Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

The only way the Middle East is going to stop living in the 5th century is if Middle Easterners themselves start calling for change. And that's exactly what they did in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, except in the latter two countries the political leadership decided to murder the dissenters. So should the fact that some countries have murderous dictators mean that people living there should be denied the opportunity to build a better future for themselves?

 

One could say dictatorships operate at the consent of the people, either by the people apathetically ignoring the dictator actions, or by supporting the system that created such a dictator.

I mean don't get me wrong, the US shares responsibility as well, our foreign aid allows many governments to afford to act without investing in their people (as they don't rely on tax support form the people).

The US could needs to stop bribing dictatorial countries it can operate in and around their boarders, or at least be more careful how it doles out its cash.

There is neither a silver bullet, or single intervention that will solve the Middle Easts problems, and its proximity of the European continent, makes them better able to intervene if intervention is necessary.

 

It's our responsibility as human beings to help those in need. Especially when those people aren't in a position to help themselves. The people of Syria (for example) deserve any help they can get to topple the murderous ******** in charge of their country. The men and women serving in the armed forces knew precisely what they were getting into when they signed up. If they object to being in a position where they can help people free themselves from a tyrant then what the hell are they doing as soldiers?

 

Considering all the people in need America never helped what makes the syrians so special?

Lest you forget the murders ares hole in Syria is a Syrian, born in Syria nurtured by the Syrian social structure, is he is a monster he is a monster of Syria's making.


America is good at killing dictators, but good at stopping they system that creates them? Good at even realizing the what creates them? And lets face it the US supported the guy until it became politically embarrassing.

What does that tell all our African and other Afro-Eurasian dictators we have supported.

 

So because America has supported dictators it should sit around whilst others go around killing their own people? If the Syrian people were capable of toppling Al-Assad themselves then fine. But when he's using chemical weapons on his own people then the international community needs to do more to ensure he faces justice.

That America and other Western countries have supported dictatorships around the world should be a source of immense shame.

 

I have often say, it's never about what SHOULD be done it is about what can be done.

america fools alot of people with the perception of power, but like the british empire before it it exists at the pleasure of those who sees its continued position of power as a benefit rather than a negative.

Assad kills his own people with chemical weapons or bullets the fact of the matter is they are failing, And toppling the dictator is the easiest task of a revolution. if they can not even do that, they are doomed when the next one shows up.

 

Yes, but what's changed with the Arab Spring is that people are no longer giving these dictators their tacit consent.

The system that created the dictators was basically some kind of weak, corrupt civilian government that was overthrown in a coup, leading to some kind of dictatorship. And like I said above, those dictators weren't really challenged until now.

 

Hezbollah is considering a military intervention in Syria, to save Assad
http://news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-warns-possible-syria-intervention-214852198.html

If that happens, this will move quickly from civil war to outright regional war. The Saudi's won't let Hezbollah take over Syria. And if the Saudi's become very involved, then it's only a matter of time before Iran comes in to help Hezbollah.

I remember when people here were arguing that if we get involved, it could cause a regional war. Well, now it looks like a regional war may start if we don't get involved.

 

If Hezbollah starts supporting Assad overtly, wouldn't that reignite Lebanon's own sectarian fault lines?

 

Far more then they already are? Yep.

 

Yeah, and could ultimately spill into Iraq too, and even Saudi Arabia (the Saudi's oil coast on the Persian Gulf is full of oppressed Shia Muslims).

If Hezbollah makes this move, it could be the final straw, and unleash the Sunni-Shia regional war that's been building at least since we invaded Iraq in 2003. As well as involve Israel, which hates Hezbollah and wouldn't let them make a power play to extend their sphere of influence into Syria.

 

It would also unite the Palastinian regions with Hezbollah and the other arab states if Isreal goes after Hezbollah.

 

If Hezbollah makes this move, you can bet Israel will start a war.

Syria has chemical weapons stockpiles. If Hezbollah goes into Syria, and gets their hands on even some of Syria's chemical weapons... not good. Israel knows that.

But attacking Hezbollah and Syria could lead to Assad using chemical weapons against Israel himself.

No good can come of a Hezbollah military intervention in Syria.


This isn't even considering the effects this move would have on Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi's and Iranians get overtly involved, sectarian strife could spread to the Gulf Coast of Saudi Arabia... leading to disruptions in the supply of oil, huge gas price hikes, and a new global recession.

 

NBC News is reporting that Israel has launched warplane airstrikes inside Syria.

Here we go....

 

It was targeting weapon shipments (possibly chemical weapons) heading into Hezbollah hands, it appears.

They've done a limited airstrike like this before, the last one only a few months ago, so hopefully this doesn't escalate anything.

But yeah, it underlines my earlier point that Israel won't stand by if it looks like Hezbollah is going to officially militarily intervene in Syria, or otherwise get access to its chemical weapons.

 

I doubt it will...Syria's in no position to be kicking off against Israel.

 

Yeah, it looks like that's what's happening:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201354434558135.html

Israel has confirmed airstrikes... and Syria is responding by saying it isn't really happening. Let's hope it stays that way.

 

NBC News is currently reporting that Israel has bombed a military research facility in Damascus.

 

Syrian state television is acknowledging this one, says it was one of Assad's army bases. Huge fireball.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/04/world/meast/syria-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/20135502043908700.html









EDIT: One report says Israel has hit this site before, so hopefully this doesn't escalate anything.

 

Let's hope, but I fear Syria's acknowledging it hoping to get it's other Arab allies to rise up and strike against Israel and spark a WWIII that ends with an Iranian nuclear holocaust.

 

Erm...what other Arab allies? Iran isn't going to throw itself in the toilet for those guys and risk nuclear immolation with no means of recourse. Neither are Jordan or Egypt. Saudi Arabia isn't fond of Baathists.

They're pretty much on their own.

 

Iran is Syria's closest ally, infact other than Russia, it's only ally. I could easily see Iran getting involved if Israel does go for full - scale military intervention.

 

Yeah, the only ones who would come close are Iran (who aren't Arab, DarthBoba! ), and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Egypt supports the revolutionaries, Saudi Arabia would rather have the rebels. Jordan just doesn't want the region to explode. Iraq is just trying to keep it together. Turkey is NATO, non-Arab, and is repairing relations with Israel.

Sure, these Israeli strikes could get people in those countries to condemn Israeli airstrikes and complain about it, but the only slightest chance of action from someone besides Syria comes from Iran and Hezbollah. But even that wouldn't be WWIII or nuclear holocaust (Russia wants Assad to stay and really wants to protect its military base there, but it wouldn't resort to nuclear weapons this time).

Still, just an Israeli-Syrian war would be really devastating. But tonight's strike hopefully doesn't lead to that.

 

It won't. Yeah, d'oh on the Arab thing

 

They're not risking a potential nuclear war over a country that's going in the toilet.