Thread: Syria

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Excellent question. And why the US would want Assad removed and the islamists at power? Why the US would want Mubarak removed and islamists at power?

It can be definitely seen that the US vocally supported the overthrow of Mubarak and Israel was against that (they even issued an official call to the European powers to keep Mubarak at power).
This is a fact. Now why it is so? This is another, more difficult question. But the Islamists are generally considered more right-wing regimes than the socialists and the secular nationalists. And the USA usually supports the right.
This is not the first time the USA supported islamists. They did so in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Kosovo, in Libya etc etc. Their most close allies are the fundamentalist monarchies of the Persian gulf.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not 100% thrilled with what the US was and is doing, but to say the US is responsible for just about anything (which I think is implied from some posts of some people on this forum) is paranoia.

Have you seen the film "Revolution.com - USA: The Conquest of the East"? The USA are the professional revolution and rebellion exporters worldwide, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe and in Latin America.
Even if somebody does the dirty work, the USA supports them in international organizations and with money.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I would agree with you here, Syria could probably not make a successful invasion right now, and it probably couldn't make it around 2005-2009 either despite the alleged popularity of Assad back then. But "attacking" does not necessarily mean "invasion". Attacking would be provoking Israel for retaliation and thus igniting the entire Middle East and possibly other regions.

There is no need (and ability) for Syria to engage in war with Israel in peacetime. As I already said, the Syrian regime is weak, has strong domestic enemies and values good relations with Russia. Syrian nuclear objects had been attacked by Israel about 2007 but Syria did not make any retaliation. They missed a good opportunity to "ignite the entire middle East" if this was their aim. But it is not.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I agree, so there would probably be no bombing, only the civil war.

I am not sure in that. Israel definitely does not want to be involved but for the West attack on Israel would be an excellent PR excuse for full-scale invasion in both Syria and Iran.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is a scenario which I'm afraid of. Back in December last year (Protests in Syria) I tried to discuss it, but the conversation kind of switched to.. as usual. You see, I think if the US is involved in just another big conflict, it will not win it. There has been lots of political work done to popularize the opinion that the US is trying to own every corner of the world, enough for most people on the plant to dislike it.

LOL. It does not matter what the people wants in the USA. No US political force as of now promotes non-involvement. The only thing that can make the US retreat are the heavy losses among ordinary people. But since Vietnam war the army in the US is not conscripted and the losses are negligibly small (less than of a comparable group of civilians). With the Obama's technology of non-contact war (for which he is widely praised) the costs become negligible as well.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

On the other hand, the economy of the US probably incapable of taking on such huge undertaking. At the same time, Americans are tired of the situation when the country is constantly at war, the public money is spent lavishly on nothing productive and people are constantly dying somewhere on the other side of the globe for many years. The real motivation of 'fighting terrorism' is something of the past. Also, take into consideration other purely technical economic factors like the real dollar value, huge deficit, etc.

You possibly do not understand what keeps the value of dollar. It is instability in every country except the USA. With any war and crisis in any part of the world the value of dollar sharply rises. The investors have to take their money from Middle East, Asia, Europe and invest them in the "safe heaven" of American treasuries and other dollar-valued assets. This way any war without exception is highly profitable for US economy. Even more profitable would be instability in Russia, China or other big country.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Meaning, a big war might likely cause the shift of the entire global economic focus, from the countries involved and devastated by the war and the countries uninvolved or involved to the lesser extent. Something similar to the outcome of the previous world wars - European Empires lost the focus as it had shifted to the less involved/devastated US.

The US has so much military superiority over every country in the world except maybe China and Russia that there is no possibility of a "big war" at all. Any US military involvement is just one-way beating.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Now, let's look at the countries which are going to be actively involved in the WWIII: Middle East (oil suppliers), the US, Israel, China, Russia. All these countries would eventually lose their economic power (and might even be divided). However, I agree the NATO would most likely be the winner (with the US ultimately losing dominance). Who stays in the global economic game? Germany, France, Italy. Most notably - Germany (as it is presently economically dominant even under the very tough conditions). Germany is keeping relatively quiet, but that is who I think is behind the Arab Spring. (And 9/11 for that matter.) Germany does not talk much - it acts. And I think it will be the ultimate winner.

This is completely senseless idea. Germany is under strict US control. USA actually still has Germany occupied. And any instability in Europe as I said before only means that the money will leave it for the USA.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

An interesting thought, maybe a bit off topic. I think you mean that the capitalist US is crushing the socialistic regimes? You see, as far as I know, Israel had been sided with the USSR at the earlier stages - the secular Jews were, at their majority, socialists. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong between the USSR and Israel, maybe Israel was a way too nationalist, or the formation of Israel inspired nationalistic Jewish movement inside the USSR, which was crushed by Stalin, and Israel did not like that.. not sure. Anyway, I think the nationalistic considerations prevail any other in Israel, so Israel would probably be less sensitive to the socialism-capitalism shift. Meaning, there would still be Israel by now.

No. The Jews consciously choose the USA because they expected it to win the Cold War.