The crowd began cheering. Everyone was happy. I knew that if I tried to intervene I would be taken away, and that the executions would go ahead. I knew that I wouldn’t be able to change what was happening and I might put myself in danger. -- I found that I was laughing quite loudly. Everyone was laughing. Even the superintendent grinned in a tolerant way. "You'd better all come out and have a drink," he said quite genially. "I've got a bottle of whisky in
the car. We could do with it." -- It's videos and accounts like this that make me wonder if I can ever be for the death penalty or any sort of coldblooded execution. It's an issue I can't figure out my stance on. What justifies this? Anything? Impossible question. kleinbl00, what's your take on Syria, and on the Middle East in general? America first? Human rights first? Compromise? Is there a solution? I occasionally wonder what I would do if I was president, but I have no idea -- and that's when I take a step back from whatever critical thoughts I'm having of Obama that day.
Not a short answer. I've read probably a dozen history books in the past 2 years trying to firm up this question. My opinion HAS changed in the following ways: - I recognize the legitimacy and necessity of Israel - I appreciate Islam as a religion but recognize that the fundamentalist factions of Islam hold more sway than the fundamentalist factions of Christianity - I understand that "nations" are a Western, Enlightenment concept imposed upon an unwilling and uninterested populace throughout the Middle East - I grasp that when we refer to the "civilized" world we are referring to those regions that did not behave as a frontier for the majority of history The Serbian War was a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles and an indirect consequence of a thousand years of bloodshed. The Middle East is no different. We look back on history at the genocide and slaughter perpetrated when protestantism popped out of catholicism, when the Cathars and Manicheans splintered off, hell, even the Mountain Meadows Massacre and we forget that Sunni/Shia/Wahabi/Alawi is more of the same, minus the geopolitical stability of republics, representative democracy or social progress. I shared this last week. Not nearly enough people read it. I'm sharing it again. Prior to this article, my opinion was that Syria is, has been and shall always be a Soviet puppet and the fact that they're Russians now doesn't change anything. My opinion after the article is that they are, have been and always shall be a Soviet puppet and when two ethnic factions who have been ready to slit each other's throats for 70 years suddenly decide to do so, you can't pick a side. Unless we want to play Empire and declare Syria the 51st state, press a full-court invasion and own Syria (in other words, what we did in Iraq minus the installing of a new government, troop draw-down and all the rest), we have no business getting involved. Should we pressure Russia to do something? Yeah, I think so. But we're doing bullshit with the Russians right now that pretty much saps our authority (ahem SNOWDEN). We won't anyway. It's all just a dance.kleinbl00, what's your take on Syria, and on the Middle East in general?
This was clear from the start. Asking Congress for permission was the smartest thing Obama has done as president that I can think of. I don't think as many people missed that as the author of this article suggests. -- That second article was incredible in every way. Thanks. But ... option three, do nothing -- what's the endgame? Where do we draw the line at not meddling? The Middle East? The Far East? Europe? Mexico? At some point, something will happen that requires our involvement for the good of us -- right? Some would argue it's already happening economically with the pipeline and natural gas monopolies. I'm not sure we can afford to let USSR 2.0 become the preeminent power in the world. Do you think that could happen if we abandon the Middle East? I think it's at least possible. I guess what I'm saying is that abandoning the world, while definitely the intelligent thing to do in the short term, has potentially catastrophic longterm consequences. Am I wrong? If I'm right, I see no correct answer to this situation.So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.
Steven Gaghan interpreted Robert Baer really, really well in this scene right here. There's a world of difference between "abandoning" and "not assuming conservatorship of." The reason we care oh-so-very-much-more about the Middle East than we do about sub-Saharan Africa is that the Middle East has oil. That's it. That's all. Without oil, the Middle East is a bunch of isolationist tribes attempting to lead their lives without any real involvement with the West. Reza Aslan's "How To Win A Cosmic War" points out pretty succinctly that the "Near Enemy" matters far more than the "Far Enemy" where for "Near Enemy" substitute "those fucking Sunnis down the valley" and for "Far Enemy" substitute "The Great Satan The United States of America." One pays lip service to hating on the far enemy while one fights jihad against the near enemy. We have no stakes in the sectarian stuff. However, it allows us to proxy our way to dominance. That simple fact covers the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, if not before. The reason we devote so much attention to Israel is it's a colony. It's an embassy. It's a bunch of Europeans, with European heritage, establishing a toe-hold in a region we know culturally from bible stories (that happens to have LOTS OF OIL). It gives us a position to destabilize the middle east to prevent the return of a Caliphate. Speaking from a purely machiavellian point of view, it is in our best interests to keep the Middle East destabilized and warring. As soon as they unite, we go from "Far Enemy" to "Near Enemy." We will continue to meddle in the Middle East until the sun is a cinder. We will maximize bloodshed and discord. And we will do so for the betterment of the United States of America, because that is the sausage-making of foreign policy. "The purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". - Lord Ismay France, England and Russia all did their level best to destabilize the Ottoman Empire for purposes of trade. We now continue to do so for much the same reasons. I'm a firm believer in peace on earth, good will toward men. I've had a subscription to Saudi Aramco World for 8 years now. But I recognize that nobody wants war in the Middle East quite so much as the Middle East and that attempting to pacify it for purely humanitarian purposes is deadly and foolish.
We don't need to meddle in the Middle East for it to be destabilized. And I'm having trouble reconciling our need to "maximize discord" via foreign policy with our need to power our vehicles. I mean, I think you're mostly right -- I just also think there's a bizarre disconnect pretty high up in our government. Our explicit and implicit agendas in the Middle East seem to contradict each other.
Foreign policy is determined by elected officials and carried out by career diplomats and operatives. Even if there was only one of each there would still be a disconnect. Nothing bizarre about it. For any one person there can be several motivations... and we're talking about something as bit as "the West's regard for the East."