For a second there I thought you we referring to Palestine. Mostly because that is a perfect example of what elucidator is talking about.
Yeah, but Jihadism ain’t. Certainly not in Libya. As for Egypt, it might have an MB president, but it appears the generals remain in control after all.
So, which side do you want to win this war?
Turkey is not like Yugoslavia. Apart from Turkish Kurdistan, there are no apparent ethnogeographical fracture-lines in Turkey. Almost everybody’s Turkish and speaks Turkish; non-Turkish minorities other than the Kurds are scattered here and there and don’t form distinct regions.
You do realize that the Kurds make up 20-25% of the population. That’s a pretty sizable percentage.
Also his argument about Attaturk stringing together a bunch of different groups is largely correct. Most if the people didn’t consider themselves Turks and spoke a number of different dialects and languages. That’s why he did away with the Ottoman language and created the Turkish nation.
Syrian refugees fleeing to Turkey, and border strikes and raids from Syria into Turkey. That could tend to exaggerate any already-existing ethnic tensions.
Is there any chance at all for a deal? Assad steps down, but appoints his successor, who institutes sufficient reforms to make further war pointless?
Or are the differences so vast that only a bloodbath can resolve them?
Or somewhere in between?
I admit I say this somewhat naively. It’s pointless to make and agree to international laws if you’re not going to uphold them. If the US, or any country, ever wishes to act in the name of what is right and not just their own interests, they have to respond when international law is broken. That does, of course, mean other countries have a responsibility too. Therefore I’d like to see a joint international response - not in the name of any one country. If the rebels are not worth directly supporting, i.e. we have no real moral or other good reason to wish them to win, surely it’s possible to take some action on chemical weapons without intentionally assisting anyone?
I suspect this is probably madness, but is there any realistic possibility of assisting the rebels on the condition that they agree to set up a certain kind of secular democracy that feels some gratitude to those that helped them out?
Bozuit, I can understand your point, but I think the British and the Israelis would be quite upset at the idea that countries need to be “secular democracies” as opposed to just “democracies” to be considered worthy of US support.
Why? American Baptists and various small protestant denominations push their religion off on people, but not most Americans or Israelis.
Nope.
I doubt they would even agree to such a proposal and plan to renege.
What “Ottoman language”?
I mean secular democracy in a practical sense. I know very little about Israeli politics, but in British politics there is little influence from religion. We may be more officially religious than the US, but there is less religiosity in a practical sense. In the case of Syria, what I mean is a country with no official preference of any religion, where religious values are kept out of legislature and where everyone is Syrian first and Sunni, Shiite or (ideally) non-religious second.
I’ve wondered for decades why the U.S. had to lead in the Yugoslavian conflict. Shouldn’t European forces have dealt with it?
In the same way, how much could Egypt do to help in Syria? (Or…would they just be on Assad’s side?) Why can’t the region police itself? Why does a country half the damn world away have to get involved? It’s as if Bangladesh had sent troops to the Nicaraguan conflict!
This makes sense to me. Just launch a punitive raid, and wipe out some missile base or airbase, and say, “This will happen any time you use chemical weapons.” It saves face, establishes a principle, slightly reduces Assad’s power to harm his own citizens, upholds the standard of law, and doesn’t risk either too many U.S. lives or a deep entanglement in local partisan squabbles.
I don’t believe the Syrians will go for that.
… and is completely illegal in international law, unless it is sanctioned by the UN.
I am not saying “don’t do it”. I am saying don’t pretend it “upholds the standard of law”.
Ottoman Turkish. It was a Turkish dialect with a bunch of Arabic and Persian loan words that was spoken by the Ottoman elite. It also was written in Arabic.
And how did Ataturk “do away with” it, other than changing the Arabic letters to Roman?
Grab a bunch of Ottoman documents, fly to Istanbul, show them to the people there and watch the look on their faces as they wonder what this gibberish you’re showing them is.
Oh, so then if Prince Charles converted to Judaism or Islam that wouldn’t cause any issues in the UK?
Beyond that, there are plenty of European countries which have an “official preference” of one religion over others.
Am I talking to the same person who insisted that the violence in Iraq was over “theology”?
You seem to have rather contradictory viewpoints.