Thread: Syria

Originally Posted by Astrum

But still, everything was fine with the old regime, why would the west want a new unstable goverment controlling it? And of course the BBC is slanted (which they were with Libya also).

Because a turmoil in Syria won't allow any other country to buy Syrian oil. A weak pet government will suit perfectly.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Because a turmoil in Syria won't allow any other country to buy Syrian oil. A weak pet government will suit perfectly.

I see your point, but I have to disagree. If regime change really favored the U.S., we probably would already have invaded, but we havn't yet.

Originally Posted by Astrum

I see your point, but I have to disagree. If regime change really favored the U.S., we probably would already have invaded, but we havn't yet.

.
A third simultaneous war, under the current economic conditions?

I think the USA thinks it's both cheaper, less controversial and simpler to sit on the sidelines and manipulate things instead. I.e. provide money, weapons and the right type of publicity to the rebels.

Plus - Syria has a not insubstantial army AND at the moment neither Russia nor China would approve of an invasion and might possibly start supporting the other side. Good, I think. The USA has been totally out of control for the last 20 years with a marked escalation after 9-11. I am relieved that someone is finally taking a stand.

I am not in the least convinced that the current regime there is particularly evil or corrupt, compared with other states in the Middle East. I do not necessarily think that it would benefit regular people in Syria that Assad stepped down, the country descended into chaos for a couple of years and another authocratic but pro-West figure appeared as president.

Since they have a lot of socialism going on there, the first thing that would happen is that state owned property this would be privatised and bought by foreign powers, unemployment rise.. Everyone in Europe and Russia can probably agree that rapid privatisation is daylight robbery that does not lead to an improvement of anything. Some people would be worse off than today, and a small group significantly richer. The oil industry and infrastructure would be controlled from abroad, at the moment it is controlled by the state in Syria.

As it is today, I understand they have been doing a sort of "perestroika" for about 10 years or so at the initiative of al Assad. Seems much more sensible to let that run its course and gradually make changes in the direction that the majority want. I re-iterate that I have seen several interviews etc with al-Assad and he is a well educated person who spent many years in London and has started opening up the country and relaxing things from the moment he took over after his father. He is far from a hard liner or extremist of any kind.

Originally Posted by Hanna

.
A third simultaneous war, under the current economic conditions?

I think the USA thinks it's both cheaper, less controversial and simpler to sit on the sidelines and manipulate things instead. I.e. provide money, weapons and the right type of publicity to the rebels.

Plus - Syria has a not insubstantial army AND at the moment neither Russia nor China would approve of an invasion and might possibly start supporting the other side. Good, I think. The USA has been totally out of control for the last 20 years with a marked escalation after 9-11. I am relieved that someone is finally taking a stand.

I am not in the least convinced that the current regime there is particularly evil or corrupt, compared with other states in the Middle East. I do not necessarily think that it would benefit regular people in Syria that Assad stepped down, the country descended into chaos for a couple of years and another authocratic but pro-West figure appeared as president.

Since they have a lot of socialism going on there, the first thing that would happen is that state owned property this would be privatised and bought by foreign powers, unemployment rise.. Everyone in Europe and Russia can probably agree that rapid privatisation is daylight robbery that does not lead to an improvement of anything. Some people would be worse off than today, and a small group significantly richer. The oil industry and infrastructure would be controlled from abroad, at the moment it is controlled by the state in Syria.

As it is today, I understand they have been doing a sort of "perestroika" for about 10 years or so at the initiative of al Assad. Seems much more sensible to let that run its course and gradually make changes in the direction that the majority want. I re-iterate that I have seen several interviews etc with al-Assad and he is a well educated person who spent many years in London and has started opening up the country and relaxing things from the moment he took over after his father. He is far from a hard liner or extremist of any kind.

Neither of us can honestly say what would be better for the Syrian people. All we have to go by is what reporters tell us. From what I've read/seen in videos, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the current regime HAS done some pretty awful things to people. That's not to say that the rebels are angles, of course they're not.

I don't think that Syrian oil has much to do with this at all. On the list of top oil producers, Syria is about number 33, which is not all that high. Any oil coming from them has a negligible effect on the world market. How could it be in western interests to have Al-Qaeda acting in Syria? Sectarian violence is in one's best interest. What about Turkey? I think of all the NATO memebrs, Turkey is the least happy about what's happening on their border. I just can't see how we benefit from this.

Also, I've hardly seen anything about Syria on the news here in the U.S. people are largely oblivious to anything happening outside of our borders. On Russian news sites I also have seen very little intrest in what's been happening.

Russia is acting in a way that's beneficial to them, of course. Russia wants to protect Russian interests in Syria, so of course they want to prevent anything from happening to the current regime. Russia supply weapons, ammo, tanks etc. to the syrians, and also Russia has investments in syrian.

Russian Syrian military contractors were worth $4 billion in 2010, and Russia also has gas refining plants there.