Syria and SanctionsFollow

Probably not, I think its more or less of a diplomatic precursor to launching a couple of Tomahawk Missles or looking for some 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in a small scale invasion along with Israel.



Edited, Fri Oct 28 12:58:21 2005 by RedjedBlue

Trade sanctions are a very effective way to encourage a behavior when the guys in power care about their citizens. Unfortunately that situation doesn't exist in any nation on this planet.

Why can't those people take over and make a government that is more friendly to the rest of the world? It's supposed to put the pressure on Syrian leadership, but we'll just have to see if it works.

It's not our fault that their governments are fu[/u]cking up. What are we supposed to do? Airlift candy and daisies?

What do you know about Syria or any other place in that area? Let me see you live under a military dictatorship where 25% of the population are feared into becoming agents, then spout that arrogant non-sense.... as if you freed the civilised world.

Was the population of USSR also against "freedom"?

Regimes like these collapse from whithin, but rarely as a result of a popular rebellion.

Read more, speak less, on issues you know nothing but stereotypes about.

The problem though is that historically, very few revolutions actually result in a democratic system being put in place, doubly so if the previous one was not democratic.

So insisting that they "rise up" and overthrow their opressive regime is quite unrealistic. More often, they "rise up" to support some new power who'll be just as oppressive as the last one.

While I agree that sanctions of the same sort the UN imposed on Iraq are of questionable value, by far the most successful method of changing a regime from oppressive to "free" (or at least more free) is via political pressure and economic incentive. Most of the democracies that exist in the world today were the result of that sort of action. It's slow. It's gradual. But it does work.

In the cases of revolt or revolution, interstingly enough, you're more likely to lead to success (if we judge success by where someone lands on a scale with "opressive" on one end and "free" on the other) with direct intervention from an outside nation then from an internal process. Many colonial nations broke away and formed democracies (the US being one), but in all cases, the nations they were breaking away from were already pretty far along on the "freedom scale" to start with. They didn't become democratic as a result. They simply took advantage of the opportunity to further ideas that were already present.

I can't honestly think of a single nation in which an oppressive dictatorship was overturned via purely internal revolution and replaced by a democracy. Hmmm... Maybe the French Revolution, but even that occured after a long process of gradual changes. The final push was violent (and not a smooth transition to democracy in any case), but it was in progress for some time. It was more about opposition to the specific rule of the king then some broad governmental change.


Not advocating a specific course of action in this case. Just pointing out that internal revolts aren't usually the right course either...

Reply to what you say? WHat did you say? That their freedom is "apparently" not worth the fight (I presume not worth it for them) .... I take that as offensive.

So why don't you start with the "intelligent discourse" so we can start from there?

My mother is Syrian, and I hold the Syrian citizenship, in addition to the American citizenship. I have been to Syria on vacation (3 months a year for the past 25 years), and have lived there for 2 years. I am very involved in Syrian/Arab/Islamic politics, and I am active in at least 8 political forums and newsletters by the opposition.

The issue at hand here is:

1-What gives the West the right to change/apply pressure on any nation in the world? Because we are "the best"? For someone who has a bit of both worlds, almost every western initiative involving any Arab nation is smeared with Orientalist arrogance.

"Syria is isolated in the world!!" "Syria has to change it's attitude!" Who the hell is Rice or Bush or Blair, or any of these people to judge and/or initiate any western-imposed change on Syria, or any other Arab nation for that matter? Unless that Arab nation was involved in attacking that specific country.

Let's review Syria's political history:

1-1982, Syrian authorities have wiped out an Islamic insurgence (the way Bush & Co. would only dream about doing) in the Province of Hama, and several other provinces. I'm not saying that was "right", but at least it confirms with the current "scarecrow" western governments are using.

2-U.S.A and France have drowned in the Lebanese quagmire starting with the lebanese civil war in 1975, Syria was rushed, by a formal invitation from the "christian" lebanese government, AND moreso by the American Government in AL-Taif accords, to rush in and end this state of civil war. And that was what Syria did, and succeeded in doing. Sure there were many violations and politically motivated assassinations, but that's another issue.

3-Syria is a secular government afterall, and has shown considerable cooperation with the American intelligence post-Sep11th to capture many "Qaedaists".

4-Syria has participated through it's Iranian connection in freeing at least 2 American hostages from Iran in the turbulent days of the 80s, right when every nation's efforts have failed.

5-Syria is not a country of some bearded thugs in deserts. It's normal to see mini-skirted chicks and bfs/gfs .... and thats not a "western influence". Syria is one of the oldest established nations in the world. And some of the earliest remains of civilization have been found there. The first alphabet was invented there, and St.Paul has started his journey from Damascus.

6-Syria has sent 50 000 soldiers to help in Desert Storm, when numerous Arab countries have declined, in 1991. Keep in mind that both countries were ruled by the same party at that point.

If I were a layman on the street, my first question would be: Who the **** is this Hariri guy? Why are we punishing a whole country for some has-been washed-up politician ?(who was accused of corruption numerous times).

Let's not fool ourselves here, This is not about "democracy" in Syria, anymore than it was about democracy in Iraq. If anyone had any knowledge of the way politics worked in D.C, you'd know that apart from personal interests (and sometimes National interests by the decent few) it's highly unlikely that these influential characters in Washington would send troops to die and squander taxpayers' money for "freeing" yet another country most Americans can't place on the map. And even if they intended to, what part of "it's none of your business!!" don't they get?

The whole situation is frustrating. It is a copy of what happened in Iraq:

1-Get the cowards in the Un to impose sanctions. Nobody asks why, or the validity of such practice.

2-Country never gets out of these sanctions no matter what the UN people say afterwards (remember Blix and Ritter?).

3-Country detriorates to Pre-History health and education standards.

4-Country is so weakened it is ready for a Yankee invasion.

5-Invasion happens, outcries in the world are stiffled by rabid rhetoric of "patriotism" and "western supremacy".

6- >>>> ? <<<<

Come on ....

The syrian government and leadership are corrupt and should be changed no doubt. But that is the responsibility of SYRIANS. Unless a direct Syrian involvement is proven with attacking US or EU interests, it is none of our business. Syria is not ne wto democracy, between the years 1946 and 1963, there was a parliamentary secular democracy. Syrians are capable of change, and they aren't waiting for a cowboy to shepherd them into the "civilized world" ....

I think we both agree it is the responsibility of the people to change their own government. No matter how hard - or even how suicidal - the road is, if it is not travelled, it is because the people looked at the road, and chose not to take it.

However, from your first reply I cannot help but be lead to the opposite conclusion. When you reply: "Regimes like these collapse from whithin, but rarely as a result of a popular rebellion." and "Let me see you live under a military dictatorship where 25% of the population are feared into becoming agents".

I make no claim that I would take action - and I think only someone who has been in the real situation will know if, deep down, they can summon that kind of personal courage. And I just happen not to live in such a country; instead I live in one that is heading in that direction. Someday Syria may well pass the US on a list compiled by human rights groups of the "most free" nations. I hope it is because Syria has risen greatly, and not that my nation has fallen.

You gave a great list of exactly what the US and/or the UN have tried and how miserably it has failed. I would love to hear exactly what the USA should do for Syria.

I'd like to continue the discussion, but it's become apparent we aren't even having the same conversation. I don't particularly recall using the term "raghead" anywhere in my writing, nor am I wont to do so. (I prefer "camel fuc[b][/b]ker", but only where it's warranted - discussions of international policy aren't really the appropriate forum.)

While I was writing fairly tongue in cheek, I was attempting to address your stated concerns. You wanted to know where the West got off insinuating itself in Syria's regional politics. The answer lies in the fact that everybody's actions affect everyone else, and the West has guns and money to spare. I don't really care if you like the answer I gave. It's what I see as being the root cause of current affairs.

Spinning your dislike of my reply as me being racist is, to put it mildly, boring. At the very least you should have accused me of calling for the slaughter of Syrian babies, or perhaps you could have claimed I wanted all Muslim peoples wiped off the face of the christian God's green earth. If you're going to sling meaningless slurs you have a duty to at least make them interesting.

Wing .... once again you fail to make an objective point pertaining to the issue at hand.

Your first golden response pretty much was: "We own the guns .... we are able to make your civilization go in dust and glow in the dark, and we'll eat porkchops for Allah" ...

And you didn't get much further.

Ok...

And then you deny being a biased anti-Arab, by saying "it was tongue in-cheek, I never mentioned raghead, but I prefer ************* and pick something more interesting to accuse me of .... etc etc etc".

Let me see, I'd like to hear you call a Jew a "Shylock" and then making remarks about how "cancerous" Jews infiltrate the media.

OR

Call a black person a "******", and make remarks aboyt how Africa never had an influential and long-lasting civilization.

THEN get away with saying that it was just tongue-in-cheek :)

I understand that the general mood is to bash Arabs and muslims.

But -you idiot- if you want to do that, do it on a separate thread you start, to observe how beautiful your own typing and flawless jejune junk looks on Explorer. But for the love of God, we're discussing a serious issue here, so beat it.

Ok, now back to the issue.

I think that the Syrians have been moving more rapidly in the past few years. And that they have formed a considerable (and benign) force that the regime feels it should negotiate with. What I'm afraid of here, is for the US government to be pressing behind all these precursor-deliberations, to hijack the chance from an internal opposition to take course. Because afterall, a popular movement is unpredictable, and might be dangerous for US interests in the region. And that's why it has always preferred to deal with puppets and/or dictators that owe their "thrones" to the CIA's immaculate surveillance.

I think, that given the chance, as in, if the US slows down a bit, before destroying yet another nation, that something good might come out of the situation, if Syria is left alone. But then again, that's the whole point, never leave someone to "rest", and keep on the pressure until that government either yields to unbelievable demands (like becoming US' policeman on its occupation's borders), OR becomes more radicalized, giving a reason for more direct attacks.

Sad really, but let's observe and see what the coming weeks/months have in store.

Edited, Sat Nov 5 12:54:13 2005 by GregoryTheWatcher