World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[ZeroAX]

I just want to add that during Morsi's reign , he never shut down any TV stations that were extremely against him and in my own opinion contributed to the coup.

The only thing that contributed to the coup was that this person thought it was more important to enforce sharia law than to fix the economy.

[RCBH928]

You might not know the importance of this , but in the middle east there is probably not a single country that has any media that openly criticize the president/king/prince of any country . So far as freedom of speech goes , that was a huge step. In fact , we still find it mind boggling that in the US TV shows are allowed to make fun of the president because we find it highly disrespecting .

Any way , any one interested this is Al Jazeera's live webcast , news is mainly about Egypt now. I have to point out they are Morsi biased .

http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/

[dsheinem]

You might not know the importance of this , but in the middle east there is probably not a single country that has any media that openly criticize the president/king/prince of any country . So far as freedom of speech goes , that was a huge step. In fact , we still find it mind boggling that in the US TV shows are allowed to make fun of the president because we find it highly disrespecting .

Any way , any one interested this is Al Jazeera's live webcast , news is mainly about Egypt now. I have to point out they are Morsi biased .

http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/

um: this.

[RCBH928]

Yeah , that guy probably stepped on all the red lines including attacking other countries in the region which is a "no no" around here. If CNN criticizes Canada , Canada would hold US government reliable for all that is said because you allowed to let such media be broadcasted.

Any way I am not defending them, just stating facts. No other media representative dare to talk about the government in public that way Egyptian media criticized Morsi during his reign. This is a fact.

If you would like I can post to you the TV stations and program hosts who did and are still around and well, probably still broadcasting .

[RCBH928]

Update: 51 or so dead in a massacre in Egypt , President Morsi supporters shot.

[Pulsar_t]

Public opinion is hypocritically disgusting, since now humanitarian intervention is conceptually inconvenient. I still have high hopes that intervention takes place eventually. The fascists in Damascus have won the PR war but I hope they get what's coming to them in the next few days. For the (proverbial) record I was 100% for the Kosovo intervention and while it was less than stellar the outcome would have been a lot worse.

[Ack]

There's a problem with hitting Assad though:

First, how hard? What is our ultimate goal? Just to weaken his military, depose him, or ultimately capture him and turn him over to international authorities?

Second, Syrian rebel forces are now heavily infiltrated by al-Qaeda. If we weaken Assad, will we bolster them? If we depose Assad, will they take over? What is our final goal for the country, and what is our strategy to get there?

Third, what about the international situation? There are two major international powers involved: the US and Russia. There are numerous regional powers involved: Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, along with various allies: NATO, Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen, even North Korea. If we go in, Russia will do its best to smear us, Iran will use the situation as another proxy war to hit us, Saudi Arabia will back us for a chance to weaken Iran, Yemen and Qatar may move to support al-Qaeda, so on and so forth.

Fourth, we know chemical weapons have been used, but who used them and how did they get them? We are assuming they came from Assad's military, but we do not have a 100% confirmation on that. And even if they did, did they come from Assad's explicit orders, or did someone lower on the chain of command give the order instead?

I believe these are questions we should consider, because they are questions we didn't seem to consider for the second invasion into Iraq. And any action against Assad will likely lead to troops on the ground, similar to how we ended up with troops on the ground in Libya.

[o.pwuaioc]

If we go in...

Who said anything about going in?

Fourth, we know chemical weapons have been used, but who used them and how did they get them? We are assuming they came from Assad's military, but we do not have a 100% confirmation on that. And even if they did, did they come from Assad's explicit orders, or did someone lower on the chain of command give the order instead?

Doesn't matter if Assad gave the command or not. The denial following the attack leads to complicity. We should, however, wait until the UN team finishes its work.

I believe these are questions we should consider, because they are questions we didn't seem to consider for the second invasion into Iraq. And any action against Assad will likely lead to troops on the ground, similar to how we ended up with troops on the ground in Libya.

The number of soldiers in Libya was nominal. I actually didn't hear about any standard troops landing, mostly CIA operatives for intelligence-gathering purposes. Do you have articles which can inform me of the number of soldiers we landed there for invading purposes?

[Ack]

If we go in...

Who said anything about going in?

Fourth, we know chemical weapons have been used, but who used them and how did they get them? We are assuming they came from Assad's military, but we do not have a 100% confirmation on that. And even if they did, did they come from Assad's explicit orders, or did someone lower on the chain of command give the order instead?

Doesn't matter if Assad gave the command or not. The denial following the attack leads to complicity. We should, however, wait until the UN team finishes its work.

I believe these are questions we should consider, because they are questions we didn't seem to consider for the second invasion into Iraq. And any action against Assad will likely lead to troops on the ground, similar to how we ended up with troops on the ground in Libya.

The number of soldiers in Libya was nominal. I actually didn't hear about any standard troops landing, mostly CIA operatives for intelligence-gathering purposes. Do you have articles which can inform me of the number of soldiers we landed there for invading purposes?

First, going in means any sort of strikes we might engage in in which our personnel could get hurt. So airstrikes, naval strikes, etc., because naval battles can occur and planes can be fired upon. Operation Desert Fox is an example of "going in."

Second, Assad currently claims the rebels used chemical weapons. If he later retracts this and says his side used them, he may still attempt to pass on blame to subordinates in the international arena by claiming they were not acting under his orders. Russia and Iran will back his claims, along with China.

Third, here's an example of President Obama notifying Congress of troops on the ground in Libya in order to protect US personnel and property. This particular example comes well after the military operations and overthrow of Gaddafi and relates to the immediate aftermath of Benghazi but gives an example of how our soldiers could still end up within a conflict zone:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... and-yemen/

Here's another example of four personnel being sent into Libya during the conflict. Yes, it's Fox News, so the tone is opposed to President Obama's actions, and yes, it is only an example of four soldiers being sent in. It is still US military personnel being sent into such an area:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... -confirms/

[Pulsar_t]

Ack's reservations are quite valid, and I'd like to add one more: The sunni states with a distaste for Assad should pitch in as well. I've heard nothing that indicates Arab participation. The region sure as hell has a heavy concentration of whatever amount of conflict exists in our contemporary world.

In an ideal world we would have a global task force that intervenes when clear humanitarian violations take place, but we always end up valuing pitiful strategic gains over human lives.