U.S. to Provide Military Assistance to Syrian Rebels

Its looking like the U.K. is moving towards getting involved in Syria, though not through any genuine ethical considerations, more because IMO P.M. Cameron as head of a not overly popular coalition government, that probably won’t last long appears to be desperate to get his name into the history books (Or maybe get himself a Nobel Peace Prize) as some sort of international statesman.

To get his way, he’s been acting like the Lone Ranger, sticking his nose in crisis after crisis, dishing out foreign aid with a lavish hand while ordering cutbacks at home.

Generally it appears to me across the Islamic regions of the the M.E. and N.Africa, that there are those who as some sort of internet popular mob ethos, shout democracy, demonstrate for democracy and eventually are forced into fighting for democracy, while having no idea who or what is going to replace the regime they’ve suddenly decided that they’re against.

Usually applauded and encouraged by naïve Westerners who think that anyone acting against an established order, let alone not very pleasant dictatorships must themselves be nice guys themselves .

The Syrian rebels have executed unarmed prisoners, and Sunni civilians themselves, though like any movements of this kind we get fractionalism in a bid to deny responsibility.

Oh no it wasn’t us who committed the atrocity it was others fighting against- insert name here-, they’re the "So and so "resistance group, while we’re the "This that and the other"resistance group, honest.

Many years ago we saw the absaloute ruler, the Shah of Iran deposed, and we’ve seen whats come to replace him.

We deposed Saddam, and now the butchery in Iraq makes life infinitely worse for most Iraqis.

The so called "Arab Spring "has now resulted in a military government in Egypt.

Semi secular dictators are likely to be replaced by extreme Islamists, or division and anarchy, neighbour killing neighbour.

And whatever the result theres no improvement in life, no more freedom for the populace, and definitely no Western style democracies as replacements.

And unlikely to be until there is an entire shift of cultural values across these countries and a collective will of the mass of the populations that this is really what they want.
For example, in some countries the status and and role of woman is considered abhorrent to many liberal Westerners, but is happily embraced by the women themselves.

In the West the change of viewpoint from feudal/religious government to desiring Western liberal democracy took historically, a long, long time.
Even with mass communication and mass education, its going to take more then a quick revolution to change the mind set of the majority in these countries.

The desire for change seems to be based more on Sunnis and Shias, being at loggerheads with each other, with Shias not so much wanting democracy, as thinking that its their turn to get their hands on all of the national goodies.

Unfortunately the West encourages these events, with all of the mass suffering and death, by allowing the insurgents to think that if it all goes horribly wrong, then they’ll get military/financial aid from the West, plus political pressure on the regime they’re fighting against, or failing that they’ll go into a comfortable exile if they lose.

If they didn’t think that these options were available it would be debateable if they’d be so eager to start these ill thought out insurrections going off at half cock.

Personally I find Assads regime abhorrent, but can’t see the rebels replacing it with anything better, and probably with a creation that will be a hell of a lot worse for everyone concerned.

And you can guarantee, that far from feeling gratitude towards the West, the insurgents if successful, will blame every bad event in their countries for the next half century at least, on the wicked imperialists who involved themselves in their affairs .

Though I’d love to be totally wrong about all of the above.
I live in hope.

I was referring to the older Bush, not his son.

And yes, I’m an American. My mother was from Vermont and my parents moved from Iran when I was a child.

Very well put..T.E. Lawrence analyzed the post-Ottoman Arab world in 1924 (“The Seven Pillars of Wisdom”-he said the same thing. Of Arab "democracies he said “dictatorships bathed in blood”.
We would do well to STAY OUT-our “help” is neither wanted nor appreciated.

Quick highjack: I think this isn’t correct. Morsi is not ruling with the military. In fact, the first Google result I get is this one, suggesting that some people would prefer a return to military government, to replace what they have now.

Presidents don’t make the budget. That’s a function of Congress. They can endorse it and promote it.

I can see that you haven’t watched The West Wing.

2 things about the Syrian situation:

  1. Given that every country is out for themselves ultimately, it stands to reason that the US would support ANY crazy group of nutjobs with an unknown agenda over Assad, a well-known ally of Russia and Iran. In international relations, it seems that the old saying “Better the devil you know than the one you don’t” doesn’t apply if the devil you know is known to be against you. I believe the US would happily replace an anti-American but largely harmless figurehead with a brutal but pro-American regime any day of the week, and we have some history to back that up. Assad isn’t an ally of the US, so we don’t give a shit if we’re handing the country over to cannibal rapists

  2. I’ve long felt that this country has never really gotten over its own mythical origin story: that of the small but determined freedom fighters overthrowing the shackles of a larger empire. So we tend to support rebel groups needlessly in many situations. We’d never come out and say that those who are oppressed by their country’s leaders need to sit down and shut up because the alternative is worse. We would always say they need to strive for freedom, blah blah blah, and that’s always the best course. I don’t really see any good guys in Syria, though one may be worse than the other

while the Iranian government isn’t our friend the rest of the country isn’t necessarily on the same plane. They have their own rebellion to worry about and need some kind of diversion to make them look strong. And Russia is not led by a bunch of crazy people so they’re not the cold-war enemies they once were.

While there is always going to be some mythos in how we paint our own history we did break away from what was then THE largest empire in history just as many other countries did. We’re also also that empires’s greatest ally today so I don’t exactly get the point your making besides we like to support the underdog. I agree with that thought but not in this situation.

Agreed, It’s just a laugh a minute with these guys isn’t it? Just like those wacky Nazis with the camps, kind of boring but really funny!!! :slight_smile: carniverousplant has a great sense of humor doesn’t he?! (in case some of the people reading this are retarded I agree with Latro that this is not an amusing game to be made fun of, shouldn’t really have to point this out but this IS the internet)

Good point, the people who keep saying that the West should attack Iran don’t realise that the large numbers of Iranians against the present government would unite together against us if we did so.

As to their potential nuclear weapon capacity, I wouldn’t be stunned with amazement if we could take it out without their agreement, and without even a shot being fired .

Though I was ever the optimist !

It is one thing to be against the Government and working toward a more democratic society over a long period of time vs. having “West” attack Iran for no serious reason and create havoc similar to Iraq.

Two entirely different things and, if I’d take this rhetoric to its logical conclusion, people who keep saying things like this would do it to destroy internal dynamic and simply create a wasteland that Iraq is these days.