2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat's with Syria?
Plenty of other countries have had all out war and who knows may have had chemical weapons. This country turned a blind eye to places like Chad, Sudan, Rwanda, Cambodia etc. Why all the interest in Syria? Does it have a pipeline runnign though it or something?
railsback
(1,881 posts)Strategically speaking, nations will prioritize. Unfortunately for the African nations, the vital interests are next to nil. Syria, on the other hand, sits in a region everyone has their fingers in. Its best to end the Syrian conflict as soon as possible.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Or something like that.
Wounded Bear
(58,758 posts)LeftInTX
(25,678 posts)Fears of further destabilization of the region?
I think they have always wanted to support the rebels, but fears they could be arming terrorists. (Kinda doesn't make sense does it?) They know that Assad is going to fall so if they have provided support for the rebels, then we will have some sort of an "ally" there.
I think the Middle East is always a hotbed even if there isn't oil to be gained, especially the Mediterranean region.
(I'm just guessing.........I'm not particularly informed)
I think this might play out the way Libya did, although it will require more resources.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Beating Assad cripples Hezbollah (by directly defeating Hezbollah, cutting their supply lines as well as robbing them of a base of operations) which makes Israel "safer" (but not really because the only thing Israel needs on its border less than a Iranian client-state that backs Hezbollah...is an Al-Qaeda supporter-state), cuts the throat of a rising Islamicist component in ally majority-Muslim but constitutionally-secular Turkey and destabilizes Iran because Iran is the supplier and regional force behind both the Assad regime and Hezbollah. A Syrian defeat potentially means the collapse of the Iranian revolution or at a minimum strikes a serious blow against the power in Iran of the clerics and ayatollahs, potentially overthrowing them.
It's a proxy war against Iran.
To beat Iran, we're risking arming Al Qaeda...how fucking stupid can we get? This is the stupidity of half-measures...either get in or get out and let the chips fall where they will...under no condition do you give heavy armaments to allies of Al Qaeda and wish them good luck. Did we learn nothing from Charlie Wilson and the CIA giving Stinger missiles and guns to the Afghan mujahaddin who gave them to their Talib compatriots?
Extra points for being concise.
The Magistrate
(95,262 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and we hate, hate, hate Iran. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni state, and Iran is a Shiite state. The rebels in Syria are Sunni. The Shiites have asserted their power in Iraq, which pretty much everyone agrees only empowers Iran further in the region. So I think that has something to do with it.
Now I also think that taking sides in a centuries-old blood feud halfway around the world is ill-advised to say the least. We've already seen what can happen years later, a la the Afghanistan mujahideen we supported against the USSR and who morphed into Al Qaeda.
But what the hey. Turkey is igniting, Iraq continues its disintegration, in Afghanistan it's a choice between a severely corrupt government or the Taliban, and the Israel / Palestine situation continues to fester and flare up from time to time. It couldn't possibly get worse, right? I mean, right? What else could possibly go wrong?
I fear we may find the answer to that question if our involvement in the Syrian situation goes too much further.
flamingdem
(39,333 posts)it must be pressure regarding Israel ... they're saying WMD but that sounds like bs