minority (Alawites) to the disadvantage of the Syrian Sunnites, who make up to 70% of Syria's population. Without significant popular support, the civil war would not have lasted as long as it already does, considering the overwhelming advantage Assad's army enjoyed at the beginning and still enjoys to a degree in terms of equipment, air superiority et al. Btw according to Wikipedia, Syria really doesn't produce much oil right now (which is unsurprising), nor does it have large reserves, at least comparing with other Arabian countries (or some Western countries). To be honest, I don't think Western Europe cared much for Syria, until its' refugee have been flooding Europe and islamic terrorists are threatening the peace.
Compared to Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the Emirates, Syria doesn't have much oil, but unlike the mentioned counties, Syria (or we could say Assad) doesn't want to cooperate with the West and that is why they are interested in Syria. There are many worse regimes in the world, but no one cares about those people because they don't see any profit from them. Oil = power and that is why the big boys want to control more of it around the world. That is why the USA and Russia are down there. No one cares for the people of Syria, just as no one cares for the people of Libya since Gaddafi is gone and they are in a far worse condition then before when they were under the "terrible" dictator...
That would be a very poor investition then, because again, Syria doesn't have enough oil to justify investing bns of Dollar for the current fight against ISIS/against the rebels as Russia does. The oil price is currently very low, and Russia's interests are more geostrategic than anything else. No offense, but it seems to me that you are not very informed about the details of the Arab spring. The current second Civil war is certainly bad, and ending it is very difficult because there is less of an obviosly "bad" side than with Qadaffi, but the war is overall significantly less bloody than the first civil war (which has caused more thant twice as many casualities despite lasting for less than half of the curren civil war, not to mention that Qaddafi probably would have killed a lot of civilians if he had won without western intervention. Additionally there are certainy not many "worse" regimes out their than Assad, considering the war crimes his regime has comitted, not to mention many which the West could reasonably expect to do something against (like e.g North Korea, who are untouchable due to China's protection).
Yes, you're right, it's more geostrategic, same goes for the USA. But it is still connected to oil... I'm not too well informed, that is true, I just wanted to point out that it seems that the west is only interested in those regimes that want to do something on their own. Why don't they try to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia for example?
I don't think many reasonable people would disagree with your first point - the Syrian people deserve real democracy with protections for religious and ethnic minorities, free from oppression by dictators (Assad) or jihadists (ISIS/Jabhat al-Nusra). This is what the ongoing discussions in Vienna are trying to iron out, namely: 1) can Russia and Iran be convinced to soften their support of the Syrian regime? 2) which opposition groups should receive active support from the international community? In the end, hard choices will need to be made about which regime and opposition elements to incorporate into Syria's future - undoubtedly some Baath holdovers and sketchy Salafist groups will be accommodated. The important thing is that elections are free and transparent, and it's inconceivable how this could happen without first disposing of Assad and ISIS.
Because the Saudis have the wealth to put up a fight and it would destabilize the entire region, as Saudi Arabia's influence is helping to check Iran and ISIL? My two cents are that the West really needs to step back and re-evaluate the utility of intervention into the Middle East. Whenever they have intervened in an area, either directly (boots on the ground) or indirectly (supplying weapons and equipment to the "moderates") it has been completely counterproductive and has resulted in a worse outcome for everyone except the radicals. Libya is complete anarchy, mostly controlled by various radical groups viciously grappling for power. Iraq and Syria have now spawned ISIS, intervention in Iran in the 50s resulted in a revolution in the 70s, which has created a far more hostile and violent regime, supplying weapons and equipment in Afghanistan in the 80s to radicals to fight the Soviets led to the rise of the Taliban. I'm just shocked at the amount of people ready to repeat the same mistakes this time around. Western intervention is at the root of almost everything that is currently f***ed up and chaotic about the Middle East; apparently people don't like it when you bomb them, constantly stick your nose in their business, and use them for your own agenda. Yet the idea is that more of the same will fix the problem.
C'mon guys, this isn't mostly, or if at all, about oil. The western world has enough technology to find and mine oil elsewhere. Did the Americans give a rat's ass about the Canadian election and potentially losing some control over the oil sands in Alberta? That is but an example. Everybody said the Iraq war was about oil. If so then why did the Americans go to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea etc. It continues to fight proxy wars. Who quadruples their wealth after the dust settles?
That's true, but what ever the reason is, it is not world peace, democracy, freedom and caring for the poor people who are bullied by a dictator.
I'd bet it's safe to say that the world does not rely on their oil...at least not north America. One assumes that the western brand of democracy would work there. I'm here to tell you that after my 3 years in theater and >10 years of experience (strategic/operational/tactical) in the region, I personally don't think we should make such assumptions or think they accept it.
I do respect this legitimate point, and I don't think it should be used to give inaction a free pass. I loathed the Bush administration as much as the next guy and my country did the world a huge disservice in the Middle East, but the "non-interventionist" line of reasoning often thinly disguises plain apathy toward what is going on elsewhere in the world.
I don't buy this reasoning, at all. Non-interventionists simply understand that sometimes there's simply very little to be done without making the situation worse for everyone.
Furthermore, containment clearly doesn't work with an organization that aspires to a caliphate that extends into Europe and Africa. My opinion: What is needed is a comprehensive (all inclusive) Allied Joint Command that integrates Governments AND military organizations; utilizing a whole-of-government (Diplomatic/Military/Information/Economic - DIME) approach to ISIS. Empower governments (DIME) and simultaneously engage all systems in the environment (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, Information). You know what will prevent this from happening? Governments bickering over border encroachments and pride. Hybrid warfare demonstrates how organizations (Government/Military/Paramilitary/Terrorist) align themselves in order to achieve mutually beneficial objectives. It doesn't have to be a formal alliance, but a synchronized and coordinated effort.
Vietnam and Korea were in The Cold War era. Bush should have gone to Afganistan, not Iraq. But you can not compare Canadian democratic system with Saddam's dictatorship
I don't have much opinion on Arabs. All my life I hear about their problems, 48 ********ing years. Screw them. I did my service in Soviet Military back in 85-87 and eventhough, I was stationed in Kazakhstan, I did several convoys into Afganistan for the duration of the service. Uzbeks and Tadjiks are nice people, you can make some deals with them. Pushtuns, forget it. Backward, religious assholes. Those are my 2 cents on Middle East.
We can all complain about United States, but at the end of the day, where would you like to live, South Korea-Japan or North Korea and Vietnam?
That's a weird set of choices but even if you'd extended that to all the countries I'd say that it depends. If you live in the US, you might not live to see the end of the day.
Of course I can. If Canada decided to create stringent laws against American firms with respect to wages, trade agreements etc. Justin Trudeau will be portrayed as a dictator and no different than Saddam. Let's not suggest that Saddam is a dictator and Bush is an American hero. They are virtually the same. You and most people here don't see it that way because the media's created a mental image of Saddam over those decades that you simply cannot shake over an online discussion.