It is correct to say that the Syrian regime has no religious colour, and is really in essence secular.
but for this:
There is no hatred of Kurds. the Syrian regime hates all parties that are not part of its core. Kurdishness is not significant by itself.
Also the wondering about benefit to Israel is typical of the ISrael centric dreaming, there is no reasons for a Syrian regime to change its policies to Israel, unless the Golan goes back. It is also very silly to think that all things that Syria has supported in Lebanon are Syria creations.
Why do you not ask if the Americans would be happy to give up the part of the California and Arizonas that are very Spanish speaking to Mexico? You always ask these questions as if people are just abstractions to you, which perhaps is true.
An interesting point, and one that’s often missed in discussions like this, is the case of Hama. Syria has already got a history of cracking down, brutally, on citizenry once things get beyond a certain threshold. Whether or not they will this go round is anybody’s guess, but they have, in potential, the ability to act with a degree of brutality that makes what’s going on in Libya look like a paintball match.
Yes, it’s very similar to what’s going on in Libya and Syria today. Actually, it was much more brutal than what’s going on in either country. The death toll was staggering, where as in Libya and Syria it’s been pretty mild so far. And you couldn’t even compare what’s going on in Iran at all…the Kent State Massacre is just off the scale to small stuff like that.
Because I know the answer already; but it would be foolish to assume the answer on such a question would be just the same to the average people in every country.
Considering how they feel about the Golan Heights, I have this sense that they’ll have a hard time giving up a single inch of land, no matter how worthless.
Killed 4 and wounded 9. So you slough it off like a sports contest. See, they killed more than we did, therefore we have a higher moral ground.
How many people were killed in America and jailed trying to free the blacks from discrimination. Ever hear of lynching? Ever hear of slavery?
We have no higher moral ground. When we were in their shoes we killed, beat and jailed those who wanted to be free and those who wanted to help them.
Governments protect their interests. They fight to retain power and get the rewards. These dictators have been in power a long time. Do you expect them to go quietly because they were on the wrong side of ethics and morality? It does not happen.
Gonzo…more people were killed and injured in Libya during the PEACEFUL beginning of the protests. Same in Syria. You bringing up Kent State as if it’s on par is ridiculous. I’d have to say that, based on a comparison between what happened at Kent State (which was not deliberate, but instead a fuckup) with what’s happening in Libya (where they are using tanks and artillery on civilians) and Syria (where they have used snipers from what I’ve heard, and there have been hundreds of confirmed deaths and probably many times that in casualties) then…well, yeah. We DO have a higher moral ground, just based on that alone. Really, I was just mocking you for bringing up something so inane and trying to do some sort of comparison of badness…or something.
You tell me? How many? Over what time period? Did the government ever roll in tanks and jet aircraft to paste civilians on the ground and leave hundreds dead in the streets?
Ok…we have no higher moral ground if you want to drag in ancient history and do an apples to oranges comparison between what’s happening in Libya or Syria and I presume our civil war. So what? What’s that got to do with the subject of THIS thread??
No idea what you are babbling about here, old boy. Are you talking to Commissar here, or just talking to hear yourself talk? Government protect their interests? Really? Truly? You don’t say? And water? It’s…wet? Sun? Yellow? Sky? Blue? Fish? Swim? Interesting. Do I expect the Libyan or Syrian government to go down without a fight, regardless of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (as perceived from some 3rd party)?? Um…considering that they AREN’T, I’d say that we are back to water being wet and fish swimming.
So you think the proper response is for a national government to calmly and peacefully cede power. It never happens when money and political power are involved, and they always are.
What a shock, the government is trying to stay in power. They are using guns , the police and the army. Wow, What is wrong with these people? Don’t they understand the people yearn to be free.? There is a terrible price to be paid. If they are willing to fight hard enough, they can get the government out. There is no other way unless they can get the US army to bomb and do the fighting.
We have no moral authority. We have done the same thing their government is doing.
No, I think that straw must be on sale, since I didn’t say anything remotely like this. In fact, I said just the opposite, based on WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
Do I think that a national government SHOULD calmly and peacefully cede power? Obviously…that’s how it works in most stable democratic government. When the Republicans lost power did they stage a coup? Did they call out the military? No…they left and the Dems came in. When the Dems lost power in the recent elections did they stage a coup? Did people riot in the streets? Did the military need to blow the crap out of civilians? No…none of that happened.
Of course, the point is that none of these places HAVE stable democratic governments…they have nasty and oppressive totalitarian governments who are, obviously, going to fight tooth and nail to retain their powers and to keep up all that oppression stuff of their peoples, since that perpetuates their own power.
Again, you are babbling here. I have no fucking idea how any of this relates to anything I’ve said. I never said that the various governments wouldn’t fight…of COURSE a totalitarian government who has spent decades oppressing their peoples is going to fight to stay in power. We are back to water being wet again. I never said anything about how the people should or shouldn’t fight for their freedom…that’s their call, and if they do I wish them all the luck. What I DID say, earlier, is I didn’t think the US should get involved in either Libya OR Syria, or any place else. It’s not our fight and we shouldn’t stick our oar in. If other countries want to jump in, that’s their call, and I again wish them luck…but I don’t think we should get involved. We have too much history in that region, and our involvement is just pumping more hydrogen into the furnace, IMHO.
Who said we had moral authority? Again, is straw on sale this week? It’s not our fight…it’s their fight. That we did ‘the same things’ in our past means nothing, one way or the other.
If you consider the slogans of Daraa that say to Maher’s regiment that they should go to Golan and not kill the people of Daraa, you have your answer. But I suggest you find the case of any country where the population felt giving away territory was no problem. I do not know of one.
There was little public outcry when the U.S. let go of the Philippines. But, arguably, decolonization of an overseas possession falls under a different category than territory people think of as part of “the homeland.” The Velvet Divorce between the Czech Republic and Slovakia would be a third category.
It would probably be more akin to the US going to war with Mexico and losing part of Texas permanently. Sure, some folks in New York might not be too riled, but folks who live in Texas and the rest of the south west would be pretty ticked off, and would constantly agitate to get it back.
Sort of the opposite of Iraq, but even more a crossroads. IIRC, the various Sunni branches make up the vast majority, with other Shi’ia oriented Muslims, Christians and Druze making up the rest (there are even Jews living in Syria, though I don’t think they make up a large percentage). I don’t know all the ethnic groups…IIRC, ‘native’ Arabs make up the majority, with Kurds, Turks and even Palestinians making up smaller percentages.
Syria has always been pretty cosmopolitan, because of it’s location, so there are a lot of different factions.
When I said “special hatred of Kurds”, i meant that Kurds were treated, well, especially worse. They are around 15 per cent of the Syrian population - it’s largest ethnic minority. I think that this is incredibly important as Turkey, Iraq (er, northern portion), and Lebanon watch. While I don’t think there’s a specific ethnic cleansing going on in Syria - more just us v. them mentality - the “Kurdish problem” makes this uprising a shade different.
Here’s one map of the Kurdish population in the region (the other ones I saw on Google looked pretty similar)
Jewish populations under Kurdish rule during the Ottoman Empire were pretty good - some early Kurdish leaders were Jews. They were much safer under Kurdish rule than other places. Israel has helped and armed Kurds in Iraq. And Kurds in Israel are less hostile towards the government than other non-Jewish factions - maybe because a considerable portion are Jewish.
There are some 25 million Kurds in the world. That means something.
Yes - in a way. Ba’athism (the ideology) is basically pan-Arab nationalism and Arab socialism. It’s was an anti-Imperialist ideology with Islamic undertones.
When I said “special hatred of Kurds”, i meant that Kurds were treated, well, especially worse. They are around 15 per cent of the Syrian population - it’s largest ethnic minority. I think that this is incredibly important as Turkey, Iraq (er, northern portion), and Lebanon watch. While I don’t think there’s a specific ethnic cleansing going on in Syria - more just us v. them mentality - the “Kurdish problem” makes this uprising a shade different.
