What Does This Mean for US-Iran relations and the Middle East?

[JackD201]

this in a few hours ago. Whoah.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

 

[mep]

It's crazy in Syria right now. Iran has been in Syria for sometime now because they can't afford for Assad to lose. Hezbollah which is Iran's proxy has been there since the beginning. Russia and Iran keep the Syrian army in weapons. Iraq is fighting both sides of the war as they have fighters who support Assad and fighters supporting the rebels. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war again and it's all about Sunni vs. Shia. The Syrian conflict has the ability to suck in Turkey, Jordan, and Israel in addition to the other actors that are already involved with the potential to spread across the entire middle east.

 

[Mosin]

Who is Iran backing in Syria?

Assad and Hezbollah.

Yep, and we are trying to pick the lesser of four evils because at least two factions are after Assad. Any choice we make is an insane one. Both sides of the aisle are wrong, in my opinion, but I have no idea what role the US should play. My gut feeling is that we should stay as far from the whole sorted affair as possible.

 

[rockitman]

this in a few hours ago. Whoah.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

perfect, fight Iran w/o invading their country...reminds me of a song..

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

 

[Mosin]

The scary part is that by involving ourselves, we are fighting a proxy war not only with Iran, but with Russia.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

True enough but this guy has some different credentials and lineage.

Curious they [the conservatives] were confident enough to let him run.

Whatever, sure seems like the people spoke and the same revolution eg. student protests seen in the rest of the Middle East is still alive in Iran.

There's your sign. No "moderates" ran for president of Iran. That would never have been allowed. Will this guy's education be helpful? Who knows, but this sure doesn't open up any great opportunity for bringing Iran into the mainstream.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The scary part is that by involving ourselves, we are fighting a proxy war not only with Iran, but with Russia.

Which is one of several good reasons why the US should never become involved in such a crisis. Is it a horrible human tragedy? Yes, it is. Would it be an even greater human tragedy if it escalated into a full-scale, multi-national war? Of course. This is what the UN exists for; is it nearly impossible for the UN to act in such tragedies? Yes, it is, because unless the world's powers agree that action, the UN cannot act. Thank God.

Tim

 

[Mosin]

Which is one of several good reasons why the US should never become involved in such a crisis. Is it a horrible human tragedy? Yes, it is. Would it be an even greater human tragedy if it escalated into a full-scale, multi-national war? Of course. This is what the UN exists for; is it nearly impossible for the UN to act in such tragedies? Yes, it is, because unless the world's powers agree that action, the UN cannot act. Thank God.

Tim

Tim,

You and I are in agreement here. Whatever the UN does will probably be counter to our best interest, though.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Tim,

You and I are in agreement here. Whatever the UN does will probably be counter to our best interest, though.

The UN only knows how to do one thing: waste money and fund anti-Israeli conferences and committees. Otherwise it is an antiquated and outdated organization with today's ability to instantly communicate between leaders. Thank Cisco for that

 

[MylesBAstor]

Yep, and we are trying to pick the lesser of four evils because at least two factions are after Assad. Any choice we make is an insane one. Both sides of the aisle are wrong, in my opinion, but I have no idea what role the US should play. My gut feeling is that we should stay as far from the whole sorted affair as possible.

I think that whichever side we chose, we lose. Not unlike our early intervention in Afghanistan where we helped the same Jihadists fight the Russians. Russia hasn't forgotten.

 

[mep]

I agree Mark, and also, we have the same "election council", called the republican and democratic party...only party members, voted by the party, get to "represent" the party....

Tom-There is some truth to what you are saying. Third parties have zero luck having someone being elected President. You have to be either a Democrat or a Republican. I wish we had a third party called the "American" party and their only belief was doing what is in the best interest of the all the American people, and not select groups.

 

[mep]

We don't need Democrats and Republicans, we just need Americans to do what is right for Americans and not what is right for their party.

 

[Mosin]

I think that whichever side we chose, we lose. Not unlike our early intervention in Afghanistan where we helped the same Jihadists fight the Russians. Russia hasn't forgotten.

We don't need Democrats and Republicans, we just need Americans to do what is right for Americans and not what is right for their party.

Exactly and exactly.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

You and I are in agreement here. Whatever the UN does will probably be counter to our best interest, though.

I'm not sure we do agree, actually. What the UN will probably do is nothing of consequence. The UN is a systemically dysfunctional organization, with the dysfunction cooked into its design. UN action requires agreement among rivals of radically different values and ideologies, and so it almost never acts, and big things almost never get done. As tragic as that sometimes is, and as much as I wish UN nations all agreed on what genocide is and banded together to stop it wherever it occurs, I think the lack of action is preferable, and will cause much less death and suffering than would wars between the big rivals of radically different values and ideologies. Isolated genocide is much less destructive than world war.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

I'm not sure we do agree, actually. What the UN will probably do is nothing of consequence. The UN is a systemically dysfunctional organization, with the dysfunction cooked into its design. UN action requires agreement among rivals of radically different values and ideologies, and so it almost never acts, and big things almost never get done. As tragic as that sometimes is, and as much as I wish UN nations all agreed on what genocide is and banded together to stop it wherever it occurs, I think the lack of action is preferable, and will cause much less death and suffering than would wars between the big rivals of radically different values and ideologies. Isolated genocide is much less destructive than world war.

Tim

The UN does have a definition of genocide:

The International Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948 set the United Nations definition of genocide:

General Assembly Resolution 260A (III) Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The problem with the UN is that only decisions of the Security Council are binding; and a decision only passes if the five permanent members of the Security Council agree unanimously. In this case, Russia and China are unlikely to vote to intervene in Syria, if only because their governments believe in the the right of the state to kill internal dissenters.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The UN does have a definition of genocide:



The problem with the UN is that only decisions of the Security Council are binding; and a decision only passes if the five permanent members of the Security Council agree unanimously. In this case, Russia and China are unlikely to vote to intervene in Syria, if only because their governments believe in the the right of the state to kill internal dissenters.

Semantics. Clearly having a definition of genocide and getting the members of the Security Council to agree when it is occurring are two very diffferent things. So we agree. But I don't think it's a problem. If the UN only required a simple majority to launch mutli-lateral military actions, the wars that would have resulted from such actions would have killed far more than the genocides, under any definition, we have seen since WWII.

This is a case of choosing between the lesser of two evils when the lesser is a huge, ugly, repugnant, and profoundly evil. It's not pretty. It's not noble. It's just way better than world war.

Tim

 

[mep]

Some people are apparently worth more than some other people with regards to whether to go to war for them or not. It mainly depends on how much oil the country they live in has. If you have no oil or precious resources, you don't rise very high on the list of countries worth fighting for.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

some people are apparently worth more than some other people with regards to whether to go to war for them or not. It mainly depends on how much oil the country they live in has. If you have no oil or precious resources, you don't rise very high on the list of countries worth fighting for.

bingo!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Some people are apparently worth more than some other people with regards to whether to go to war for them or not. It mainly depends on how much oil the country they live in has. If you have no oil or precious resources, you don't rise very high on the list of countries worth fighting for.

Yep. It's called "national interests" and it isn't pretty either. Our interest in ME oil has put us in nearly as many unholy alliances that have come back to bite us in the ass in the last 20 years as our blind anti-communism did in the 40 that came before.

Tim

 

[Mosin]

I'm not sure we do agree, actually. What the UN will probably do is nothing of consequence. The UN is a systemically dysfunctional organization, with the dysfunction cooked into its design. UN action requires agreement among rivals of radically different values and ideologies, and so it almost never acts, and big things almost never get done. As tragic as that sometimes is, and as much as I wish UN nations all agreed on what genocide is and banded together to stop it wherever it occurs, I think the lack of action is preferable, and will cause much less death and suffering than would wars between the big rivals of radically different values and ideologies. Isolated genocide is much less destructive than world war.

Tim

We agree 100% on this particular topic.

Some people are apparently worth more than some other people with regards to whether to go to war for them or not. It mainly depends on how much oil the country they live in has. If you have no oil or precious resources, you don't rise very high on the list of countries worth fighting for.

I would cite the 500,000 people murdered in Rwanda as an example. It seems the world noticed by accident months after the fact.