pro01: Now that the "Red Line" has been crossed, let's see what the United States/NATO have up their sleeves. How Assad has managed to hang on to power this long is beyond me. Why hasn't he been given the Gaddafi treatment - even though his atrocities are a million times worse than Gaddafi's? This underscores the hypocrisy of the West; or could it be that they are scared of Russia?

I think u ave wrong impression abt Gaddafi.All u knw is wat d media says bt wat u dont knw is Gaddafi,he only had d best interest of his people in mind bt dey misundastood him

pro01: Now that the "Red Line" has been crossed, let's see what the United States/NATO have up their sleeves. How Assad has managed to hang on to power this long is beyond me. Why hasn't he been given the Gaddafi treatment - even though his atrocities are a million times worse than Gaddafi's? This underscores the hypocrisy of the West; or could it be that they are scared of Russia?

You just stole my thoughts!

ITS TIME TO LEAVE THIS ISLAMIC PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE GOOD AT (SENSELESS KILLINGS)... AFTER ALL, NA DEM DEM.
AM OFF!

Hmmmmm..

The more you look, the less you see...

the_ripper: Wetin concern us? All these Arabs and fight sef.

u no get sense hw heno tke concern u?smh

Verbes: You will be amazed that it's all about making money. Some nations are smiling to banks.

e.g Russia

TERRORISTS. THE WORLD WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT THE ARAB WORLD AND THERE RELIGION

pro01: Now that the "Red Line" has been crossed, let's see what the United States/NATO have up their sleeves. How Assad has managed to hang on to power this long is beyond me. Why hasn't he been given the Gaddafi treatment - even though his atrocities are a million times worse than Gaddafi's? This underscores the hypocrisy of the West; or could it be that they are scared of Russia?

I don't see this as the hypocrisy of the West. Should the West decide to go into Syria, they would have to commit military resources in terms of occupational forces that is not only expensive but becomes a drain. Syria is not the same as Libya where you could go in and be out in 3 months, Syria's situation has descended far beyond that. Additionally, unlike in Libya where you have a well coordinated opposition with a common enemy, in Syria, there are just two many groups, all with different goals/objectives.

It's the best thing for the US to stay out of Syria and let the Arab league handle the situation.

The US hardly gives a shyt about what Russia thinks. If the US decides to carry out military campaign in Syria, it will do so regardless of what Russia says. In the very least, relations between both countries will be harmed and Russia may stop cooperating with the US on other issues like Iran and North Korea, but that said, Russia will not be foolish enough to strike a US target.

bookface:

I don't see this as the hypocrisy of the West. Should the West decide to go into Syria, they would have to commit military resources in terms of occupational forces that is not only expensive but becomes a drain. Syria is not the same as Libya where you could go in and be out in 3 months, Syria's situation has descended far beyond that. Additionally, unlike in Libya where you have a well coordinated opposition with a common enemy, in Syria, there are just two many groups, all with different goals/objectives.

It's the best thing for the US to stay out of Syria and let the Arab league handle the situation.

The US hardly gives a shyt about what Russia thinks. If the US decides to carry out military campaign in Syria, it will do so regardless of what Russia says. In the very least, relations between both countries will be harmed and Russia may stop cooperating with the US on other issues like Iran and North Korea, but that said, Russia will not be foolish enough to strike a US target.

Thanks man, this perspective makes sense to me, somewhat. I find it hard to believe the US would be reluctant to get involved in the Syrian situation merely because of its fear of Russia's reaction.

pro01:

Thanks man, this perspective makes sense to me, somewhat. I find it hard to believe the US would be reluctant to get involved in the Syrian situation merely because of its fear of Russia's reaction.

Most people overplay Russia's reaction because Russian leaders appear belligerent by nature and people interpret this to mean strength or the lack of it from US leaders to mean fear. During the Cuban crises, Khrushchev warned the US openly that military blockade of Cuba will definitely lead to a nuclear conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, but he then used back channels to send a message that, - in his own words; "If you coolly weigh the situation which has developed, not giving way to passions, you will understand that the Soviet Union cannot fail to reject the arbitrary demands of the United States"

The US's status as the world's most advanced military is not a myth. When the US updated its alert status to DEAFCON 2 for the first and only time in history, during the CUBAN crises, Russia knew it was outweighed, so it had to calm the f**k down!

In addition, Kremlin's reaction is quite predictable and this is what makes them less of a threat to those guys in Washington. In the worst case scenario, it may choose to sell top military hardware to America's enemies and the US will respond by placing advanced missile interceptors in Poland ....and there you have the cold war starting all over again. Actual conflict will most likely never occur since both countries realize this will mean annihilation of their own citizens, all for what?

bookface:

I don't see this as the hypocrisy of the West. Should the West decide to go into Syria, they would have to commit military resources in terms of occupational forces that is not only expensive but becomes a drain. Syria is not the same as Libya where you could go in and be out in 3 months, Syria's situation has descended far beyond that. Additionally, unlike in Libya where you have a well coordinated opposition with a common enemy, in Syria, there are just two many groups, all with different goals/objectives.

It's the best thing for the US to stay out of Syria and let the Arab league handle the situation.

The US hardly gives a shyt about what Russia thinks. If the US decides to carry out military campaign in Syria, it will do so regardless of what Russia says. In the very least, relations between both countries will be harmed and Russia may stop cooperating with the US on other issues like Iran and North Korea, but that said, Russia will not be foolish enough to strike a US target.

Nice take Bookface, very credible opinion. Unlike the knee-jerk chants of "propaganda!" "hypocrisy" "its about oil!" "excuse to invade" etc etc that pervades threads in this section.

The US will not "go out of its way" to "help" especially as it doesn't stand to gain much and I bet most of the citizens will not be in support of another military engagement at taxpayer cost. The ball is in the Arab League's court. But as they have shown us by their inaction in recent conflicts, they are nothing more than a nice-sounding name on paper.

JeSoul: Nice take Bookface, very credible opinion. Unlike the knee-jerk chants of "propaganda!" "hypocrisy" "its about oil!" "excuse to invade" etc etc that pervades threads in this section.

The US will not "go out of its way" to "help" especially as it doesn't stand to gain much and I bet most of the citizens will not be in support of another military engagement at taxpayer cost. The ball is in the Arab League's court. But as they have shown us by their inaction in recent conflicts, they are nothing more than a nice-sounding name on paper.

I personally think there will be riots in the street of America should the US government decide to bankrupt the US further by sending US troops to another pointless war or get involved with one which is not of strategic importance to its interests. I think the Arab league has the military capability and the funding requirements to take action if they really want to, but i don't think this is ever going to happen. The only country that i envision might take action is Turkey. It might choose to designate a no fly zone within Syria, but to do this, it might require the approval of the United Nations or a in the very least a "go ahead" nudge from NATO members

bookface:

I personally think there will be riots in the street of America should the US government decide to bankrupt the US further by sending US troops to another pointless war or get involved with one which is not of strategic importance to its interests. I think the Arab league has the military capability and the funding requirements to take action if they really want to, but i don't think this is ever going to happen. The only country that i envision might take action is Turkey. It might choose to designate a no fly zone within Syria, but to do this, it might require the approval of the United Nations or a in the very least a "go ahead" nudge from NATO members

Absolutely right on the money! It begs the question why don't they? the best they do is 'call on the UN to take action'. Perhaps it is because they also have nothing to gain (or lose) by getting involved. Like you mentioned perhaps Turkey - because they're feeling some of the shrapnel spilling over their border. The whole thing is just sad...those poor citizens caught in the middle.

JeSoul: Absolutely right on the money! It begs the question why don't they? the best they do is 'call on the UN to take action'. Perhaps it is because they also have nothing to gain (or lose) by getting involved. Like you mentioned perhaps Turkey - because they're feeling some of the shrapnel spilling over their border. The whole thing is just sad...those poor citizens caught in the middle.

But then the FSA a.k.a jihadists a.k.a al queda jnr is being sponsored by the USA already,America's foreign policy is riddled with so much injustice for a country that poses as the world police.

Originalsly: Propaganda and hypocrisy....an excuse for invasion.Why isn't Israel condemned for using white phosphorous on the Palestians?...a chemical that melts people and banned in warfare? Why would the US be training and arming rebels in Jordan to overthrow the Syrian government? Do we for a moment stop to think how a small group of people...like a local gang...can suddenly become so powerful as to fight the military and overthrow the government? It has happened in Egypt and Libya ... now happening in Syria but hampered by the presence of Russia. Only a matter of time for Nigeria to be on the front burner.

True..I think it's morally wrong t b suing f peace on one hand n yet giving the opposition d means n training t continue d warfare that is causing untold hardship. U blame Russia f doing same?
Regime change will not solve nothing, look at Libya, look at Egypt as case studies.
This is simply a proxy war by d powers that be....while d ineffectual Arab League sits by..

chukkynwob:

But then the FSA a.k.a jihadists a.k.a al queda jnr is being sponsored by the USA already,America's foreign policy is riddled with so much injustice for a country that poses as the world police.

erm...Al Qaeda is sponsored by the US? Sorry oh oga, this your conspiracy theory get as e be. US foreign policy is indeed 'riddled with holes'...much like many many other countries. You'd be hard pressed to find a 'righteous' nation. The US is simply more visible so their shortcomings make headlines while everyone else is practically the same, it's just not publicized.

JeSoul: erm...Al Qaeda is sponsored by the US? Sorry oh oga, this your conspiracy theory get as e be. US foreign policy is indeed 'riddled with holes'...much like many many other countries. You'd be hard pressed to find a 'righteous' nation. The US is simply more visible so their shortcomings make headlines while everyone else is practically the same, it's just not publicized.

The FSA has ties with extremists, alqueda fighters are very active in this war in syria against the present Legitimate secular government(.

Of course most nations do evil for the greater good but the point is that America pretends to be a moral beacon to the rest of world,the hypocrisy is what bothers.

It took ten years for CNN to admit that the Iraqi war was for money,but even as a secondary school student ten years ago I knew it was all propaganda.

One other thing bothers me,why hasn't the US pushed for democracy in Saudi Arabia ?

is'nt d US kind of like broke nw?? After waging two crushin wars in afghanistan n iraq don't u think it 'll tell on d revenue,presently d US is focusing on homebuilding,a fragile economy is stil ther for dem to tink of