posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 11:52 AM
I've stated how I feel in numerous different posts in different threads, so I don't think I'm going to go on that again. However, imagine if you were
Kerry and had seen the evidence and were convinced Assad was using dirty tactics to kill off the rebels or anybody that might support them. Most of us
haven't seen that evidence which would prove Assad's guilt. Given the backdrop of civil war and international support (through funding or information
or other means) for or against the rebels and the history in the middle east and its religious factions, it's easy for us to be cautious and want this
to go to the UN and not repeat Iraq or some of the other messes we think we've been involved in. We haven't seen the evidence that convicts Assad and
that's the main difference between us and Kerry, but he question is has Kerry contemplated or studied the full breadth of information about the civil
war in Syria and the history in the middle east? I suspect Kerry knows a lot about the middle east and could easily debate anybody on this forum, so
I'd be shocked if he didn't know much.
Still, I'm not about to give our president the green light to unilaterally attack, despite that I think Kerry and our president probably have a better
handle on what's going on. The thing is, the US has to work with other countries and we need to use the UN for its intended purpose and not become
vigilantes. We tarnish our position by acting unilaterally.
I think it's interesting that Saudi Arabia alongside Pakistan helped fund and arm the Taliban as Afghanistan became engulfed in a civil war. Al Qaeda
also joined and helped the Taliban. This all came after the Soviet attempt to install a communist government. The US, in Operation Enduring Freedom,
entered Afghanistan and tried to unroot the Taliban to install some form of democratic entity and to ward away terrorist elements. Now, why would we
support Saudi Arabia like we do when Saudi Arabia financed the Taliban, the very entity we went to war with in Afghanistan starting in 2001? Saudi
Arabia is now supporting hte rebels fighting against Assad, and I have to wonder if there're any parallels to the civil war that preceded Operation
Enduring Freedom. If the rebels manage to unseat Assad somehow and the more radical jihadist elements become too powerful, we could find ourselves in
a similar situation that occurred in AFghanistan. How likely is that? Well, a recent study found that nearly half of the rebels are essentially
jihadists. And when you take into account Russia and Iran and others who support Assad, they will be support those jihadists - if Assad is losing -
every step of the way to make life difficult for everbody, thus countering out attempts to support the more moderate islamist rebels that likely would
have setup a sunni leadership unfriendly to the iranians (and friendly with Saudi Arabia).
Not to mention there's a NATO survey that suggested widespread support inside Syria for Assad in 2012 and early 2013. How can that be? Probably
because they just wanted to avoid war, not because they like Assad. In fact, there's research that shows whenever a system is attacked its members
tend to support it regardless of their true feelings about hte system.
You can find that research here:
rg - Why Do People Defend Unjust, Inept, and Corrupt Systems?...
Here's the reference link for the NATO survey:
www.liveleak.com - NATO data: Syrian population behind Assad...
edit on 21-9-2013 by
jonnywhite because: (no reason given)