Paris attacks

[tar]

Shelagh,

 

I am conflicted. I so little want to forsake the moderate Sunni Syrians that we encouraged to stand against Assad. While I so much want to see Daesh NOT maintain and increase its territory in Syria and Iraq.

 

My country is simultaneously dragged across the coals for forcing regime change in terms of Saddam and now faulted for not doing enough to rid Syria of Assad.

 

Anti Zionist feelings and propaganda some times comes from the same quarters as anti-US feelings. And pacifists sometimes wish they had more power to help.

 

As America we have reasons to back Israel, and to work toward regime change in Syria. Yet all the arguments against regime change that were valid in Iraq are still valid in Syria. And all the arguments for regime change related to Saddam are valid concerning Assad.

 

I do not think it possible to take an objective view here, that would say that either regime change is something an outside nation should undertake in a foreign country, or not.

 

The situation has to be taken as the current one. We want peace, we want democracy, we want human rights, we want women's rights and gay rights and open markets. We disarm to seek peaceful coexistence, and other nations in the world build up to challenge our power (as the US.)

 

And we have this ISIS thing, that is much more of a threat to everything we believe in than even Saddam or Assad was or is.

 

I asked earlier, to try and get a consensus, as to whether we should suspend the Arab Spring, and defeat Daesh first and then pick the Arab Spring back up.

 

If we could defeat Daesh by siding with Assad and Russia and Hezbollah and Iran...should we do it, if it means forsaking our friends in Ukraine and Syria and Lebanon and Israel?

 

Regards, TAR

[Shelagh]

You have given an excellent summation of the problem facing the Syrian people. When the Kurds in Iraq asked for help, it was given. Not so for the Sunni Syrians when they first sought help. As a consequence, they have suffered five years of brutal, bloody war that has torn the country apart. Of course you have no answer. If you did, the Syrians would be busy establishing democracy in Syria instead of fighting for their lives or fleeing their country.

[Ten oz]

Why is there always an assumption that democracy = peace or that democracy would be the obvious result of removing ruling authority in a government. It took the United States close to a hundred years of violent and oppressive growing pains to establish a representative gov't that in theory even attempts to be responsive to all its people.

 

Part of the problem in the Middle East is that some of the countries simply should not be countries. They were clumsily carved out with little insight into religious and cultural differences of the people. How to divide up oil profits and maintain influence seems to the only reason for perpetuating them in certian cases. If nothing else perhaps the Kurds should have a country. And of course Palestinians getting something would go a long way too. We want democracy in the middle east and peace in the middle weast but we aren't willing to take the training wheels off.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

You make a good point. About automatically thinking that removing the oppressive authority, means you are going to have a wonderful situation.

 

Take "Lord of the Flies" for instance. The boys go wild, like the ISIS fighters, and they wind up realizing they need to supervise themselves in an adult fashion.

 

I am thinking though about your "they should not be countries" idea. That is an odd thing to say about an area that birthed our religions, laws, moral values, language, science, medicine, architecture, and otherwise acted as the cradle of civilization.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,You make a good point. About automatically thinking that removing the oppressive authority, means you are going to have a wonderful situation.Take "Lord of the Flies" for instance. The boys go wild, like the ISIS fighters, and they wind up realizing they need to supervise themselves in an adult fashion.I am thinking though about your "they should not be countries" idea. That is an odd thing to say about an area that birthed our religions, laws, moral values, language, science, medicine, architecture, and otherwise acted as the cradle of civilization.Regards, TAR

I did not mean there should not be countries in the Middle East at all. Rather that perhaps the are that covers Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and parts of Iran and Pakistan should have some additional countries. More individual governments to to reflect the individual groups and cultures in the region.

[tar]

Might be good to think about Freud's ideas of the Id, Ego and Superego, and think of the Id as our animal desires, and the Superego as the rules we go by, and the ego as the moderator between.

 

As people have such a setup as individuals, we most probably can figure we have the same setup as groups and analogies can be easily drawn.

 

Important though to remember to resolve the conflicts in your own head, and your own group, before attempting to act as someone else's superego.

Except of course in the case of ISIS where it is sorely apparent that the fighters are in need of adult supervision.

[Shelagh]

Why is there always an assumption that democracy = peace or that democracy would be the obvious result of removing ruling authority in a government.

Is there such a wide-spread assumption? It would be difficult to democratise Syria without peace. The coming peace talks in January will find that democracy on the agenda will be the biggest stumbling block. Peace might be brokered at the expense of democracy rather than to bring it about.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Perhaps, but dividing up a Kurdish area and a Shia area and a Sunni area and such would be arbitrary in nature, and there would be winners and losers, and people would lose what they built.

 

Besides, look at the U.S. and the E.U., the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire and all the other examples where peoples bound by a common idea, or common lord, live together, despite their differences.

 

And look at Texas. They would not mind being their own country...and some in the other 49 would not miss them, but we had a civil war already, and worked the thing out, or are in the process of working the slavery thing out. States rights and federal government overreach are legitimate concerns.

 

Muslims are almost a 1/3 of the population of the planet. Sunnis outnumber Shia like 3 or 4 to 1. By rights there should be a Sunni Caliphate...except the majority of world is kafir and would not enjoy living under that particular Superego.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, I disagree that Texas would want to be its own country. Political Texas went 57% Republcan to 42% Democrat in 2012. It is not partisan as many would pretend. Utah for example went 73% republican to 25% democrat in 2012.

 

Political ideology and voting patterns aside people are not dying by the tens and hundreds of thousands in Texas trying to secede from the union. Perhaps if 30 some odd years of continuos unrest in Texas had past you'd feel differently. Perhaps had the Civil War lasted 40yrs years a different outcome may have been required?

[Shelagh]

Tar, Christian religions account for 1/3rd of the world's population, and Muslims make up 1/5th of the world's population. According to predictions, the gap between the two will narrow over the coming decades.

[iNow]

Tar - I cannot be certain, but your replies suggest to me that your unfamiliar with the history to which Ten oz is indirectly referring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

For the narrative, here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553

[MigL]

I don't understand why Ten oz thinks there should be a homogeneous culture in each 'country' as opposed to the present diversified arrangement.

Iraq was previously diversified and they seemed to live together under the iron fist of S Hussein.

Similarly Tito's Yugoslavia, and the former Russian republics under centralised Communist rule.

And if your answer is that these were totalitarian regimes, multiculturalism also seems to work quite well in Canada, the US, Western Europe, some of south America, etc.

 

If on the other hand, you'll claim that the problem in the middle East is religious diversity, I would be a rich person if I had a nickel for every time I've been told ( on this forum ) that the problems in the middle East are NOT religious.

 

This is one of those times I agree with you Tar. The US is often blamed when they go into a situation and try to affect change, and they are also blamed when they don't do enough or anything.

I guess that's your lot when you're seen as the leader of the free world, you've gotta have pretty big shoulders because you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

[Ten oz]

I don't understand why Ten oz thinks there should be a homogeneous culture in each 'country' as opposed to the present diversified arrangement.

Iraq was previously diversified and they seemed to live together under the iron fist of S Hussein.

Similarly Tito's Yugoslavia, and the former Russian republics under centralised Communist rule.

And if your answer is that these were totalitarian regimes, multiculturalism also seems to work quite well in Canada, the US, Western Europe, some of south America, etc.

 

If on the other hand, you'll claim that the problem in the middle East is religious diversity, I would be a rich person if I had a nickel for every time I've been told ( on this forum ) that the problems in the middle East are NOT religious.

 

This is one of those times I agree with you Tar. The US is often blamed when they go into a situation and try to affect change, and they are also blamed when they don't do enough or anything.

I guess that's your lot when you're seen as the leader of the free world, you've gotta have pretty big shoulders because you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Not homogenous, just of their own selection and design. In the United States and Canada no foriegn power put a gun to our heads and demanded democracy. You say different groups get along well in the western world but you ignore that the western world was transformed by revolutions and demands for independence. England alone was confronted by the Irish, Australians, Canadians, and so on wanting independence. Not all of them were bloody as the American revolution but assuming you believe Canada should be its own country why should other people in other regions of the world not entitled to independence? This is not about religion. Does religion separate the U.S. people from Canadians? Truly very little culturally separates the United States from Canada and yet we are separate countries because we choose to be. We (USA and Canada) are both diverse multicultural countries with a shared history occupying land that was previously treated as one by the natives.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Thank you for the link about the Ottoman empire. I was just generally familiar with the idea that the west divided up the place. That is probably part of our problem here. We, as the West as it said about England in the article can neither resolve the conflicts in the area nor extricate ourselves, from it.

 

We still would like some control of the situation, as would Russia, as would Iran, as would Turkey,as would the Saudis.

 

I don't think that objectively one can say that this or that party, the Zionists or the Arabs, or any of the nations or coalition of nations seeking to bring peace to the area and hold sway over the area are automatically the good guys, and everybody else the bad guys.

 

This thread is about Paris and the Daesh attack that brought the unrest in Syria and Iraq and North Africa onto the streets of Paris and into her cafes and theatre.

 

And for me, this thread is about how I can support France against such attacks. Who do I go after, and how. As an individual, in terms of lobbying my government to take action. And as a fellow NATO member, and former League of Nations, member.

 

What is our role? What should we be doing? How much blood and money should we spend? Who are our friends, who are our enemies, in terms of Iraq, and Sunnis and Shia, and Daesh and Al Queda and the Baathists that used to be Saddam's inner circle. And how much of the struggle is resource related, and how much human rights related, and how much religious and how much ideology and how much psychological need for control, and need to be right.

 

Regards, TAR

In the Koran there are believers and then everybody else who is by definition in error.

 

I believe such psychological stance, as in believing you are right and the other party wrong, is a human trait. A trait that none of us here can rise above into some objective judge stance.

 

We need to take sides against Daesh based on a desire to protect our own way of life from those who would take it away.

[CharonY]

Not homogenous, just of their own selection and design. In the United States and Canada no foriegn power put a gun to our heads and demanded democracy. You say different groups get along well in the western world but you ignore that the western world was transformed by revolutions and demands for independence. England alone was confronted by the Irish, Australians, Canadians, and so on wanting independence. Not all of them were bloody as the American revolution but assuming you believe Canada should be its own country why should other people in other regions of the world not entitled to independence? This is not about religion. Does religion separate the U.S. people from Canadians? Truly very little culturally separates the United States from Canada and yet we are separate countries because we choose to be. We (USA and Canada) are both diverse multicultural countries with a shared history occupying land that was previously treated as one by the natives.

 

I thing both you and MigL have only a slightly different perspective of the same thing. Essentially the stability of a country is not determined by a small set of factors such as ethnicity or religion. Though they can be used as a cohesive or disruptive element. Whether they are, depends on a lot of other factors, including history (which will influence social dynamics) but also economy and others. Another reason why ethnicity and religion can be used disruptively is when they can be identified externally. It is much harder to identify and discriminate people if they appear the same. But as has been shown, we humans are pretty good at drawing arbitrary boundaries.

Being the masters of their own destinies will probably alleviate issues in some respects in so much as it would be harder interference of foreign powers (which a number of regimes can do legitimately), though it does not mean that the resulting system will be efficient in dealing with it. Sometimes animosity run deep, but vanish for some reasons (e.g. looking at the once belligerent German-French relationship).

 

It is likely however, that at some point someone will try to exploit these ethnic/religious/economic/whatever differences for their own gain. And I think it is dependent on the structure of the society and governance whether it can be resolved in a peaceful manner. These things may not even happen actively. Examples in the Western world probably include the eventual marginalization of violent racists (such as neo-nazis) in most countries, or the eventual demise of communist anti-government movements. These things still flare up (as with the recent refugee crisis) yet do not have the momentum to destabilize the whole country.

[michel123456]

In memory

http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/visuel/2015/11/25/enmemoire_4817200_4809495.html

[overtone]

I would love to wait with my wife at the gate when she is flying to Atlanta. I can't now, because of Bin Laden.

No. You can't, now, because of George W Bush.

 

 

 

• "Credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance" to be established within six months
• "Free and fair elections" under UN supervision to be held within 18 months
• Political transition should be Syrian-led

So the UN is advocating regime change in Syria. What else could be meant by a Syrian-led transition to free and fair elections resulting in credible and inclusive governance?

I doubt Assad will go quietly.

Edited January 6, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I am a little tired of you blaming everything on Bush.

 

He has been out of the Whitehouse for 7 years. We have been in "better hands" according to you, since. Maliki did his killing after Bush, Assad did his killing after Bush. The Arab spring occurred during Hilary's watch. The current fight between Iran and the Saudis is happening on Kerry's watch.

 

The thing is to decide what to do now, not to place blame. If a forest fire should destroy a neighborhood one should not blame Bush for not passing carbon emission regulations. If a Sunni should kill a Shia one should not blame Bush for giving Iraq a chance to establish a secular government under the watch of the UN and not under the rule of a dictator.

 

At the start of the new year we face a global sell off of stocks after a China collapse and the Saudis and Iran, and North Korea's nuclear test, and ISIS and some general fear that things are not going well. If we are the leaders of the free world, we might not be doing the best job. But the rise of Islamic fundamentalism against the West is not due solely to Bush. Much of what Bush did was a reaction to global terrorism that was already happening.

 

Some of the rise of ISIS has to be blamed on Clinton and Kerry and Obama. They were holding the reigns for the last 7 years.

 

Regards, TAR

Police thwart attack on "Hebdo" anniversary.

 

Bush did not draw the offending comics.

although international cooperation in the fight against global terrorism, instituted by Powell and Rice and Bush may have assisted the French authorities in establishing protocols to handle such attacks as just happened in Paris

[tar]

Not that I am not accepting blame for many issues in the world, as an American, but ​I believe we should accept responsibility for everything America does, whether it works out or not, and whether it is done with a Republican or Democrat or Socialist or Independent or Libertarian at the helm. And whether or not it is done with our personal knowledge and support or done against our personal better judgement.

[Ten oz]

Not that I am not accepting blame for many issues in the world, as an American, but ​I believe we should accept responsibility for everything America does, whether it works out or not, and whether it is done with a Republican or Democrat or Socialist or Independent or Libertarian at the helm. And whether or not it is done with our personal knowledge and support or done against our personal better judgement.

I always find it amusing we someone talks about taking responsibility and then list groups of people for who the blame may be spread across.

[overtone]

I am a little tired of you blaming everything on Bush.

Then quit bringing up stuff that's his administration's fault, and blaming it on other people. The dysfunctional security systems we've been stuck with at airports, for example.

 

 

He has been out of the Whitehouse for 7 years. We have been in "better hands" according to you, since.

And we've made some progress cleaning up after that spectacle - not much, but it's been difficult to get cooperation, and the damage done was phenomenal. One doesn't blame the cleaning lady - however slow - for the frat house afterparty pigsty. Especially if she has to vacuum around the fratboys still curled up in their vomit and trying to trip her or play with her cleaning gear for entertainment.

 

 

Some of the rise of ISIS has to be blamed on Clinton and Kerry and Obama.

Why? None of it was their fault. Edited January 8, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

OK I am trying to have Kerry, Obama, and Clinton take some responsibility as my Secretaries of State and President for the last 7 years. They are still my president and Secretaries of State, and I take responsibility for their actions and non-actions, as an American. My spreading of the blame, is between Bush and Obama and the one is not evil and the other angelic. We did not make the right decision, in retrospect, to encourage the Arab Spring and the rebellion against Assad. It has resulting in destabilizing Syria, the deaths of a quarter million people, giving ISIS a capital city in Raqqa, a humanitarian crisis, millions of refugees, increased influence of Russia and Iran in the area and perception of American weakness, by drawing a red line in the sand and letting people walk right across it.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

OK I am trying to have Kerry, Obama, and Clinton take some responsibility as my Secretaries of State and President for the last 7 years

For stuff they didn't do.

 

 

We did not make the right decision, in retrospect, to encourage the Arab Spring and the rebellion against Assad. It has resulting in destabilizing Syria, the deaths of a quarter million people

We didn't have much choice by then - although Obama famously tried to keep the US out of it. What had destabilized Syria was the invasion of Iraq (including US response to Syria's opposition to it), and then a massive drought. The US did not initially undermine the Syrian government because of the Arab Spring (that came years later), but because Syria refused to cooperate with the invasion of Iraq.

 

W again. You keep bringing him up.

Edited January 14, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

So Obama not taking us into Syria was a good idea, or a bad idea?

 

Regards, TAR

Besides, the 250 thousand deaths in Syria in the last 3 years, all occurred in the last three years.

Edited January 14, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

So Obama not taking us into Syria was a good idea, or a bad idea?

Probably the best idea available. By the time the subject came up, the US had no actual allies in Syria - what would the goal have been, make Syria into Pretend Puerto Rico Mideast? Find some Syrian version of Adnan Chalabi and helicopter him in with the US Army and his own Abu Ghraib?

 

Besides, the 250 thousand deaths in Syria in the last 3 years, all occurred in the last three years.

Mission Accomplished - the gift that just keeps on giving.

 

There will be people dying by the thousands for decades to come because of that US administration. And not just in the US.

Edited January 15, 2016 by overtone