|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
@ fox you said before that if you look at Syria in terms of regime change being the priority it makes sense. I agree, but the violence the ensued from 2012 is so extreme it seems insane to think his ouster a good thing. So it still seems fairly crazy. |
I am inclined to agree with you. But here's the thing: you and I feel that way because we are viewing the matter through the lens of conscience, while modern organizational structures like "representative" government, corporate business, and so forth, are designed to insulate their participants from their consciences. Why is it surprising that the same system which was content to throw away American lives in Vietnam would take no issue with throwing away mostly non-American lives in another geopolitical struggle? |
The thing about regime change/getting rid of Assad is that he is the biggest killer in Syria, and at this point simply is not acceptable to the Syrians as a leader. This is not a Western dictated fact, or an outside dictated fact, but the results of Assads brutality, which has been consistent from the very beginning of this thing. ISIS puts up videos of their brutality for the world to see, Assad does his behind closed doors, so I'm not sure that fighting to save Assad is the compassionate thing. At this point outsiders are fueling the conflict, whether it is radical outsiders, Shia outsiders, Russians, or the west (Which is probably playing the smallest role at this point). As long as each side has powerful backers urging them on, this won't end and Syria will keep burning. I would be hard pressed to call any outsider on this, beyond purely aid groups, compassionate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Um, The allawites had the upper hand for decades, yet did not exterminate the sunni. They only killed to retain political power. The sunnis gain a modicum of control and kill everyone they can get their hands on. Yezidis, allawites, druze, everyone. One group uses violence to keep power and the psychos at bay. They others are the psychos and are determined to kill all the other groups out there. The allawites preserved the relics of syrian history, the sunnis knocked them down. How are these groups comparable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| Um, The allawites had the upper hand for decades, yet did not exterminate the sunni. They only killed to retain political power. The sunnis gain a modicum of control and kill everyone they can get their hands on. Yezidis, allawites, druze, everyone. One group uses violence to keep power and the psychos at bay. They others are the psychos and are determined to kill all the other groups out there. The allawites preserved the relics of syrian history, the sunnis knocked them down. How are these groups comparable? |
Have you heard of Hama in 1982? The Assads could not have exterminated all the Sunnis if they wanted. The whole killing to maintain political power thing vs killing for some other reason doesn't matter to a corpse. Also, it is important to note that ISIS is not a local Syrian force, but a malignant form of roving extremism that mostly originated in the Afghan war against the Soviets, that you earlier claimed was irrelevant. Also, considering Assad is a pretty open sponsor of terror groups, and has been for a long time, I don't see Assad as being that much better than the other groups, except for crazy ISIS which survives because everyone keeps fighting everyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree. ISIS is just a meaner form of al nusrah. Those two groups makeup the vast majority of the sunni power contesting with Syria.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
The war in afghanistan between the soviets and the native afghans gave the chance for the saudis to prosethylytize the already conservative pashtun. However, it was around for quite awhile and already spreading. Saudis have oil, everyone needs oil, saudis get lots of money to spread thier hideous religion. It was spreading regardless.
The salafists are khmer rouge crazy and any right thinking person would back almost anyone, including baathists against them. As long as you were not political they left you alone. On the other hand, salafists killed and enslaved the yezidi cause they loved a magic peacock, the allawites because they believed in a slightly different form of the same religion, and the christians and druze becuase hey, why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
I disagree. ISIS is just a meaner form of al nusrah. Those two groups makeup the vast majority of the sunni power contesting with Syria.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
The war in afghanistan between the soviets and the native afghans gave the chance for the saudis to prosethylytize the already conservative pashtun. However, it was around for quite awhile and already spreading. Saudis have oil, everyone needs oil, saudis get lots of money to spread thier hideous religion. It was spreading regardless.
The salafists are khmer rouge crazy and any right thinking person would back almost anyone, including baathists against them. As long as you were not political they left you alone. On the other hand, salafists killed and enslaved the yezidi cause they loved a magic peacock, the allawites because they believed in a slightly different form of the same religion, and the christians and druze becuase hey, why not? |
You can support Assad all you want but the idea of a unified Syria under his control is a mirage, and the sooner people realize this the better. I don't know what the alternative is, or if there is one, but outside of the area Assad has now, he is not the answer, not because of what I want or you want, but because of what Sryians themselves will tolerate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
I disagree. ISIS is just a meaner form of al nusrah. Those two groups makeup the vast majority of the sunni power contesting with Syria.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
The war in afghanistan between the soviets and the native afghans gave the chance for the saudis to prosethylytize the already conservative pashtun. However, it was around for quite awhile and already spreading. Saudis have oil, everyone needs oil, saudis get lots of money to spread thier hideous religion. It was spreading regardless.
The salafists are khmer rouge crazy and any right thinking person would back almost anyone, including baathists against them. As long as you were not political they left you alone. On the other hand, salafists killed and enslaved the yezidi cause they loved a magic peacock, the allawites because they believed in a slightly different form of the same religion, and the christians and druze becuase hey, why not? |
You can support Assad all you want but the idea of a unified Syria under his control is a mirage, and the sooner people realize this the better. I don't know what the alternative is, or if there is one, but outside of the area Assad has now, he is not the answer, not because of what I want or you want, but because of what Sryians themselves will tolerate. |
Yup. What used to be Syria will end up being at least 2 states, if not 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
@ fox you said before that if you look at Syria in terms of regime change being the priority it makes sense. I agree, but the violence the ensued from 2012 is so extreme it seems insane to think his ouster a good thing. So it still seems fairly crazy. |
I am inclined to agree with you. But here's the thing: you and I feel that way because we are viewing the matter through the lens of conscience, while modern organizational structures like "representative" government, corporate business, and so forth, are designed to insulate their participants from their consciences. Why is it surprising that the same system which was content to throw away American lives in Vietnam would take no issue with throwing away mostly non-American lives in another geopolitical struggle? |
The thing about regime change/getting rid of Assad is that he is the biggest killer in Syria, and at this point simply is not acceptable to the Syrians as a leader. This is not a Western dictated fact, or an outside dictated fact, but the results of Assads brutality, which has been consistent from the very beginning of this thing. ISIS puts up videos of their brutality for the world to see, Assad does his behind closed doors, so I'm not sure that fighting to save Assad is the compassionate thing. At this point outsiders are fueling the conflict, whether it is radical outsiders, Shia outsiders, Russians, or the west (Which is probably playing the smallest role at this point). As long as each side has powerful backers urging them on, this won't end and Syria will keep burning. I would be hard pressed to call any outsider on this, beyond purely aid groups, compassionate. |
I did not say any outside group was compassionate. In fact, I thought I stressed the opposite. To the extent that just giving Russia its way and letting them stabilize the region under the country's sitting government is humane, it is because there is no more humane achievable alternative. However bad you feel Mr. Assad is, whatever he was doing was nothing compared to what is happening there now.
It is funny: you insist Syria must be broken apart, yet it was not all that long ago that America underwent its own civil war. I am sure the Leon of that era would have opined, "America will have to be broken into two countries, there is no other way. A United USA is a mirage;l. The American people will not tolerate it." Yet today it is a single country; it is not culturally uniform, and there are tensions, but it is also relatively peaceful and prosperous. You think a united Syria is a mirage for political reasons. Not your politics, of course, but those of the "Establishment." No surprise, perhaps, given you said you already identify with said "Establishment."
Last edited by Fox on Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
@ fox you said before that if you look at Syria in terms of regime change being the priority it makes sense. I agree, but the violence the ensued from 2012 is so extreme it seems insane to think his ouster a good thing. So it still seems fairly crazy. |
I am inclined to agree with you. But here's the thing: you and I feel that way because we are viewing the matter through the lens of conscience, while modern organizational structures like "representative" government, corporate business, and so forth, are designed to insulate their participants from their consciences. Why is it surprising that the same system which was content to throw away American lives in Vietnam would take no issue with throwing away mostly non-American lives in another geopolitical struggle? |
The thing about regime change/getting rid of Assad is that he is the biggest killer in Syria, and at this point simply is not acceptable to the Syrians as a leader. This is not a Western dictated fact, or an outside dictated fact, but the results of Assads brutality, which has been consistent from the very beginning of this thing. ISIS puts up videos of their brutality for the world to see, Assad does his behind closed doors, so I'm not sure that fighting to save Assad is the compassionate thing. At this point outsiders are fueling the conflict, whether it is radical outsiders, Shia outsiders, Russians, or the west (Which is probably playing the smallest role at this point). As long as each side has powerful backers urging them on, this won't end and Syria will keep burning. I would be hard pressed to call any outsider on this, beyond purely aid groups, compassionate. |
I did not say any outside group was compassionate. In fact, I thought I stressed the opposite. To the extent that just giving Russia its way and letting them stabilize the region under the country's sitting government is humane, it is because there is no more humane achievable alternative. However bad you feel Mr. Assad is, whatever he was doing was nothing compared to what is happening there now. |
I think you are right and wrong. You are right that Assad pre-war was bad, but preferable to current Syria. However, current Syria could not exist without Assad's pre-war excesses, and Assad's current, ongoing actions ensure that much of the population will not consent to live under Assad in the future. To the extent that stabilizing Syria under Assad is humane, it is hard to see it as more than a temporary fix achieved through brutality and repression. Did you read the give war a chance article I posted in this thread? I don't agree 100% with the author, but I think it presents a more realistic chance for a longer term solution, as horrible as it is in practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Did you read the give war a chance article I posted in this thread? |
I clicked on it intending to read it, but it demanded I register or subscribe to see the full article, and I will do neither. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
@ fox you said before that if you look at Syria in terms of regime change being the priority it makes sense. I agree, but the violence the ensued from 2012 is so extreme it seems insane to think his ouster a good thing. So it still seems fairly crazy. |
I am inclined to agree with you. But here's the thing: you and I feel that way because we are viewing the matter through the lens of conscience, while modern organizational structures like "representative" government, corporate business, and so forth, are designed to insulate their participants from their consciences. Why is it surprising that the same system which was content to throw away American lives in Vietnam would take no issue with throwing away mostly non-American lives in another geopolitical struggle? |
The thing about regime change/getting rid of Assad is that he is the biggest killer in Syria, and at this point simply is not acceptable to the Syrians as a leader. This is not a Western dictated fact, or an outside dictated fact, but the results of Assads brutality, which has been consistent from the very beginning of this thing. ISIS puts up videos of their brutality for the world to see, Assad does his behind closed doors, so I'm not sure that fighting to save Assad is the compassionate thing. At this point outsiders are fueling the conflict, whether it is radical outsiders, Shia outsiders, Russians, or the west (Which is probably playing the smallest role at this point). As long as each side has powerful backers urging them on, this won't end and Syria will keep burning. I would be hard pressed to call any outsider on this, beyond purely aid groups, compassionate. |
I did not say any outside group was compassionate. In fact, I thought I stressed the opposite. To the extent that just giving Russia its way and letting them stabilize the region under the country's sitting government is humane, it is because there is no more humane achievable alternative. However bad you feel Mr. Assad is, whatever he was doing was nothing compared to what is happening there now.
It is funny: you insist Syria must be broken apart, yet it was not all that long ago that America underwent its own civil war. I am sure the Leon of that era would have opined, "America will have to be broken into two countries, there is no other way. A United USA is a mirage;l. The American people will not tolerate it." Yet today it is a single country; it is not culturally uniform, and there are tensions, but it is also relatively peaceful and prosperous. You think a united Syria is a mirage for political reasons. Not your politics, of course, but those of the "Establishment." No surprise, perhaps, given you said you already identify with said "Establishment." |
Talk about apples and oranges. The United States was not created by outside forces, and the two warring factions had a lot in common (most notably language and religion). I'd say a more apropos analogy would be the former Yugoslavia, which was also a state created by outsiders in the 20th century, and held together by a dictatorship, but fell apart after its capable dictator died and surrounding countries had revolutions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| stilicho25 wrote: |
@ fox you said before that if you look at Syria in terms of regime change being the priority it makes sense. I agree, but the violence the ensued from 2012 is so extreme it seems insane to think his ouster a good thing. So it still seems fairly crazy. |
I am inclined to agree with you. But here's the thing: you and I feel that way because we are viewing the matter through the lens of conscience, while modern organizational structures like "representative" government, corporate business, and so forth, are designed to insulate their participants from their consciences. Why is it surprising that the same system which was content to throw away American lives in Vietnam would take no issue with throwing away mostly non-American lives in another geopolitical struggle? |
The thing about regime change/getting rid of Assad is that he is the biggest killer in Syria, and at this point simply is not acceptable to the Syrians as a leader. This is not a Western dictated fact, or an outside dictated fact, but the results of Assads brutality, which has been consistent from the very beginning of this thing. ISIS puts up videos of their brutality for the world to see, Assad does his behind closed doors, so I'm not sure that fighting to save Assad is the compassionate thing. At this point outsiders are fueling the conflict, whether it is radical outsiders, Shia outsiders, Russians, or the west (Which is probably playing the smallest role at this point). As long as each side has powerful backers urging them on, this won't end and Syria will keep burning. I would be hard pressed to call any outsider on this, beyond purely aid groups, compassionate. |
I did not say any outside group was compassionate. In fact, I thought I stressed the opposite. To the extent that just giving Russia its way and letting them stabilize the region under the country's sitting government is humane, it is because there is no more humane achievable alternative. However bad you feel Mr. Assad is, whatever he was doing was nothing compared to what is happening there now.
It is funny: you insist Syria must be broken apart, yet it was not all that long ago that America underwent its own civil war. I am sure the Leon of that era would have opined, "America will have to be broken into two countries, there is no other way. A United USA is a mirage;l. The American people will not tolerate it." Yet today it is a single country; it is not culturally uniform, and there are tensions, but it is also relatively peaceful and prosperous. You think a united Syria is a mirage for political reasons. Not your politics, of course, but those of the "Establishment." No surprise, perhaps, given you said you already identify with said "Establishment." |
Talk about apples and oranges. The United States was not created by outside forces, and the two warring factions had a lot in common (most notably language and religion). I'd say a more apropos analogy would be the former Yugoslavia, which was also a state created by outsiders in the 20th century, and held together by a dictatorship, but fell apart after its capable dictator died and surrounding countries had revolutions. |
Just saw the edits. Let me say that Assad is not Lincoln, and that what I mean is that a unified Syria under Assad is a mirage, although I'm not sure who could unify it at present, or if it is possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Talk about apples and oranges. The United States was not created by outside forces ... |
Outside countries did in fact play a role in the formation of the United States of America. France was involved, to a lesser degree Spain, and the whole affair occurred in response to conduct by the British.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ... and the two warring factions had a lot in common (most notably language and religion). |
The denizens of Syrian are broadly practitioners of Islam, and most citizens of Syria speak Arabic. If "religion" and "language" are at the root of this war in the minds of Syria's citizens, then either the war is frivolous (if such concerns are not a valid reason to take human life), or it bodes very ill for the West, importing as it is massive numbers of people whose "religion" and/or "language" are different (Muslims in Europe, Latinos in America). By contrast, if "religion" and "language" are not at the root of it, then there's little cause to bring them up as some sort of justifying point. After all, this is supposedly about how monstrous Mr. Assad is, not Kurdish nationalism or Islamism, right? In either case, it's funny how the average westerner insists people of different religions, languages, and cultures can co-exist until they want to depose a leader and break a country apart, at which point suddenly those religious, linguistic, and cultural differences become supposedly insurmountable. It's an interesting ideology, striking in its internal inconsistency, and perverse in its real-world outcomes. It's arguably not even a principle, but some sort of anti-principle, identifiable only in what it negates and denies. The modern West is strongly informed by this kind of nihilism, a shifting sea of superficial opinion and power struggle, with nothing underneath it of meaning at all.
The average Syrian was fine under Assad, and would be fine again, regardless of his imperfections as a ruler. Certainly better off than now, and almost certainly better off than under whatever model the American/Sunni coalition would impose upon them if they had the chance. Most political systems spend some time in dictatorial or tyranous conditions before they internally work towards something more liberal and inclusive, and the process can take quite a while. Really, more than anything, what the Middle and Near East need right now is for the entire West to just get out and stay out.
This response was a little more intense than I had intended, but I really dislike that "apples and oranges" phrase. It's vapid, and I've never, ever seen it used in an informative, meaningful fashion. It's almost as if there's some sort of cosmic rule: only invoke "apples and oranges" when you're bullshitting. What's worse is that I knew someone was going to say it, and even use that exact phrase, so I more or less brought this vexation upon myself. I just thought it was going to be Leon.
| Leon wrote: |
| Let me say that Assad is not Lincoln... |
And it looks like he didn't let me down. Assad is not Lincoln, but a large number of Americans were willing to fight and kill their fellow Americans so as not to be ruled by Lincoln (it was the bloodiest, deadliest war in American history), so the character and conduct of the two men in question is really a secondary concern, at least when discussing political outcomes or alleged cultural divides. The same principle that suggests a unified Syria under Assad is impossible suggests a unified America under Lincoln was impossible, but history proves the latter possible, and the former is just as possible, at least in principle. In practice, it might be impossible, because the people who do the foreign policy thinking for America and its allies have decided they want to do their best to make it impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Talk about apples and oranges. The United States was not created by outside forces ... |
Outside countries did in fact play a role in the formation of the United States of America. France was involved, to a lesser degree Spain, and the whole affair occurred in response to conduct by the British. |
Involved is very different than hijacked. There is very little in the way of an indigenous independent force left in Syria that is an actual power broker, at least as far as I can tell. The Kurds could probably count, but they receive support from the west/from Kurds outside of Syria. ISIS is a foreign phenomenon, I suspect Al Nursra is as well but do not know enough to say definitively. As far as the other rebel groups, they have power in localized areas, but do not seem to have much beyond that. Assad's war is being fought most effectively by Iranians and Iranian proxies with Russia as an airforce.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ... and the two warring factions had a lot in common (most notably language and religion). |
The denizens of Syrian are broadly practitioners of Islam, and most citizens of Syria speak Arabic. If "religion" and "language" are at the root of this war in the minds of Syria's citizens, then either the war is frivolous (if such concerns are not a valid reason to take human life), or it bodes very ill for the West, importing as it is massive numbers of people whose "religion" and/or "language" are different (Muslims in Europe, Latinos in America). By contrast, if "religion" and "language" are not at the root of it, then there's little cause to bring them up as some sort of justifying point. After all, this is supposedly about how monstrous Mr. Assad is, not Kurdish nationalism or Islamism, right? In either case, it's funny how the average westerner insists people of different religions, languages, and cultures can co-exist until they want to depose a leader and break a country apart, at which point suddenly those religious, linguistic, and cultural differences become supposedly insurmountable. It's an interesting ideology, striking in its internal inconsistency, and perverse in its real-world outcomes. It's arguably not even a principle, but some sort of anti-principle, identifiable only in what it negates and denies. The modern West is strongly informed by this kind of nihilism, a shifting sea of superficial opinion and power struggle, with nothing underneath it of meaning at all. |
I sincerely think there is a difference between an organic state and an inorganic one. The United States is an organic, multi-ethnic/cultural state that evolved overtime so that it had a set of ideas/myths/whatever that allowed for people to have a common identity. I think many states in the middle east have that to a much lesser extent, due to various facts of history and from the way that they were created. Iran is an organic state, and even as it goes through different iterations Iran/Persia will persevere, but I doubt the same could be said for Iraq/Syria/etc. I don't think that is inconsistent.
| Fox wrote: |
| The average Syrian was fine under Assad, and would be fine again, regardless of his imperfections as a ruler. Certainly better off than now, and almost certainly better off than under whatever model the American/Sunni coalition would impose upon them if they had the chance. Most political systems spend some time in dictatorial or tyranous conditions before they internally work towards something more liberal and inclusive, and the process can take quite a while. Really, more than anything, what the Middle and Near East need right now is for the entire West to just get out and stay out. |
It's funny, because I very strongly believe the same thing, except that you chose to say the west. I truly do not get the idea that Russian/Saudi/Turkish/Iranian/Qatari etc. et al meddling is any better than American/British/French etc. The whole fine again thing also mystifies me. That genie is out of the bottle. The idea that the biggest killer, who only survives as long as Iran and Russia find him useful, would be acceptable to Syrians after all that has occurred seems like wishful thinking. I think the Kurds have zero reason to submit to Assad, and have proven capable of ruling themselves, and I don't see what incentives there would be for others outside of Assad's stronghold to want his rule. Assad's father needed to massacre people to hold onto rule, and now his son has had to do so as well. Nothing about this suggests that reinstating Assad is a long term viable solution.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Let me say that Assad is not Lincoln... |
Assad is not Lincoln, but a large number of Americans were willing to fight and kill their fellow Americans so as not to be ruled by Lincoln (and indeed, it was the bloodiest, deadliest war in American history), so the character of the two men in question is really a secondary concern, at least when discussing political outcomes or alleged cultural divides. |
I don't think it is at all. Pre-civil war Lincoln, or other US Presidents, did not massacre civilians or depend upon a secret police (I think, right?). The Assad family did. Also, the American Civil War was a largely domestic affair between two distinct sides, but the Syrian Civil War is the opposite of that. [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| And it looks like he didn't let me down. Assad is not Lincoln, but a large number of Americans were willing to fight and kill their fellow Americans so as not to be ruled by Lincoln (it was the bloodiest, deadliest war in American history), so the character and conduct of the two men in question is really a secondary concern, at least when discussing political outcomes or alleged cultural divides. The same principle that suggests a unified Syria under Assad is impossible suggests a unified America under Lincoln was impossible, but history proves the latter possible, and the former is just as possible, at least in principle. In practice, it might be impossible, because the people who do the foreign policy thinking for America and its allies have decided they want to do their best to make it impossible. |
So, I just saw that you added to this in an edit. Allow me to vex you and say that I do not think that the American Civil War shows that Assad can reunify the country, and that you are making a strained comparison.
I don't get the thinking in the last sentence. When I say that Syria will not reunify under Assad, the United States doesn't enter my thinking at all. Syria will not reunify under Assad because Assad has made himself intolerable and squandered whatever legitimacy he might have had, and these are judgments that the Syrian people have made and are making. This would probably be true if the matter had stayed local. I could see an Egypt like scenario where Assad is replaced with Assad 2.0, like we see with Sisi, but Egypt has an internal coherence long built that Syria does not. Let me be clear, when I describe what I think about Syria, it is not what I think should happen, or that I want to happen, or that I think a US policy could be devised to make happen, but what I think all signs point to inevitably happening as long as outside powers continue interfering in Syria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
