Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[DGuller]

But we're really broke now.  Flat broke.

Just like we were in the early 1990's.  It's weird.  There was a huge ruckus about the debt in the early 1990's where we just couldn't to afford to spend any more.  Then it sorta went quite for a decade the debt was on longer a big problem even though it was now larger then the one in the 1990's.  Then we apparently were on the brink again around 2008.

Nothing surprising about that.  Both 1992 and 2008 followed the long periods of Republican presidencies.

[Razgovory]

Perhaps that's the reason, I dunno. 


I'm not saying we should intervene in Syria.  I am saying that "we don't have the money" while being supportive of the Iraq war is bullshit.

[DGuller]

Perhaps that's the reason, I dunno. 


I'm not saying we should intervene in Syria.  I am saying that "we don't have the money" while being supportive of the Iraq war is bullshit.

Are you implying that unsalvageable Republican voters have double standards when it comes to certain issues?

[Razgovory]

I'm not saying that, but I sure am thinking it very loudly.

[derspiess]

We didn't have the money then. 

We had enough to do it the way I wanted.  But again, Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not we should intervene in Syria.  You guys need to stop trying to play gotcha-- can't we debate the Syria thing on its own merits?

[KRonn]

Almost too late to act now, if the US or NATO decided to do so. Assad is going down. He's fled Damascus from what I read today. There's a full blown civil war. Much of the army is being forced to fight, with guns at their backs, like WW2 Soviet style penal battalions. That kind of thing can't last too long. Rebels have control of a lot of areas. I'm surprised actually because the Syrian military is pretty large.

As for comparing Syria to Libya, I think Libya was much easier. Libya had a much smaller military, it was easier to isolate the government and rebel forces. A much larger nation land wise but smaller population. But heck, given that the Syrian regime is in such trouble it'd probably be a lot easier to intervene now.

One biggie is that Syria has WMDs, and there's a lot of worry where those would wind up, whether there's intervention or not.

If the West intervenes, then would they wind up with some sort of occupation? What ever the case, intervention or not, I have to assume that extremist factions will be filing the governing void in Syria.

The Arab Spring is now ushering in those extremist factions that have been building up their power and support among the people for a long time.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm more concerned about Hizbollah spreading its influence than any of the local tribal yahoos, despite Syria's penchant for tribalism.

[jimmy olsen]

Rebels have taken all border crossings into Iraq!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world/middleeast/syria-border-with-iraq.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

[Razgovory]

We didn't have the money then. 

We had enough to do it the way I wanted.  But again, Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not we should intervene in Syria.  You guys need to stop trying to play gotcha-- can't we debate the Syria thing on its own merits?

Iraq serves to illustrate that claiming opposition to interaction on monetary is complete bullshit.  We had a deficit then, we have deficit now.  Didn't you oppose the Kosovo thingy as well.  I seem to recall you talking about that as your short "anti-war" phase.

[Sheilbh]

Believe me, I have no love for the Assad dynasty and on a certain level I am sorta cheering for the rebels. But whatever replaces the Assad regime is likely to be just as bad for us if not worse.  I'll be happy if I'm wrong on that.

You say this and earlier talked about the rebels hating you anyway.  I think this gets Syria wrong.

The problem with the Assad regime isn't that they hate Western powers, though they do; the problem with the Assad regime is their relationships with Iran, Hezbullah and, until recently, Hamas.  They projected Iranian influence far more widely in the Middle East.  They are a destabilising influence in the Levant.  In addition they provide a base for the Russians (rumours are that if Assad fails the Russians will offer the Greeks free money for a Med port).  The benefit from their fall isn't that an anti-American regime falls but that Iran's forward base in the Arab world, Hezbullah's hinterland and Russia's Med port closes down.

Given that Iran and Hezbullah have really lashed themselves to the regime it's almost impossible to see any rebels rebuilding those relationships.  So even if they hate you just as much it would almost certainly be better.  The worst case scenario (assuming Syria doesn't totally collapse) is an isolated nut like 90s Iraq or Libya.

Having said that the US would probably get far more popular support if they helped in the overthrow.  I think even the moral support so far will be noticed - unlike Libyans, I believe the Syrians have never asked for intervention as opposed to money and diplomatic backing.  Certainly in Libya the West's more popular because of intervention (similarly I saw an interview with the Tunisian PM who said he thought this was a new opportunity for US-Arab relations and that he'd never imagined the US would support Tunisia's revolution).  Even if the US doesn't intervene, if there's a Syrian state to negotiate with, I think the collapse of Assad presents a strategic opportunity that it would be mad to miss to influence and help Syria after the conflict.

Despite all of that, I agree with you that we shouldn't intervene.  I think it's too costly, too risky and quite possibly counter-productive.  In my view our goal should be to try and isolate the conflict as much as possible, to provide moral support (especially with the rebels on a roll) and to help in the aftermath.

Of course it's relevant.  It's a middle eastern Baathist dictarship.  In 2003 there were only two of those in the world!

I'm with derspiess.  I don't see the relevance at all, it look like you're just trying to make a political point.

The Arab Spring is now ushering in those extremist factions that have been building up their power and support among the people for a long time.

Where has this happened?

[Sheilbh]

Iraq serves to illustrate that claiming opposition to interaction on monetary is complete bullshit.  We had a deficit then, we have deficit now.  Didn't you oppose the Kosovo thingy as well.  I seem to recall you talking about that as your short "anti-war" phase.

Your deficit's far larger, your debt's far higher, the world economy's more choppy.  Those costs should be borne in mind when considering whether intervening's in your interest or not. 

[Razgovory]

Iraq serves to illustrate that claiming opposition to interaction on monetary is complete bullshit.  We had a deficit then, we have deficit now.  Didn't you oppose the Kosovo thingy as well.  I seem to recall you talking about that as your short "anti-war" phase.

Your deficit's far larger, your debt's far higher, the world economy's more choppy.  Those costs should be borne in mind when considering whether intervening's in your interest or not.

Yeah, yeah.  We heard this in the 1990's as well.  It only happens when a Democrat is President.  Suddenly we become hawkish on the debt and defict.  Suddenly the US is to arrogant in it's foreign policy, etc.  It's bullshit.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, yeah.  We heard this in the 1990's as well.  It only happens when a Democrat is President.  Suddenly we become hawkish on the debt and defict.  Suddenly the US is to arrogant in it's foreign policy, etc.  It's bullshit.

Hawkishness on debt and deficit is around because, from my understanding, they're as high as they've been in peacetime.  Now I think that's justified and understandable given the financial crisis, and that you've got some fiscal flexibility.  The deficit and debt are exceptionally large because of the circumstances but that's why they need to be brought down in the medium term.  To just brush it aside and say it's not a consideration is nonsense. 

I don't think DS is saying the US is too arrogant, if anything the opposite.

Frankly I think you're the one making partisan, bullshit points.

[Razgovory]

Well, we aren't actually in peace time.  The US is still fighting in Afghanistan.  My point is I've seen this routine before. It was the highest it had ever been in peacetime in 1994 as well.  The debt was even higher in 2003.  My points very well be partisan, but they aren't bullshit.  The debt and deficit talk only comes up when certain people are in the White House.  It's simply an excuse.  There are good reason not to intervene in Syria, but if you were onboard in 2003 debt shouldn't be one of them.

[Sheilbh]

You're wrong on the debt.  It wasn't higher in 2003.

My point is simply that things change.  I think one can easily look at a deficit of 2-3% with a national debt of 70% and a benign global economic situation and say that the cost of a war isn't so high that it should outweigh potential benefits.  The same person can equally easily look at a deficit of 8-9%, with a national debt over 100% and a very shaky global economic situation and decide the cost's too high. 

That's assuming the same Baathist dictatorship's involved.  I think that matters too, as does the context.

You're not making a point so much as just reading the worst into anyone's motives, which is what makes it so partisan.  The point itself is bullshit because you're saying if you're willing to ignore the deficit in a conflict when your party's in the White House then you have to be willing to ignore it forever regardless of the circumstances.  That is obvious nonsense.