|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On March 21 2013 19:52 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 19:50 Zaros wrote:On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:On March 20 2013 13:01 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2013 12:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 20 2013 12:36 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2013 07:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Honestly let Turkey, France, Britain, and Qatar handle Syria. The US should stay out of it. If its a NATO operation then the US should help, you are the world super power atm, all of those countries combined don't make up anything close to the US military. TBH I think a coalition of nations rather than NATO would be better in terms of implementation, logistics, strategy. Look at Libya revealed about NATO, it is wholly unprepared and incapable of such a months long campaign. The United States is exhausted militarily, and politically with War then there is the "Europe's Backyard" mentality. Well then its up to Britain and France to maintain the defence of Europe and surrounding interventions, which are still cutting defence budgets and with the debt crises and the Iraq war controversy there isn't anything politically to be gained by increasing defence spending in Britain at least,so it makes Europe more vulnerable and its intervention capability a lot poorer without US involvement. If the US keeps up with the "Europe's Backyard" mentality then we might as well get rid of NATO. The defence and Security Co-operation Treaty will be come the new European NATO probably seeing as other European countries don't pull their weight militarily or diplomatically* cough* Germany *cough* In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can. What, precisely, do you want Germany to do to help defend Europe? No country right now has any intention or logistics to harm Europe but nobody knows what is going to happen in the future and its not just about countries attacking Europe, Europeans have interests outside of Europe that may require intervention like Mali like Libya, other areas of the maghreb perhaps Syria perhaps Iran perhaps further east looking towards the pacific if we want to help trading partners (hundreds of territorial disputes around china.) With regards to Germany they don't have as much as a Global presence militarily as Britain or France yet they are an economic powerhouse, so if European countries want to intervene to defend shared interests (the merits of which are debatable but is a separate issue) then Germany should increase defence spending by probably double to match %GDP of France and Britain. Germany chooses not to try to force the world to work in the German way and, as far as I'm concerned, that's far better for the world in the long run and far more moral. You're free to disagree on the morality, but don't confuse modern day imperialism with defence. They are not remotely the same thing.
I wouldn't call an intervention into syria for instance imperialism and as I said we can debate whether the interventions are good or not elsewhere, but my point is if those interventions are to happen without american support then Germany would probably need to up its spending.
And Defence doesn't just exist inside Europe, stopping ungoverned spaces appearing prevents terrorism or so the argument goes and there could be a need for preventative attacks outside Europe or defending trade partners/allies/trade routes outside of Europe, again debatable but if that argument is accepted then intervention is needed.
|
German defence spendings are high enough. Rank 3 or 4 of Overall Spendings. And still higher then those for education.
As long more money is spent for weapons and war in this world then for education something is terribly wrong.
So I would suggest increasing education spendings ;-)
|
On March 21 2013 20:01 Meega wrote:
German defence spendings are high enough. Rank 3 or 4 of Overall Spendings. And still higher then those for education.
As long more money is spent for weapons and war in this world then for education something is terribly wrong.
So I would suggest increasing education spendings ;-)
It's 9th highest spending in the world but they are the 5th largest economy in the world, probably 4th in europe by defence spending if you count russia as european yet they are the largest economy in europe, and i don't want to get into economics of government spending on education so i'll leave that alone but they spend 1.3% of GDP on defence while UK spends 2.6% and France 2.3%
|
To cut the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
The point is whether or not intervention would be helpfull to Syrian populace doesnt matter, the inhabitants of middle-east and other muslim countries would see it as imperialism regardless. Most of them dont want us there. I dont feel good playing world police. And neither do germans from what i hear.
|
On March 21 2013 20:08 Silvanel wrote:To cut the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendituresThe point is whether or not intervention would be helpfull to Syrian populace doesnt matter, the inhabitants of middle-east and other muslim countries would see it as imperialism regardless. Most of them dont want us there. I dont feel good playing world police. And neither do germans from what i hear.
Thats fine and its up to the german people, I was just asked why I think germans should contribute more, as for Syria the opposition is pretty keen for help and im not suggesting put boots on the ground in countries.
|
On March 21 2013 19:57 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 19:52 FuzzyJAM wrote:On March 21 2013 19:50 Zaros wrote:On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:On March 20 2013 13:01 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2013 12:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 20 2013 12:36 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2013 07:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Honestly let Turkey, France, Britain, and Qatar handle Syria. The US should stay out of it. If its a NATO operation then the US should help, you are the world super power atm, all of those countries combined don't make up anything close to the US military. TBH I think a coalition of nations rather than NATO would be better in terms of implementation, logistics, strategy. Look at Libya revealed about NATO, it is wholly unprepared and incapable of such a months long campaign. The United States is exhausted militarily, and politically with War then there is the "Europe's Backyard" mentality. Well then its up to Britain and France to maintain the defence of Europe and surrounding interventions, which are still cutting defence budgets and with the debt crises and the Iraq war controversy there isn't anything politically to be gained by increasing defence spending in Britain at least,so it makes Europe more vulnerable and its intervention capability a lot poorer without US involvement. If the US keeps up with the "Europe's Backyard" mentality then we might as well get rid of NATO. The defence and Security Co-operation Treaty will be come the new European NATO probably seeing as other European countries don't pull their weight militarily or diplomatically* cough* Germany *cough* In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can. What, precisely, do you want Germany to do to help defend Europe? No country right now has any intention or logistics to harm Europe but nobody knows what is going to happen in the future and its not just about countries attacking Europe, Europeans have interests outside of Europe that may require intervention like Mali like Libya, other areas of the maghreb perhaps Syria perhaps Iran perhaps further east looking towards the pacific if we want to help trading partners (hundreds of territorial disputes around china.) With regards to Germany they don't have as much as a Global presence militarily as Britain or France yet they are an economic powerhouse, so if European countries want to intervene to defend shared interests (the merits of which are debatable but is a separate issue) then Germany should increase defence spending by probably double to match %GDP of France and Britain. Germany chooses not to try to force the world to work in the German way and, as far as I'm concerned, that's far better for the world in the long run and far more moral. You're free to disagree on the morality, but don't confuse modern day imperialism with defence. They are not remotely the same thing. I wouldn't call an intervention into syria for instance imperialism and as I said we can debate whether the interventions are good or not elsewhere, but my point is if those interventions are to happen without american support then Germany would probably need to up its spending. And Defence doesn't just exist inside Europe, stopping ungoverned spaces appearing prevents terrorism or so the argument goes and there could be a need for preventative attacks outside Europe or defending trade partners/allies/trade routes outside of Europe, again debatable but if that argument is accepted then intervention is needed.
There is nothing to suggest war prevents terrorism. Intelligence services need money, sure, but I'm not sure what Eurofighters are supposed to do to prevent bombings in the London underground.
You're really stretching the definition of "defending Europe" if you wish to include defending non-European allies, especially when our allies are mostly as bad as our "enemies" and depend on convenience. Trade interests is debatable, but it's most definitely imperialism to use war to defend them. You can argue it's just war all you like, but it's not defending Europe by any definition I can see.
Germany spends less money on defence in terms of GDP, but that doesn't mean they're spending too little. It means they have different priorities, and defending from a threat that patently does not exist is not as high up as it is for the UK or France. I'd suggest the UK should look to Germany for advice on military spending instead of the reverse.
|
On March 21 2013 20:20 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 19:57 Zaros wrote:On March 21 2013 19:52 FuzzyJAM wrote:On March 21 2013 19:50 Zaros wrote:On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:On March 20 2013 13:01 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2013 12:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 20 2013 12:36 Zaros wrote:On March 20 2013 07:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Honestly let Turkey, France, Britain, and Qatar handle Syria. The US should stay out of it. If its a NATO operation then the US should help, you are the world super power atm, all of those countries combined don't make up anything close to the US military. TBH I think a coalition of nations rather than NATO would be better in terms of implementation, logistics, strategy. Look at Libya revealed about NATO, it is wholly unprepared and incapable of such a months long campaign. The United States is exhausted militarily, and politically with War then there is the "Europe's Backyard" mentality. Well then its up to Britain and France to maintain the defence of Europe and surrounding interventions, which are still cutting defence budgets and with the debt crises and the Iraq war controversy there isn't anything politically to be gained by increasing defence spending in Britain at least,so it makes Europe more vulnerable and its intervention capability a lot poorer without US involvement. If the US keeps up with the "Europe's Backyard" mentality then we might as well get rid of NATO. The defence and Security Co-operation Treaty will be come the new European NATO probably seeing as other European countries don't pull their weight militarily or diplomatically* cough* Germany *cough* In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can. What, precisely, do you want Germany to do to help defend Europe? No country right now has any intention or logistics to harm Europe but nobody knows what is going to happen in the future and its not just about countries attacking Europe, Europeans have interests outside of Europe that may require intervention like Mali like Libya, other areas of the maghreb perhaps Syria perhaps Iran perhaps further east looking towards the pacific if we want to help trading partners (hundreds of territorial disputes around china.) With regards to Germany they don't have as much as a Global presence militarily as Britain or France yet they are an economic powerhouse, so if European countries want to intervene to defend shared interests (the merits of which are debatable but is a separate issue) then Germany should increase defence spending by probably double to match %GDP of France and Britain. Germany chooses not to try to force the world to work in the German way and, as far as I'm concerned, that's far better for the world in the long run and far more moral. You're free to disagree on the morality, but don't confuse modern day imperialism with defence. They are not remotely the same thing. I wouldn't call an intervention into syria for instance imperialism and as I said we can debate whether the interventions are good or not elsewhere, but my point is if those interventions are to happen without american support then Germany would probably need to up its spending. And Defence doesn't just exist inside Europe, stopping ungoverned spaces appearing prevents terrorism or so the argument goes and there could be a need for preventative attacks outside Europe or defending trade partners/allies/trade routes outside of Europe, again debatable but if that argument is accepted then intervention is needed. There is nothing to suggest war prevents terrorism. Intelligence services need money, sure, but I'm not sure what Eurofighters are supposed to do to prevent bombings in the London underground. You're really stretching the definition of "defending Europe" if you wish to include defending non-European allies, especially when our allies are mostly as bad as our "enemies" and depend on convenience. Trade interests is debatable, but it's most definitely imperialism to use war to defend them. You can argue it's just war all you like, but it's not defending Europe by any definition I can see. Germany spends less money on defence in terms of GDP, but that doesn't mean they're spending too little. It means they have different priorities, and defending from a threat that patently does not exist is not as high up as it is for the UK or France. I'd suggest the UK should look to Germany for advice on military spending instead of the reverse.
I would disagree with nearly every point you made but lets just agree to disagree :D .
|
On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:
In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can.
Technically Incorrect, if only briefly.
Russia-Georgia War 2008
Despite what many pacifists believe, it's quite within the realm of possibility for there to be a war on Europe's borders that could spill over in the not distant future. The biggest security concern for Europe (non-Russian Europe) is likely not so much Islamic terrorism (which ultimately is a policing issue first and foremost) but a resurgent aggressive Russia on our doorstep. It wouldn't be outrageous to envision an ultra-nationalist hardline Russian leader attempting to annex non-Eu states like Belarus or Ukraine back into its folds. An isolationist US and a stripped to the bone European defense budget might embolden such a course of action.
|
On March 21 2013 20:50 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:
In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can.
Technically Incorrect, if only briefly. Russia-Georgia War 2008Despite what many pacifists believe, it's quite possible for there to be a war on Europe's borders that could spill over in the not distant future. The biggest security concern for Europe is likely not so much Islamic terrorism (which ultimately is policing issue first and foremost) but a resurgent aggressive Russia on our doorstep. It wouldn't be outrageous to envision an ultra-nationalist hardline Russian leader attempting to annex non-Eu states like Belarus or Ukraine back into its folds. An isolationist US and a stripped to bone European defense budget might embolden such a course of action.
All though unlikely I agree that is a possible scenario.
|
I became trapped by intrigue watching what I would call sick videos of people being shot and even beheaded in Syria, made me feel dispair for all human kind. It was like watching a train wreck, I'm not sure what the answer is but to see such small value on human life makes me incredibly distressed. I feel sorry for all those involved and am glad to live in a country where violence and fire arms are very minimal.
|
On March 21 2013 20:52 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 20:50 Asymmetric wrote:On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:
In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can.
Technically Incorrect, if only briefly. Russia-Georgia War 2008Despite what many pacifists believe, it's quite possible for there to be a war on Europe's borders that could spill over in the not distant future. The biggest security concern for Europe is likely not so much Islamic terrorism (which ultimately is policing issue first and foremost) but a resurgent aggressive Russia on our doorstep. It wouldn't be outrageous to envision an ultra-nationalist hardline Russian leader attempting to annex non-Eu states like Belarus or Ukraine back into its folds. An isolationist US and a stripped to bone European defense budget might embolden such a course of action. All though unlikely I agree that is a possible scenario.
Theres no need for military action, Russia is establishing their military domination and dependence in Ukraine and Belarus. Suporrting pro-russian politics and movements. If anything they will continue to bond both countries to them trough international political and economical pacts and agreements. In a long perspective Belarus and eastern Ukraine might be incorporated peacfully and pernamently into Russian sphere of influance via some federalist like pact. Its tru that this will spike tensions, and perhaps even escalate, but stright forward agression is much less likely.
Anyway, this has a very little to do with Syria. While we are on Russian topic, whats current stance of Russia on the situation?
|
I'd rather see a secular dictatorship than a bunch of religious extremist freedom fighters in power. Just look at what happened in the Soviet-Afghan War.
|
On March 21 2013 20:50 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:
In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can.
Technically Incorrect, if only briefly. Russia-Georgia War 2008Despite what many pacifists believe, it's quite within the realm of possibility for there to be a war on Europe's borders that could spill over in the not distant future. The biggest security concern for Europe (non-Russian Europe) is likely not so much Islamic terrorism (which ultimately is a policing issue first and foremost) but a resurgent aggressive Russia on our doorstep. It wouldn't be outrageous to envision an ultra-nationalist hardline Russian leader attempting to annex non-Eu states like Belarus or Ukraine back into its folds. An isolationist US and a stripped to the bone European defense budget might embolden such a course of action.
Was the fighting even in the European areas? I don't actually know. Regardless, it is (at least ostensibly) an ethnic conflict, so it fits within the definition of European "civil war" based on ethnic problems.
Anyway, even if we accept it as a reasonable possibility, the idea of France or the UK or Germany doing anything if Russia decided to start invading countries I find strange. A war of great powers which have the capability of attacking each other with nuclear weapons doesn't seem to have anything approaching a good outcome regardless of exact military strength of either side. Besides, even removing the US from the equation AND halving the military spending in the EU AND doubling Russian military spending (none of which is remotely on the cards), the EU would still be stronger than Russia militarily.
|
On March 21 2013 21:26 FuzzyJAM wrote:
... the EU would still be stronger than Russia militarily.
Part of the problem of the current EU is its inability to match its spending on defense with capability due to the reproduction of services across 27 separate states. The EU actually spends around 60% of the US military budget on defense (a truly massive figure) but they're capabilities are only a fraction of the US can achieve.
Frankly the only military's worth a damn these days inside Europe are France and United Kingdom. The others range from being bloated self defense forces to glorified job creation programs. They lack the logistical military infrastructure required to conduct a prolonged campaign by land sea and air. Even France and UK are struggling to meet there requirements. 200 billion euros across 27 different countries and we have 1 suitable aircraft carrier in service, the Charles de Gaulle. And its spent half its life being refitted. The current arrangement is terrible wasteful and inefficient.
To put it bluntly, if the EU wants adequate security it needs to either:
1) Continue to rely on the USA. Unlikely to prove a reliable long term solution due to the shifting US strategic focus away from Europe and towards the Pacific/Asia and the disillusionment among the American hierarchy and populace with the US's role in NATO. i.e. why are American's paying for Europe's defense?
2) Individual states to pay more for defense. Difficult politically especially during economic recession.
3) Create a common EU security policy, with a unified budget. Difficult politically, sharing sovereignty issues.
Personally I'd happily advocate a unified European military but unfortunately I feel it will take significant hardship for this to come about.
On March 21 2013 21:26 FuzzyJAM wrote:
Was the fighting even in the European areas? I don't actually know. Regardless, it is (at least ostensibly) an ethnic conflict, so it fits within the definition of European "civil war" based on ethnic problems.
Geographically it was in Europe. Culturally is anyone's guess. Ethnicity was simply a pretext, not the reason for the conflict.
On March 21 2013 21:05 Silvanel wrote:
Theres no need for military action, Russia is establishing their military domination and dependence in Ukraine and Belarus. Suporrting pro-russian politics and movements.
We should not welcome any anti-democratic authoritarian government with dubious human rights credentials from creating a locked hegemony over much of the continent. This must be resisted by all means.
__________________________________________________________________-
To get back on topic, on Syria:
I agree with Tony Blair's comments, as unpopular as that may make me.
We should of intervened in Syria in the early-mid stages of the uprising, Assad wouldn't be in power and we would of likely prevented a humanitarian crisis occurring on this scale.
Now we're stuck arming god only knows who while we watch the country tear itself apart and refuges flee. Our inaction will kill thousands for no gain.
|
A suicide bomber has blown himself up inside a mosque in central Damascus, killing Dr Mohammed Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti, a senior pro-regime Sunni cleric and longtime supporter of President Bashar al-Assad, state television has said.
Al-Bouti, a respected religious scholar and Imam of Damascus's historic Ummayyad Mosque, was killed in the explosion in the Iman Mosque in the central Mezzeh district, the state TV said on Thursday.
"Senior cleric Dr Mohammed Saeed Ramadan al-Bouti was martyred in a terrorist suicide attack at the Iman Mosque," the station said.
Syrian TV didn't give more details but said the explosion caused multiple casualties. It occurred at a time the mosque would have been packed with worshippers for Friday evening prayers.
Al-Bouti was killed along with 20 other people according to the al-Manaar TV, owned by the Hezbollah group, Al Jazeera's Rula Amin, reporting from the Lebanese capital, Beirut, said.
TV footage showed wounded people and bodies with severed limbs on the blood-stained floor of the mosque.
Sirens echoed in the capital as ambulances rushed to the scene of the explosion, which was sealed off by the military.
Source
|
On March 21 2013 20:50 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2013 19:38 FuzzyJAM wrote:
In the last quarter of a century, the only place in Europe to have any threat of war, let alone actually see it, is ex-Yugoslavia. Europe is under precisely zero threat except for the civil wars (at least in a European sense) we get between different ethnic groups. No country outside Europe has any possibility (in terms of logistics and intention) to harm Europe. At all. And there is no foreseeable future in which they can.
Technically Incorrect, if only briefly. Russia-Georgia War 2008Despite what many pacifists believe, it's quite within the realm of possibility for there to be a war on Europe's borders that could spill over in the not distant future. The biggest security concern for Europe (non-Russian Europe) is likely not so much Islamic terrorism (which ultimately is a policing issue first and foremost) but a resurgent aggressive Russia on our doorstep. It wouldn't be outrageous to envision an ultra-nationalist hardline Russian leader attempting to annex non-Eu states like Belarus or Ukraine back into its folds. An isolationist US and a stripped to the bone European defense budget might embolden such a course of action.
Funny you mention that war. The Russians, to be completely honest, surprised me. Despite being completely victorious, rather than usurping the extremely unpopular and corrupted Georgian president and replacing him with some sort of puppet or submissive regime as per US policy, the Russians simply left Georgia alone once the Georgians surrendered.
If anything, Russia proved they aren't an imperialist power like the USA or the former USSR.
Also, I find it extremely strange that you think Russia is going to try and conquer the rest of Europe or something. What reason at all would they have to do that sort of thing?
Do note, the conflict started when the Georgians broke a 1990s treaty when they made a surprise attack killing civilians and Russian soldiers in South Ossetia.
On March 21 2013 21:15 ppshchik wrote:
I'd rather see a secular dictatorship than a bunch of religious extremist freedom fighters in power. Just look at what happened in the Soviet-Afghan War.
Yeah, and look who now rules Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, etc. A bunch of Islamist dictators. lol. The US doesn't oppose extremism or terrorism, or to say the least, it opposes it far less than it opposes unsubmissive regimes. We back the most extremist country in the world most responsible for Islamic terrorism and extremism, Saudi Arabia, for crying out loud, since their king loves American dick.
An absolutely disgusting policy, but it's the ugly truth of imperialism.
|
If you honestly think Europe stays out of the geopolitical arena then you are delusional. Imagine the fighting spreads into Turkey a country that could become a member of the EU one day. A European wide response could handle that and Russia wouldn't even think of backing Assad, something it is hesitant to do after two years of constant fighting and growing rebel forces.
|
So who are the good guys?
|
When did I say Europe should stay out of the geopolitical arena? You are miscomprehending things.
All I said was someone was being delusional to think that Russia would have some grand scheme to conquer Europe. Russia doesn't back Assad as is against the rebels, even without Europe turning into a closely-knit bloc (as in, a lot more than the current state of the EU) coordinated to make a "European-wide response" to happenings in the Mideast. Russia does as it pleases anyways, which fortunately takes a pretty cool and neutral stance in regards to politics in European and other countries. A more aggressive Russia would be a political nightmare for the EU.
Ironically, Russian support for assad would crush the rebellion and keep violence from spreading to other places. At the very least, it would be prevent another country to be run by an islamist authoritarian regime. If an Islamist takeover were to occur, though, it would leave Lebanon as the only secular Arab country, and even that is deteriorating. The secular norm is also deteriorating in Turkey, and suffice it to say, Israeli politics are somewhat religiously-oriented itself.
On March 22 2013 11:05 GettingIt wrote:
So who are the good guys?
Pick your poison: Independent secular dictatorship or eventual Islamist dictatorship that the West is hoping would be submissive.
|
On March 22 2013 10:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If you honestly think Europe stays out of the geopolitical arena then you are delusional. Imagine the fighting spreads into Turkey a country that could become a member of the EU one day. A European wide response could handle that and Russia wouldn't even think of backing Assad, something it is hesitant to do after two years of constant fighting and growing rebel forces.
Cool, let's just ignore Russia then, make them feel worthless, let's tell them nothing of what they say matters to us. Yep, i how that would end well and bring peace and prosperity everywhere in the future. And not just Russia but let's do the same with every other state that's not part of NATO or its acolytes. We are stronger right now, so let's show it! Who's going to stop us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
