U.S. Senator McCain calls for U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria

[Colin Yai]

Hard one to call here one way or the other ,in no way do I support the slaughter of Civilians we have all seen on TV, THE BIG QUESTION is what will Syria become if the Assad regime is toppled? it is no secret that Sunni Islamist Ayman Al Zawahri Al Qaeda leader supports the "revolution" 100% ,this problem has more questions than Answers for sure , personally I do not think the Americans should "GO IT ALONE" but as another poster correctly said involve the UN or even the Arab league with something more substantial than just wringing their hands and talking about the problem

Edited March 7, 2012 by Colin Yai

[endure]

Hard one to call here one way or the other ,in no way do I support the slaughter of Civilians we have all seen on TV, THE BIG QUESTION is what will Syria become if the Assad regime is toppled? it is no secret that Sunni Islamist Ayman Al Zawahri Al Qaeda leader supports the "revolution" 100% ,this problem has more questions than Answers for sure , personally I do not think the Americans should "GO IT ALONE" but as another poster correctly said involve the UN or even the Arab league with something more substantial than just wringing their hands and talking about the problem

It's this eternal hand wringing as to which power base we ought to support that's landed us in the shit that we're in at the moment. How about if, 50 years ago, we'd supported genuine democracy in the Middle East rather than the bunch of thugs (Pahlavi, Mubarak, Assad) that we did support? Then there'd be no need for an 'Arab Spring' because the Arabs wouldn't have spent the last 50 years ground under the heel of dictators that WE installed or supported.

PS Pahlavi wasn't an Arab dictator he was a Persian dictator but the west still put him on his throne.

Edited March 7, 2012 by endure

[necronx99]

Hard one to call here one way or the other ,in no way do I support the slaughter of Civilians we have all seen on TV, THE BIG QUESTION is what will Syria become if the Assad regime is toppled? it is no secret that Sunni Islamist Ayman Al Zawahri Al Qaeda leader supports the "revolution" 100% ,this problem has more questions than Answers for sure , personally I do not think the Americans should "GO IT ALONE" but as another poster correctly said involve the UN or even the Arab league with something more substantial than just wringing their hands and talking about the problem

It's this eternal hand wringing as to which power base we ought to support that's landed us in the shit that we're in at the moment. How about if, 50 years ago, we'd supported genuine democracy in the Middle East rather than the bunch of thugs (Pahlavi, Mubarak, Assad) that we did support? Then there'd be no need for an 'Arab Spring' because the Arabs wouldn't have spent the last 50 years ground under the heel of dictators that WE installed or supported.

PS Pahlavi wasn't an Arab dictator he was a Persian dictator but the west still put him on his throne.

They would have voted themselves back into medieval slavery at the very first election.

[Ulysses G.]

That is for sure.

[endure]

Hard one to call here one way or the other ,in no way do I support the slaughter of Civilians we have all seen on TV, THE BIG QUESTION is what will Syria become if the Assad regime is toppled? it is no secret that Sunni Islamist Ayman Al Zawahri Al Qaeda leader supports the "revolution" 100% ,this problem has more questions than Answers for sure , personally I do not think the Americans should "GO IT ALONE" but as another poster correctly said involve the UN or even the Arab league with something more substantial than just wringing their hands and talking about the problem

It's this eternal hand wringing as to which power base we ought to support that's landed us in the shit that we're in at the moment. How about if, 50 years ago, we'd supported genuine democracy in the Middle East rather than the bunch of thugs (Pahlavi, Mubarak, Assad) that we did support? Then there'd be no need for an 'Arab Spring' because the Arabs wouldn't have spent the last 50 years ground under the heel of dictators that WE installed or supported.

PS Pahlavi wasn't an Arab dictator he was a Persian dictator but the west still put him on his throne.

They would have voted themselves back into medieval slavery at the very first election.

Really? 50 years ago? Islam was so significant then?

You really ought to read a little more about Persia/Iran before the Revolution before you make remarks like that. They had an elected government with Prime Minister Mossadegh. The mistake Mossadegh made was to expect to be able to claim the oil that lay under Persia's soil for the benefit of the Persian nation. MI6 together with the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Persian government and imposed an Emperor on them. Imagine that! The beacons of civilisation - the UK and the USA - foisting an autocratic Emperor on an oil-bearing nation. What a vile thing we did to them. No wonder they regard us as Big and Little Satan.

[Ulysses G.]

From what I have read about Iranian history, not a single Iranian voted for Mosaddeq, but rather the sole confidence vote of the same Parliament that he later dissolved to avoid their vote of no confidence. He maintained martial law, curbed freedom of the media, speech and assembly, resorted to torture and illegal arrests. He was no saint.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

I'll offer this piece, which comes out strongly against intervention. It is broader than just the Syrian situation as it applies to Libya, Egypt and Iraq for that matter. My apologies if it is viewed off topic, but I think the arguments it contained are central to western policy with regards to the middle east.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/02/saving-muslims-from-themselves.html

After September 11 the reasonable thing to do would have been to take steps to save ourselves from Islamic terror, instead we went on a crusade to save Muslims from themselves. The latest stop on that crusade is Syria, where the foreign policy experts responsible for decades of horrifying misjudgements tell us that we are duty bound to save the Syrian people from their dictator.

[Colin Yai]

I'll offer this piece, which comes out strongly against intervention. It is broader than just the Syrian situation as it applies to Libya, Egypt and Iraq for that matter. My apologies if it is viewed off topic, but I think the arguments it contained are central to western policy with regards to the middle east.

http://sultanknish.b...themselves.html

After September 11 the reasonable thing to do would have been to take steps to save ourselves from Islamic terror, instead we went on a crusade to save Muslims from themselves. The latest stop on that crusade is Syria, where the foreign policy experts responsible for decades of horrifying misjudgements tell us that we are duty bound to save the Syrian people from their dictator.

Your message Dan is oh so simple , The link bears it out without a doubt ,but due to political correctness that radical Islam is the victim and not the aggressor few will take any notice , what is in store for Syria when the Assad regime is finally toppled is any ones guess ,however IMHO a shift to full blown Sharia law just has to be a step backward into the stone age .

[coma]

Slow down there old Macca. You are an old cowboy aren't you? US airstrikes in Syria could be the mother of all 'foriegn policy' fu5k ups by a US administration. If it needs to be done let Syria's Arab neighbours airforces deal with it. Airstrikes from the West will just breed even more distain for the US and the greater Western world.

[Colin Yai]

Slow down there old Macca. You are an old cowboy aren't you? US airstrikes in Syria could be the mother of all 'foriegn policy' fu5k ups by a US administration. If it needs to be done let Syria's Arab neighbours airforces deal with it. Airstrikes from the West will just breed even more distain for the US and the greater Western world.

Old Macca ?Old cowboy, just who are you referring to?,maybe you if you want a direct answer to to your post you should cut out the guesswork and just come out in plain Anglo Saxon English to just who you are addressing the post to!

[endure]

From what I have read about Iranian history, not a single Iranian voted for Mosaddeq, but rather the sole confidence vote of the same Parliament that he later dissolved to avoid their vote of no confidence. He maintained martial law, curbed freedom of the media, speech and assembly, resorted to torture and illegal arrests. He was no saint.

Remind us again. How many Iranians (apart from MI6 and the CIA) voted for EMPEROR Reza Pahlavi? Remind us whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? I find it astounding that a US citizen who I believe was in the Marine Corps is defending the imposition of an unelected EMPEROR on a democratic country.

[Ulysses G.]

If your point is that they were both scumbags, I agree with you, but the Shah was our scumbag and there is something to be said for that. In the Middle East things are not black and white.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

As stated, I can't see any benefit in taking out Syria, unless that is a necessary precursor for taking out Iran. However from what I've read the Chinese have just airlifted thousands of their citizens out of Syria, I think they are expecting escalation.

[chuckd]

From what I have read about Iranian history, not a single Iranian voted for Mosaddeq, but rather the sole confidence vote of the same Parliament that he later dissolved to avoid their vote of no confidence. He maintained martial law, curbed freedom of the media, speech and assembly, resorted to torture and illegal arrests. He was no saint.

Remind us again. How many Iranians (apart from MI6 and the CIA) voted for EMPEROR Reza Pahlavi? Remind us whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? I find it astounding that a US citizen who I believe was in the Marine Corps is defending the imposition of an unelected EMPEROR on a democratic country.

Having spent five years working and living in Iran, I can assure you there were many, many people that were happy during the Shah's rule.

The economy was good, citizens I encountered in my daily life were happy and pleasant and there was a growing middle class. I did not live in a walled compound with armed guards but lived in an apartment on a major thoroughfare and did my daily shopping and living on the local economy. My job called me to travel to Isfahan and Kermanshah on a fairly regular basis and can relate the same experiences when there, although Kermanshah was somewhat less prosperous than Tehran or Isfahan. The Kurds were active in Kermanshah but there were no government efforts to exterminate them nor were there regular battles between the two groups.

You ask whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? In brief...Jimmy Carter.

Carter visited Tehran on 12/31/77 and convinced the Shah to ease his control of the press. The Shah agreed to this request and the rest is history. Carter threw the Shah under a bus when things got heated later in 1978 and Khomeini returned from exile in France in January 1979 to take power.

The secret police (SAVAK) were a terrible force to be reckoned with under the Shah. The same group morphed into SAVAMA under the Islamic Republic and continued operating in the same brutal fashion and still do to this day. Many people claim getting rid of SAVAK was the reason for revolution. This is patently nonsense since the new government simply changed the name and kept the same players. Nothing changed except the killings became public under the guise of Sharia.

The currency exchange rate the day I left Tehran was 70.5 Rials to 1 USD. Today the current black market rate is around 23,000 Rials to 1 USD. Not exactly a great improvement.

[endure]

If

From what I have read about Iranian history, not a single Iranian voted for Mosaddeq, but rather the sole confidence vote of the same Parliament that he later dissolved to avoid their vote of no confidence. He maintained martial law, curbed freedom of the media, speech and assembly, resorted to torture and illegal arrests. He was no saint.

Remind us again. How many Iranians (apart from MI6 and the CIA) voted for EMPEROR Reza Pahlavi? Remind us whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? I find it astounding that a US citizen who I believe was in the Marine Corps is defending the imposition of an unelected EMPEROR on a democratic country.

Having spent five years working and living in Iran, I can assure you there were many, many people that were happy during the Shah's rule.

The economy was good, citizens I encountered in my daily life were happy and pleasant and there was a growing middle class. I did not live in a walled compound with armed guards but lived in an apartment on a major thoroughfare and did my daily shopping and living on the local economy. My job called me to travel to Isfahan and Kermanshah on a fairly regular basis and can relate the same experiences when there, although Kermanshah was somewhat less prosperous than Tehran or Isfahan. The Kurds were active in Kermanshah but there were no government efforts to exterminate them nor were there regular battles between the two groups.

You ask whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? In brief...Jimmy Carter.

Carter visited Tehran on 12/31/77 and convinced the Shah to ease his control of the press. The Shah agreed to this request and the rest is history. Carter threw the Shah under a bus when things got heated later in 1978 and Khomeini returned from exile in France in January 1979 to take power.

The secret police (SAVAK) were a terrible force to be reckoned with under the Shah. The same group morphed into SAVAMA under the Islamic Republic and continued operating in the same brutal fashion and still do to this day. Many people claim getting rid of SAVAK was the reason for revolution. This is patently nonsense since the new government simply changed the name and kept the same players. Nothing changed except the killings became public under the guise of Sharia.

The currency exchange rate the day I left Tehran was 70.5 Rials to 1 USD. Today the current black market rate is around 23,000 Rials to 1 USD. Not exactly a great improvement.

If democracy is good enough for the US and the UK why isn't it good enough for Iran? As for trying to blame Jimmy Carter for the repression of Pahlavi - you must be joking. You are, aren't you?

[Scott]

The thread is beginning to move a little further away from the OP, which is about US Senator McCain calling for airstrikes on Syria. Discussion of the connection between Syria and Iran, and the implications of involvement by Iran in any action against Syria, is on-topic. Discussions which center solely on Iran, however, are more appropriate to other threads currently running.

[Morch]

It's a difficult one this, Libya has shown how all we achieved was replacing a secular tyrant with Islamic militants proceeding to settle scores with whoever it wants to. Syria would likely go the same way. What I would approve of is replacing any Islamic theocracy with a puppet government because at least we get some return for our investment, hence I would not approve of causing regime change in Syria, unless of course it is seen as a natural precursor to dealing similarly with Iran.

is it really worth risking a major war that could involve China and Russia?

China and Russia going to war with the US/NATO over Syria? Seems far fetched.

It's not the risk of "major war", rather the risk of getting into another prolonged mess (with the added possibility of a post-Assad regime being worse).

[Morch]

The middle eastern countries need to step in, not the US. If the US does take action it will be viewed as the great satan flexing its muscles again, the global policeman, blah, blah. Whereas, if fellow middle eastern countries (except Israel) step in there will be less of a backlash by the anti-US jihadists, etc. Also, there would be no ned to worry about Russia. But sabre rattling aside, most of those countries do not seem to be prepared to do anything.

Most of them can't even if they had the motivation.

A joint operation is out of their league (consider they couldn't get the failed observers mission).

[koheesti]

Hard one to call here one way or the other ,in no way do I support the slaughter of Civilians we have all seen on TV, THE BIG QUESTION is what will Syria become if the Assad regime is toppled? it is no secret that Sunni Islamist Ayman Al Zawahri Al Qaeda leader supports the "revolution" 100% ,this problem has more questions than Answers for sure , personally I do not think the Americans should "GO IT ALONE" but as another poster correctly said involve the UN or even the Arab league with something more substantial than just wringing their hands and talking about the problem

It's this eternal hand wringing as to which power base we ought to support that's landed us in the shit that we're in at the moment. How about if, 50 years ago, we'd supported genuine democracy in the Middle East rather than the bunch of thugs (Pahlavi, Mubarak, Assad) that we did support? Then there'd be no need for an 'Arab Spring' because the Arabs wouldn't have spent the last 50 years ground under the heel of dictators that WE installed or supported.

PS Pahlavi wasn't an Arab dictator he was a Persian dictator but the west still put him on his throne.

They would have voted themselves back into medieval slavery at the very first election.

Really? 50 years ago? Islam was so significant then?

You really ought to read a little more about Persia/Iran before the Revolution before you make remarks like that. They had an elected government with Prime Minister Mossadegh. The mistake Mossadegh made was to expect to be able to claim the oil that lay under Persia's soil for the benefit of the Persian nation. MI6 together with the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Persian government and imposed an Emperor on them. Imagine that! The beacons of civilisation - the UK and the USA - foisting an autocratic Emperor on an oil-bearing nation. What a vile thing we did to them. No wonder they regard us as Big and Little Satan.

Was this a case of the USA and UK footing the bill for the exploration and drilling of oil then Mossadegh saying, "thanks, now get out"? If so, he probably had it coming.

[koheesti]

Slow down there old Macca. You are an old cowboy aren't you? US airstrikes in Syria could be the mother of all 'foriegn policy' fu5k ups by a US administration. If it needs to be done let Syria's Arab neighbours airforces deal with it. Airstrikes from the West will just breed even more distain for the US and the greater Western world.

I agree, the Arabs should fix this among themselves. If only countries around the world could/would take care of their own misbehaving neighbors like that. Then the US, UK (along with Canada and Oz) wouldn't get dragged into these messes to act like World Police.

[Morch]

Although there are some exceptions, the general policy on US foreign affairs is to protect US interests overseas. Membership in groups such as NATO sometimes trumps this policy, however, in the case of Syria, the relationship between the US and Syria has been rather chilly for quite some time, so there are few US interests that would need protecting. The country is not likely to be a threat to US security in the short term.

Any administration that intervenes might have a problem justifying intervention, especially if it doesn't go well.

The main USA interest in Syria is that it has a rather large stockpile of weapons, some quite nasty, which might be up for grabs if the country collapses. This might not in itself be a direct threat to the USA, but will do nothing for future regional stability.

[Morch]

If

From what I have read about Iranian history, not a single Iranian voted for Mosaddeq, but rather the sole confidence vote of the same Parliament that he later dissolved to avoid their vote of no confidence. He maintained martial law, curbed freedom of the media, speech and assembly, resorted to torture and illegal arrests. He was no saint.

Remind us again. How many Iranians (apart from MI6 and the CIA) voted for EMPEROR Reza Pahlavi? Remind us whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? I find it astounding that a US citizen who I believe was in the Marine Corps is defending the imposition of an unelected EMPEROR on a democratic country.

Having spent five years working and living in Iran, I can assure you there were many, many people that were happy during the Shah's rule.

The economy was good, citizens I encountered in my daily life were happy and pleasant and there was a growing middle class. I did not live in a walled compound with armed guards but lived in an apartment on a major thoroughfare and did my daily shopping and living on the local economy. My job called me to travel to Isfahan and Kermanshah on a fairly regular basis and can relate the same experiences when there, although Kermanshah was somewhat less prosperous than Tehran or Isfahan. The Kurds were active in Kermanshah but there were no government efforts to exterminate them nor were there regular battles between the two groups.

You ask whose actions led to the Islamic Revolution? In brief...Jimmy Carter.

Carter visited Tehran on 12/31/77 and convinced the Shah to ease his control of the press. The Shah agreed to this request and the rest is history. Carter threw the Shah under a bus when things got heated later in 1978 and Khomeini returned from exile in France in January 1979 to take power.

The secret police (SAVAK) were a terrible force to be reckoned with under the Shah. The same group morphed into SAVAMA under the Islamic Republic and continued operating in the same brutal fashion and still do to this day. Many people claim getting rid of SAVAK was the reason for revolution. This is patently nonsense since the new government simply changed the name and kept the same players. Nothing changed except the killings became public under the guise of Sharia.

The currency exchange rate the day I left Tehran was 70.5 Rials to 1 USD. Today the current black market rate is around 23,000 Rials to 1 USD. Not exactly a great improvement.

If democracy is good enough for the US and the UK why isn't it good enough for Iran? As for trying to blame Jimmy Carter for the repression of Pahlavi - you must be joking. You are, aren't you?

Because democracy doesn't happen overnight. Most European countries (and subsequently the USA) took a long while to get it sort of working. Different culture, different history, different attitudes AND kinda new to the concept.

[Morch]

But Syria has all the roads and airspace needed for Iran. An Inconvenient Truth.

An inconvenient route more like.

Roads? Iraq is in the way, and anyhow - what would be the point of going by land via Syria?

Airspace? Current USA assets in the gulf much nearer, and if needed can go through anyway.

[endure]

Was this a case of the USA and UK footing the bill for the exploration and drilling of oil then Mossadegh saying, "thanks, now get out"? If so, he probably had it coming.

No it was a case of the British being totally unwilling to enter any kind of negotiation at all and instigating a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil. They didn't want a deal - they wanted to continue with complete control

[endure]

Because democracy doesn't happen overnight. Most European countries (and subsequently the USA) took a long while to get it sort of working. Different culture, different history, different attitudes AND kinda new to the concept.

They already had a democracy. They had a Parliament, A Prime Minister and a Constitutional Monarch. The UK and the US engineered a coup which saw the Prime Minister under house arrest for the rest of his life and the Constitutional Monarch turned back into an Emperor.

[Pedzie]

The thread is beginning to move a little further away from the OP, which is about US Senator McCain calling for airstrikes on Syria. Discussion of the connection between Syria and Iran, and the implications of involvement by Iran in any action against Syria, is on-topic. Discussions which center solely on Iran, however, are more appropriate to other threads currently running.

Senator McCain knows the horrors of war 1st hand, I find it very disturbing that him and other Republicans are calling for airstrikes. It would only plunge the region into war that would quickly escalate out of control involving other countries.

[necronx99]

The thread is beginning to move a little further away from the OP, which is about US Senator McCain calling for airstrikes on Syria. Discussion of the connection between Syria and Iran, and the implications of involvement by Iran in any action against Syria, is on-topic. Discussions which center solely on Iran, however, are more appropriate to other threads currently running.

Senator McCain knows the horrors of war 1st hand, I find it very disturbing that him and other Republicans are calling for airstrikes. It would only plunge the region into war that would quickly escalate out of control involving other countries.

He also knows the horrors of unemployment, both of workers in his state and his own, if he does not support the military complex he loses office. If munition sales are down and private security is looking at layoffs, support for military intervention will follow.

Do you have any idea of how much he would suffer personally if he lost the right to legally inside trade and legislate in the interests of companies of which he is a shareholder?

You all talk of US actions in the framework of a democratic nation. The US is nothing of the sort. The US govt. is nothing more than an extension of the corporate PR divisions and acts accordingly. That goes equally for both parties.

[Ulysses G.]

Because democracy doesn't happen overnight. Most European countries (and subsequently the USA) took a long while to get it sort of working. Different culture, different history, different attitudes AND kinda new to the concept.

They already had a democracy. They had a Parliament, A Prime Minister and a Constitutional Monarch. The UK and the US engineered a coup which saw the Prime Minister under house arrest for the rest of his life and the Constitutional Monarch turned back into an Emperor.

That Prime Minister dissolved Parliament to avoid their vote of no confidence. He maintained martial law, curbed freedom of the media, speech and assembly, resorted to torture and illegal arrests and stole the election - not much of a "democracy".

[Ulysses G.]

The thread is beginning to move a little further away from the OP, which is about US Senator McCain calling for airstrikes on Syria. Discussion of the connection between Syria and Iran, and the implications of involvement by Iran in any action against Syria, is on-topic. Discussions which center solely on Iran, however, are more appropriate to other threads currently running.

Senator McCain knows the horrors of war 1st hand, I find it very disturbing that him and other Republicans are calling for airstrikes. It would only plunge the region into war that would quickly escalate out of control involving other countries.

You may be right, but it is heartbreaking to sit back and watch Assad murder thousands of his own people for wanting to be free. McCain could be right too. It is not an easy call either way.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

An off-topic post about Iran has been deleted.

Either stay on the topic as advised or suspensions will be issued.