Syria Opposition Seeks No-Fly Zone

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I also remember a few months back or maybe even a year or so ago reading where Iran was threatening to destabilize the ME if Washington didn't stop interfering. Now it seems to me that either the West has beaten them to the punch or maybe Iran's threat has backfired on them.

Strange times indeed.

Yup, they said that, and they try it, on a daily basis. Iran has their grubby little fingers in everybody's plate over there, which is nothing short of amazing to me. As far as I can tell, their greatest "rivals" or opposition in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, more so than even the US - they just use us as a rally point for their ire, but Saudi and Pakistan pretty much HATE them. The average Joe on the street will say it's because they're mostly Shia, and the Paks and Saudis are mostly Sunni, but I personally believe that the higher ups are peeved at them more because the Persians are cutting into their own spheres of influence, and less over religious differences.

My question in the matter is what difference does it make who "destabilizes" the area? Perhaps more to the point, how does one tell if it's being destabilized? It's like throwing mud into an already muddy, roiling river. How do you tell that more mud has been thrown into that maelstrom?

"Destabilizing" the Middle East is like making water wet, to my mind.

Here are some potential answer to my own questions that I just raised:

Iran already works pretty closely with Syria in the support of groups like Hezbollah. If Syria is becoming "more" unstable, they've only got themselves to blame, because they were playing with fire, now they're pissing the bed because of that. Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind.

The danger in this "Arab Spring" isn't really the destabilization that Iran threatens, it's the spread of instability cross-border. That particular "instability" has a method, a "sameness" that makes it more organized than it appears. Instability per se is not the problem, it's an instability in the same direction. It's a swirling maelstrom of madness, true, but it, like a river overflowing it's banks in a flood, threatens to wipe away everything in one direction - downstream.

I'm probably not making any sense here, but bear with me, I just woke up... gotta get my coffee IV going... no, I KNOW I'm not making sense - whoever heard of organize chaos? still, that's what I think I'm seeing in the Middle East.

reply to post by nenothtu


For what it is worth it made sense to me.. but then again that is probably because I feel what is happening, tho organic is being prodded.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I was against Libya and will be against this too. We need to let people sort out their own issues. But after Camerons speech at the UN about more neo liberal "muscular" intervention it wont surprise me if we get involved in this one payed for at the expense of the British tax payer. I wonder if they will one day advocate a no fly zone over Gaza.

I've got my coffee going now, but my mind is still working laterally rather than linearly until it kicks in. Because of that, I reckon, I've had to scrub my eyes twice and re-read your post. I'm not sure how you and I wound up on the same side of an issue - maybe I've been sleepwalking or something, and strayed over here, but this is sort of scary... I don't think this has ever happened before in the history of ATS.

I'm not very "aware" in the matter of British politics. I tend to not pay attention, since they aren't MY politics, and I figure you folks know much better than I how to till your own garden. Still, a phrase you used there has piqued my interest. You seem to be laying the drums of war at the feet of a group you have referenced as "neo liberals" in Britain. I may stand in need of further enlightenment on that concept.

Here's the score of my confusion:

I take it you are politically "liberal" that is generally the source of our disagreements, since I am decidedly NOT, some times unstably so. Here in the US, we have a cabal that are know as "neocons", short for "neo conservatives", which are neither new nor conservative. They are the same folks that are dumping us into these incessant wars, without regard to the common sense that should attend getting into a fight for one's life.

Lately, I've been participating in a thread exploring that notion, and I've come up with a working theory on neocons, and I have to wonder how what you are calling "neo liberals" fit into that schema. as a rough approximation, my notion is this: neocons are not conservative, since they exhibit no conservative tendencies, They've hijacked the name to fool the masses, and due to that have earned the moniker of "RINOs" - Republican In Name Only. Up until the last week or so, I've always viewed them as more "liberal", but have come upon the realization that may not be the actual case. All of the founders of that movement, true enough, were liberals, but I have doubts that is the case at present. One of their founding fathers, Irving Kristol, made a statement along the lines of "neocons are liberals that got mugged by reality", so that was my previous working theory.

I know I'm rambling, but bear with me. There is method to my madness,

Lately I've tripped over the notion that neocons are not lefties shifted to the right, or righties shifted to the left, but rather a group who has shifted in a tangential direction, away from both "right" and "left", leaving only the impression that they've gone rogue to both sides. In other words, lefties think that since they've shifted away from them, that they must have gone "right", and righties think that, since the neocons have shifted away from them, they must have gone "left". Talking heads claim, as ostensibly "impartial" observers, that the neocons have gone both right and left, depending on where an individual stands, towards the "center".

I think it's entirely possible that they've gone entirely tangetial to BOTH, leaving the impression and fostering it among both "wings" that they are on the "other" side now, when in reality they've staked out a new and dangerous ground, off the reservation entirely.

It's still a work in progress, and needs the rough edges filed down, but is there a potential that what you are calling "neo liberals" in Britain fit into that mold? If so, they may be a greater danger than I first thought, since they may be going global as "globalists", masqerading as "right" or "left" to keep folks in an uproar, while in all actuality working together behind the curtain towards the same goal...

I'm gonna need more coffee...

Originally posted by Krono
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Well I'm joining the army soon, so I may have no choice if our ministers (UK) grows a back bone, increases our army and takes out the regime.

I feel for ya.

My own "military" career wasn't in any organized national army. I was what they call a "private military contractor" these days, and as such had the luxury of choosing my "enemies" by simply picking up or turning down a contract. national Service Soldiers haven't got that luxury. They do what they're told, and go where they're told they're needed, do the job, and only complain about it amongst themselves.

They're better men than I.

Most PMC's go that route by first learning the ropes in one national military organization or another, then after separation go off into the Wild Green. I sneaked in through he back door, along a "Security" route, rather than the usual progression, so I've never been a national Service Soldier. I've had Ranger training, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

My son is in the same place you are, perhaps. He's gung-ho to join up with a national military, get his training, then go off into the wild green just like his old man did. I tend to try to discourage that in him, but not too strenuously - kids will do what they make up their minds to do, and there's not much you can do to dissuade them. Generally, trying to talk 'em out of it only solidifies their convictions. kids these days! Anyhow, I just present him with other options, then let him make up his own mind in the matter.

I try to present him with information and facts, and then let his own mind work on them. This is a dangerous time to be a national Service Soldier, and have to fight someone ELSE's "enemy". who may or may not be your own. The lunatics seem to have taken over the asylum, and there's just no telling where they may send you to meet THEIR "Enemy of the Day" when your training is up. The field is just that fluid at the moment. On the down side, if that sort of thing is what you want to do, there just isn't any training equal to what you can get in a more organized National Military, and the Brits are one of the best outfits I've ever run across for that. if that's the route you want to take, you can't do much better.

So then, I'm of two minds in the matter, but I'm not the one that will be dodging the bullets I'm sent to dodge, you are. If you go that route, all I can really say is to do it with both eyes open, knowing the score ahead of time. If you wind up on a Syrian battlefield, know WHY you're really there, and you can avoid some of the more crushing disappointments that are sending broken men home.

Parts of you will STILL get broken any how, either visibly or not. That's just unavoidable, the price of doing that sort of business. The goal is to minimize that, and remain functional throughout the madness of the fight, and the madness that lies beyond.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Krono
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Well I'm joining the army soon, so I may have no choice if our ministers (UK) grows a back bone, increases our army and takes out the regime.

So your ready to put your life and limbs on the line for spineless ministers to fight in a country miles from the UK that you have no right being in?

THAT's the woodwardjr I've come to know and love!

How odd is it that we're STILL on the same side of this issue, and yet I still bristle at the way you express it?

I'd still hoist a pint with you, but it's a long walk from here, so I'll take a raincheck...

I dont see a no fly zone happening so this is really a moot point.

Originally posted by Krono
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Being in the NATO/UN. We have an obligation to help bring peace to the world. We have warned Syria and told them to stop the needless violence, nothing has happened. We have sanctioned them, nothing has happened except for weaken their economy.

So if we went to war, took out their regime and that bought peace to Syria thus saving other lives. Then YES I would put my life on the line to save others.

Sorry, but THAT is the stance that I warned you about above - the one that will lead to a crushing disappointment.

You are NOT going to be "bringing peace to the world" by fighting what is an essentially internal Syrian war for either the ministers OR the Syrians.

You won't even "bring peace" to SYRIA until you've killed a large enough portion of them that they break and no longer desire to fight. I'll tell you right now, that will take the deaths of a LOT of Syrians. They're a rougher bunch than you think. They fight for SPORT, and they fight for KEEPS.

This ain't a rugby match.

Now, if you had said "I want to go help those poor Syrians attain their freedom from an oppressive regime", I could accept that. that's a noble sentiment, and an attainable one while still maintaining your own sanity. Like I said, go in already KNOWING the score, and WHY you are really there.

You'd have to do that as an individual, though, not as a member of Her Majestie's Military Forces, and here's why: the Syrian conflict, like the Libyan and Egyptian conflicts, are purely internal, contained within their own borders. they are CIVIL WARS. No nation, not Britain, not the US, not Russia, not china, not Zimbabwe, has ANY business meddling in the internal affairs of others. To do so, going in as a member of that invasion force thinking you'll "bring peace to the world" where there is no threat to the world - only Syria - will, down the road when you realize the true nature of the beast, lead to a sever disappointment, and questioning yourself, second guessing your own motivations and "patriotism".

NATO and the UN have no dog in that fight, either, so they are useless as justifications. It's an internal Syrian problem, not a world-wide problem for the UN to properly address at all, and NATO... well, NATO has lived beyond it's remit. There is no opposition that NATO was formed to oppose any more. Even if there were, NATO stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization". Do you know how far Syria is from the North Atlantic?

I'm not saying this to be condescending, or even to dissuade you. I'm saying it to try to get you to examine the whirlpool you're about to enter BEFORE you enter it, so that if you decide to take the dip, you'll know what to expect. Just take it as the ramblings of an old fart who has been there, done that, checked it off, and lived long enough to reflect on it in his dotage.

Make use of those reflections,

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Well, it's good to know that if I've lost my marbles, I'm not alone in the search for them!

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I dont see a no fly zone happening so this is really a moot point.

I dunno. I can't be that cavalier about it.

I had, many, many moons ago, a great great so many greats uncle who was tilling his field, using a horse for horsepower. He didn't see WWI happening, either, and so thought it was a moot point.

Before that moot point burned itself out, he'd lost a leg and had scarred lungs in France, where he didn't have a field to till, over an Archduke that wasn't his leige, getting shot in Bosnia or somewhere, where he also didn't have a field to till.

I don't have a field to till in Syria, nor does my son, who would be the one under the gun. We don't have fields to till in Turkey, Lebanon (well, maybe Lebanon, but not THAT Lebanon), Georgia, or anywhere else an out of control fire could spread to if someone were to pour gas on it by, say, meddling in the affairs of others.

A "no fly zone" is only a smokescreen for other action. Why a "no fly zone"? Looks to me like the dangers are on the ground, not in the air. Folks are getting shot by snipers and troopers, but I've not seen any reports of aerial strafing.

So why a "no FLY zone"?

As a smokescreen, of course.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Krono
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Being in the NATO/UN. We have an obligation to help bring peace to the world. We have warned Syria and told them to stop the needless violence, nothing has happened. We have sanctioned them, nothing has happened except for weaken their economy.

So if we went to war, took out their regime and that bought peace to Syria thus saving other lives. Then YES I would put my life on the line to save others.

Sorry, but THAT is the stance that I warned you about above - the one that will lead to a crushing disappointment.

You are NOT going to be "bringing peace to the world" by fighting what is an essentially internal Syrian war for either the ministers OR the Syrians.

You won't even "bring peace" to SYRIA until you've killed a large enough portion of them that they break and no longer desire to fight. I'll tell you right now, that will take the deaths of a LOT of Syrians. They're a rougher bunch than you think. They fight for SPORT, and they fight for KEEPS.

This ain't a rugby match.

Now, if you had said "I want to go help those poor Syrians attain their freedom from an oppressive regime", I could accept that. that's a noble sentiment, and an attainable one while still maintaining your own sanity. Like I said, go in already KNOWING the score, and WHY you are really there.

You'd have to do that as an individual, though, not as a member of Her Majestie's Military Forces, and here's why: the Syrian conflict, like the Libyan and Egyptian conflicts, are purely internal, contained within their own borders. they are CIVIL WARS. No nation, not Britain, not the US, not Russia, not china, not Zimbabwe, has ANY business meddling in the internal affairs of others. To do so, going in as a member of that invasion force thinking you'll "bring peace to the world" where there is no threat to the world - only Syria - will, down the road when you realize the true nature of the beast, lead to a sever disappointment, and questioning yourself, second guessing your own motivations and "patriotism".

NATO and the UN have no dog in that fight, either, so they are useless as justifications. It's an internal Syrian problem, not a world-wide problem for the UN to properly address at all, and NATO... well, NATO has lived beyond it's remit. There is no opposition that NATO was formed to oppose any more. Even if there were, NATO stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization". Do you know how far Syria is from the North Atlantic?

I'm not saying this to be condescending, or even to dissuade you. I'm saying it to try to get you to examine the whirlpool you're about to enter BEFORE you enter it, so that if you decide to take the dip, you'll know what to expect. Just take it as the ramblings of an old fart who has been there, done that, checked it off, and lived long enough to reflect on it in his dotage.

Make use of those reflections,

Well, I know we wont go in there due to Syria not having oil. Plus, I know that IF we go in there, the government will say "oh yea we're there to bring peace bla bla bla" but that may not be the case. However, in MY eyes, I wan't to see freedom in the ME and especially Syria. Shooting your own civilians because they have no faith in you is cowardly and disgusting.

I understand your sentiments, I really do. You've had more experience than me and will know. Like, I know the Iraq war was aload of bollocks, we went there for the oil. Yes, Hussain was a aprick and thankfully died, but we didnt need to go guns blazing. All it would've took was a 3-5man SAS/SBS sqaud to go in and take him out. The Afghan war, hmmmm probaly in there for the wrong reasons but I feel, that the Afghan war is more important that the Iraq war if you know what I mean?

So, if I become a fully qualifed soldier and get called into Afghan, I'll go in knowing, how dangerous it is, the reasons why we are there (what we are told anyway), how many fatalities and casualties etc. But for me, going to Afghan (if I get in) will feel like I'm helping people. Cause we are actually helping the locals out in Afghan. It will also feel like an accomplishment.

Anyway, I'm not in the army yet so its all IF's and BUT's atm. Besides I may not get called to Afghan, cause I'm joining the TA's (Territorial Army) which takes atleast 3 years to get called out in Afghan.

reply to post by Krono


Syria hasn't got much of it's own oil, but it has "oil brokers". My friend there that I mentioned above is a "Syrian" by birth and citizenship, and is also a member of the Saud family. Not a really big deal, since there are something like 15,000 direct Sauds, and nearly the whole country is related one way or another, so that by itself is no biggie. Anyhow, he has, or had, 18 oil wells that he'd inherited - not in Syria, although he's technically a Syrian, but in Dharan. He's also a Baathist - same party as Saddam was.

Syria also has some important routes - transshipment points from one place to another, and ports and such. This is WHY Syria has been a battleground for so long - control of trade routes. Oil or any other commodity doesn't do much good if someone else has a choke hold on the transportation system to move it. Most of the routes between the Levant and more easterly areas go directly through northern Syria, to avoid the desert crossings to the south.

It may be a backwater, but it's a relatively important one.

You're right that Iraq was a load of bollocks, although we may disagree on the root causes, the fact is that we didn't need to go there at all, and in that we are in agreement. We also agree that a 3-5 man SpecOps team and a 3 dollar .50 cal bullet would have been a lot more economical and effective. You're ahead of most in the game.

The Afghan War, in my opinion, is a necessary evil, but I disagree with the way they are going about prosecuting it, and the rationale they are putting out for public consumption as to WHY we are there. The fact remains that I believe it to be justified, if misguided in conduct.

What I'm telling you is that when you go, for go you almost certainly will (to somewhere if not Syria) if you join and get qualified, go knowing why YOU are going, and ignore the tripe the government gives you as to why you are there. Make your OWN reason, don't accept the rationale as issued. After all, when the smoke clears, YOU are the one who has to live with yourself, the government ain't gonna give a squat about it. They've already got theirs in the deal.

Knowing about fatalities and casualties in the abstract is a bit different than holding your best friend in your own lap as he bleeds out and you're screaming for the attention of a medic who's already got too many to attend to, Or trying to plug or pinch off a squirting femoral artery while you wait for a medic to get around to him. It's nasty, it's bloody, there's mud everywhere, without rain, and you realize that it's blood that made the mud in the dry dirt, and there's smoke everywhere - and you can't be sure if it's in the air or just in your own eyes.

And your buddy is dying, probably screaming for his ma if he's conscious at all, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it, but you'll try, with everything you've got in you. You'll try, and if you fail you'll spend a lot of time forever after wondering why it was him and not you, and considering the vagaries of the luck of the draw, the cosmic crap shoot that got the guy right next to you, and didn't even mark you up.

Visibly mark, that is.

The blood you get on your hands, trying to pinch off that femoral artery, or trying to hold pressure on a carotid, or trying to help him hold his own guts inside, where they're supposed to be on better days? That blood will NEVER wash off your hands, and it's not even blood you spilled. You'll see it there all bright and fresh, years later, and at the damndest times.

There better be a goddamned GOOD reason for that, one you can live with, not one you're issued and told to live with.

It's not always like that, only on the worst days. 90% of your time will be spent being bored, and wondering when the fireworks are gonna start, and the other 10% will be spent in sheer terror, wondering when that firework with your name on it is coming, and why it got the wrong guy if it does. Don.'t worry about the ones with your name on 'em - you can't avoid those - worry about all the ones flying that say "to whom it may concern".

I see you're in Wales. I've got some roots there on my mother's side - Gruffyydds. Long time ago. they came to America in the late 1700's or early 1800's. With any luck, you'll stay in the TA's right there at home, and have cute stories to tell your kids about your Service Time, but don't go in betting on it. A lot can happen in 3 years or so to change the whole face of the world.

Crap, we are too stretched out and we the USA are broke. Hey let the Euros/Canadians do this for themselves since they live off the backs of the U.S. military protection so much. No wait.....

reply to post by nenothtu


I have often said that there is little difference between the neocons of America and the neo liberals in Europe. Remember it was a neocon American administration and a neo liberal British administration that led us into the war in Iraq, Bush and Blair both the biggest cheerleaders for war. They both want to use foreign policy to change how other countries operate both economically and politically.
Good article on neo liberalism

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

www.corpwatch.org...

Good to see we can agree on somethings.

reply to post by nenothtu


Very good reply I must admit. I will take your advice as you've served with the US forces. Like I said, I'm not going to believe what the government say. For example, the NATO air strikes in Libya which have killed civilians, our government have said we are carrying out air strikes to PROTECT the civilians. But we all know Libya has a lot of oil and no doubt we've already cut a deal with the ITC (International Transition Council - Libya's new government) that we get oil in exchange for taking out Pro-Ghadaffi's vehicles etc.

If we really wanted to help protect civilians. We'd be out in Syria along time ago. Politics eh?

I understand people are fully aware Assad is fighting what is a NATO backd insurgency yes?, and that said it is an insurgency that has been responsible for a great deal of terrorist attacks in against the police, armed forces and civilians alike in recent months?

Originally posted by Johnze
I understand people are fully aware Assad is fighting what is a NATO backd insurgency yes?, and that said it is an insurgency that has been responsible for a great deal of terrorist attacks in against the police, armed forces and civilians alike in recent months?

Any chance you can provide us with a link to your source that Natos is behind the uprising in Syria.

It would be appreciated - thanks

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Thank you for that education. I had no idea of the existence of that label, but it does sound an awful lot like the neo-conservatives, or what many here are referring to as "conservatives".

I'm even more convinced now that I'm on the right track when i say that neocons (and now neoliberals) have not moved to the right or the left, but laterally away from us ALL, and towards one another, to some point that is entirely off of the mapped political landscape,

They look the same from where I stand, and the labels don't mean much any more - they no longer reflect the contents of the container, and seem to be intended solely to confuse and obfuscate, to keep the rest of us guessing.

I'm going to think on this some more, and until I get it sorted out in my own mind, I think I'll think in terms of "individualist" or "collectivist" instead of "liberal" or "conservative".

Thanks again!

Originally posted by Krono
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Very good reply I must admit. I will take your advice as you've served with the US forces. Like I said, I'm not going to believe what the government say. For example, the NATO air strikes in Libya which have killed civilians, our government have said we are carrying out air strikes to PROTECT the civilians. But we all know Libya has a lot of oil and no doubt we've already cut a deal with the ITC (International Transition Council - Libya's new government) that we get oil in exchange for taking out Pro-Ghadaffi's vehicles etc.

Correction: I worked as an Independent PMC, not actually IN the US Forces. I worked along side them at times, but not as a member.

If we really wanted to help protect civilians. We'd be out in Syria along time ago. Politics eh?

That's exactly my contention - if we were in it just to protect civilians, anywhere on Earth, we would have been in Darfur LONG ago.