Posted on 06/13/2012 3:10:40 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
France has called on the United Nations to authorize using "all means" necessary to end the carnage in Syria, bringing the civil war closer to the edge of a proxy war between Russia and the Western alliance.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday accused the United States of supplying weapons to Syria's opposition, hours after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charged that Moscow is sending a new shipment of attack helicopters to Damascus.
Lavrov spoke during a brief visit to Iran, which along with Syria are two of Russia’s favorite nations for investment of nuclear development and arms exports.
The Russian foreign minister said that supplying "anti-air defense systems" to Syrian President Bashar Assad "in no way violates international laws.” Reflecting an increasing Cold War attitude, he added, "That contrasts with what the United States is doing with the opposition, which is providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian government.”
Pravda last November headlined “Russia and USA on verge of another Cold War” over an article concerning America’s missile defense system in Europe. Dmitry Medvedev, now prime minister, said that Russia will deploy new ballistic missiles that can guarantee the total destruction of the European part of the air defense system.
Lavrov’s accusations of Washington’s sending weapons to Syrian rebels was the first time Russia has directly fingered the United States.
One deterrent from direct Western military intervention in Syria has been the fear that the civil war could erupt into an all-out proxy war that could blow up into a regional conflict, with Assad backed by Russia and Iran and the opposition backed by the United States and Western allies. The likelihood of military intervention increased Wednesday with France's appeal, which would require the United Nations to use force...
....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
To keep the bungling incompetent French from getting the West into WW3
To keep the bungling incompetent French from getting the West into WW3
What does this mean?
DO NOT FORGET Obama's speech in Colorado on July 2, 2008:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Rahm Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
And hence why I think Obama, if reelected, will federalize all police officers and put them under the DHS.
That's easy...
We don't.
There is nothing to worry about, they will all become nice, moderate muslims when the ammunition runs out.
That's what Zer∅bamagasm™ would be doing if we got involved.
Think: Distraction away from the Economy?
That's what Zer∅bamagasm™ would be doing if we got involved.
Think: Distraction away from the Economy?
You REALLY want to give a fresh batch of Stingers to al-Queda-affiliated jihadis?
Hey, I'm rooting for the Shiite incumbents. Syria is right in the middle of Sunni-land. If we get lucky, it will serve as a roach motel for every jihadist in the region.
Considering how dependent on federal funds local police depts have become, we're most of the way there. If a fed tells a local police chief "jump or lose federal funding", the chief will just ask "how high?".
I firmly believe that DHS is going to start funding the equipment expenditures of police departments and the first item on the list will be to pay for every police agencies sidearm, which will be .40 caliber of course.
This will jibe with the 450 million rounds of .40 they just bought, as in HP, not ball.
Why the mess in Syria, how does it relate to Iraq and possibly Iran? Without an understanding of the regions history and the players, much of what you see/hear on the news seems - unworldly. Here is a very brief look at the players and some history.
Much past this - you will need t read up on the breakup of the old Ottoman Empire and how the various Great Powers dealt with that breakup post- WWI.
As for the issues of tribalism, and the ties between 'political' power and local religious groups and tribes - that will require additional reading on your part if you seek a better understanding of the factors driving the news today.
Let's begin with some background:
Throughout the Syrian uprising of the last few months, the dominant media narrative has followed the now-familiar arc of a freedom-seeking populace mustering the courage to finally confront an autocratic, anti-democratic regime responsible for decades of repression. Ya, well, about that...
Little mentioned is another element of the unrest, one readily apparent to most veteran Syria watchers: faith or rather, religious affiliation. Because in much of the middle east, that affiliation is, in reality, the power base and owners of the levers of power - from the Imam in the mosque to the leader of the local military. Syria - President Bashar Assad is an Alawite, a minority sect often described, in the convenient shorthand on which journalists rely, as an “offshoot of Shi’a Islam.” The Alawites’ creed, however, is so far removed from any mainstream Islamic orthodoxy that most Muslims worldwide – Sunni and Shi’ite alike – are apt to describe them either as heretics or as wholly outside the Islamic faith community, or ummah. Remember this - it is important.
So what? They're all Muslims, right? No, not really.
For 1,000 years, the Alawites were the most despised and suppressed of Syria’s faith communities – an isolated, rural people practicing a secret, syncretic religion rumored to incorporate Christian, Shi’a and pre-Islamic rites. In 1963 Syria’s Alawite-led Ba’ath Party seized power, an event so religiously and politically implausible that half a century later, mainstream Arabs and Muslims still struggle to comprehend it.
Here's the money quote - “An Alawi ruling Syria is like an untouchable becoming maharajah in India or a Jew becoming tsar in Russia,” the historian Daniel Pipes wrote in his book Greater Syria, “an unprecedented development shocking to the majority (Ed note - Muslim) population which had monopolized power for so many centuries.”
So - how did this all happen? Western influence after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (WWI)
The advent of French rule after World War I ushered in a golden age for the once down trodden sect, which was granted short-lived autonomy as the “Alawite State” on Syria’s coast in the 1920s and ’30s. Colonial authorities hoping to stem Sunni nationalism propped up the Alawites and other Syrian minorities, giving them preferential treatment in the army and laying the groundwork for today’s Alawite-dominated military.
Hafez Assad – a former air force pilot and the father and predecessor of the current president – came to power in 1971, eight years after the coup by his own Ba’ath Party. The movement was putatively socialist and Arab nationalist, but dominated by young Alawites eager to end Syria’s centuries-long domination by an urban, Sunni elite. One of Assad’s first acts was to replace the constitutional requirement that Syria’s president be Muslim, with a law stipulating that the president’s religion is Islam – essentially certifying his own Muslim faith.
In the four decades since, the new Alawite elite have considerably weakened the Sunnis’ once-inviolable commercial dominance, and turned Syria’s military and intelligence services into its own private domain. The one significant challenge to Assad the father’s rule – a 1982 Muslim Brotherhood revolt in the central city of Hama – was brutally quashed, with security forces killing an estimated 20,000-30,000 people. This is telling in light of the recent 'uprising'. Please note the near silence of the world media at the time.
So, the former slaves to Muslims are determined not to revert to the old ways. Since they had the guns...and the Golden rule applies, they stay in power. For now anyway.
Add in poverty now that the economy is liberalized (free market)
Most of low-class labor works mainly in services , as maids, porters, doormen, etc. have no social security or other benefits, can’t get married because they have to live with their parents, due to both unemployment and the severe housing shortage. ’’the struggle against hunger, poverty and unemployment. Such slogans could come to the forefront alongside .’’ Dr. Hassan Chatila said, an economic researcher, based in Paris.
**** Sky News has this bit of interest about a possible civil war in Syria -
More likely. Syria is governed by the Baath party which is secular and has kept a lid on sectarian tensions in the country for decades. However, the people know that the top positions in the military and government have usually gone to the Alawites of Syria, of which the Assad clan are members. This has caused resentment.
The Alawites are an off-shoot of Shia Islam but Syria is a predominantly Sunni Muslim country. (Remember my note above - they are not Shia') ****
Please note the Baath Party was also a key player in Iraq - Its main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. It seized power in Iraq in 1963, (same year as in Syria) later, Saddam Hussein took power. Quite the mix, so now what?
Two words - Muslim Brotherhood (MB). A key player in the fall of Libya - which pissed off both Russia and China, as they both lost oil contracts. We see the MB at play in Egypt and in Lebanon. Remember, in 1982, they led the revolt in Syria.
Now you have a large, poverty stricken Muslim sub-population, a "religious" group in play (Muslim Brotherhood) and a former oppressed minority in power that wants to stay in power...aided by the Russians and Chinese.
What you get is seen on the TV nightly. The US refused to do anything in Egypt and who took power? Muslim Brotherhood We intervened in Libya and who took power? Muslim Brotherhood
We stick our nose into Syria and guess who will wind up in power? I'm guessing - The Muslim Brotherhood.
Don't know if anyone cares, but the ties between Syria and Iraq cannot be ignored. As cannot the Hezbollah and Iran connection.
Hezbollah (also HizbAllah or Hizbullah is a proxy for the Iranians. Literally the "Party of God") is a Shi'a Muslim militant group and political party based in Lebanon. In late Janurary, we saw that - at least four people have been killed and over 50 wounded so far in renewed sectarian clashes in Tripoli. Explosions and machinegun fire rocked the city from midnight as Sunni Muslim supporters of the government battled with Alawite gunmen close to the Shi'ite Hezbollah-led opposition. The fighting began after four grenades exploded on a street separating a Sunni district from an Alawite one.
You read that correctly, the Alawite minority in Lebanon is aligned with the Shi'ite (Shi'a). The common 'enemy' in both places is the Sunni. Confusing to most Americans because - the Sunni's ran Iraq under the iron fist of Saddam. It's less about religious affiliation as tribes and who is in power.
With India now no longer sending rice to Iran, starvation is a real threat. How Iran will react to the sanctions remains to be seen - but the area around and within Syria, Lebanon and Iran is a powder keg - the only question is what will set it off.
Have fun. If you want to dig past this quick look at the region, the web is full of resources. The JPost and French papers are likely the most current and accurate due to proximity and past influence.
By getting involved in Syria, we’re justifying Putin’s saber rattling and providing his justification for modernization of Russia’s military. The Pentagon has already announced we will no longer maintain forces capable of action in two theaters. We’ve also announced we will be concentrating the majority of our naval forces in the Pacific. Why would we want to give Putin an excuse to return to the Atlantic and Mediterranean?
Syria is a ally of Iran. As such, before doing anything to Iran, it’s a good thing to have the sort of chaos in Syria that Iran and Syria both tried and failed to impose on Iraq when US troops were there. Intervening there would be a disaster. Pulling strings there is mere justice and good sense.
Stingers can be pre-programmed to die after a preset date and programmed to not hit any aircraft with a friendly transponder.
In the longrun the russians are a much bigger threat, kick their ass at every opportunity. The goat loving rag heads will kill each other off and slink back into the 8th Century for another 300 years, with just a little prodding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.