Latest Arab Spring thread
 

Syrian protesters burn Iranian, Russian and Chinese flags...



...while a massive barrier of armed cops watch from half a block away. It's a little electrifying.

It's rumored that Syria has a quota on killing protesters - not a minimum quota, but a maximum, so that they don't kill too many in one day and make too much news.

I saw another video where a protester gets half his face shot off, but I didn't link it. But that's what these people are risking, out in the streets.

...no American flag-burning?


Now I'm a little hurt.

We're either getting some love here or American flags are not generally available...

...and annoyed.

Always the first to run out. :D

Seriously, though, no. Right now, those protestors are not our* enemies, they do not hate us*, and actually appreciate the gestures of support we* are making. Setting aside the 5% who are dogmatically anti-western religious nutters, the vast majority of the rebellious Arabs want human rights, honest law, and a government answerable to the people, i.e. Western values.

Played correctly, this is an opportunity on a scale not seen since the velvet revolution of 1989.

ETA * our, us and we are in reference to The West rather than the USA specifically.

One of our teachers leaves at the end of this term for a teaching job in Abu Dhabi.
I know the UAE is one of the most stable countries in the region, politically and economically, but it is still ruled as an absolute monarchy - or a federation of them.

I'm not sure I would want the risk. But then the rewards are great and Westerners get out unscathed when there is trouble after all.

I don't think Indonesia can be compared to countries in what is officially the Middle East as things are pretty relaxed here and this is by far the easiest place I have ever lived o/s (or maybe I'm just more relaxed), but it's weird here seeing the travel advisories-we got another one on Friday from the embassy-advising Australians to seriously reconsider their need to travel to Indonesia as intelligence has uncovered hard evidence of groups that engage in blowing up things in a number of parts of the country. In spite of this, people are just going about their business. A couple of weeks ago on the day of the Royal Wedding when a package was found outside the British Embassy, we got an email which said, package found, traffic jams likely, avoid area and that's about as much as anyone seems to say or worry about. At this stage, it seems like an alternate reality.

As long as we don't export American style Democracy Obama will keep our hands clean. This is Arab style Democracy don't cha know.... Isn't it great!

Wow. That just goes to prove that merc can turn any thread into an anti-Obama swipe.

One trick pony likes to do his one trick.

File this under Duh: Iran reportedly aiding Syrian crackdown

The people of Syria are the victims of the geopolitics of the Region.

Unlike Egypt where the US and the west had influence as a result of strong ties to Mubarak and the military leaders and unlike Libya where Ghaddifi has no friends among the Arab League.

In addition to its relationship with Iran (and by proxy, Hamas and Hezbollah), Syria also has its ally Russia on the UN Security Council, assuring a veto of any UN mandate to respond to the massacres.

Yemen might be sliding into a civil war. A tribal leader has started shooting back at the government troops.

Yemen 2011 is a lot like Somalia 1989. And it is just on the other side of the mouth of the Red Sea. :(

Do they have anything the US or its allies wants? If not they'll get about as much help from us as Syria. :/

Off the top of my head, they assert control over the Gulf of Aden. In conjunction with Somalia and Djibouti. Which is kind of a big deal.

It might not be "what can they offer us" but a more Pakistan style "there could potentially be serious damage to the US if Yemen falls into a civil war". Yemen is a terroristic hotspot right behind Af-Pak.

Agreed.

Both strategic issues and the different geo-political issues for each country in the Middle East that come into play, as much or more than "what they can offer us."

So what you are saying is that the US will be calling for the leaderships ouster or resignation and then bombing soon after they decline?
Color me skeptical.

That is not what I said at all.

We have been bombing al Queda targets in Yemen for the last two years, but that is not really issue regarding the current crisis over the removal of Saleh.

The US strategic interest as well as the geo-politics in Yemen should guide our further actions. Yemen is the poorest and probably the most tribal country in the region, where we have little influence.

Our strategic interest is that the popular movement in Yemen not become just a front for al Queda, which many indicators suggest is the case.

As to removing Saleh, it is in the US interest to let Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council lead in that effort in a way that does not threaten the region. It is in their interest that al Queda does not gain a greater foothold, something they dont want to see either.

Sand?

exactly - all they'll get from the US is a lot of talk.

See post #19 for confirmation.

Or we could be more aggresive in forcing the president of Yemen out of office and strengthen al Queda, which already has considerable influence in the "populist" movement, in which the US is not very popular. :rolleyes:

I find it rather interesting that the situation in Libya has gotten virtually ZERO press as of late.

Zero press means fewer massacres taking place. A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).

While at the same time more goverrnment leaders defect (5 more generals yesterday) and more pressure is put on Ghaddafi to leave, including from the president of South Africa who was in Libya yesterday.

All with the US in a background role which is in everyone's best interest.

Not necessarily. One would hope so, but less coverage doesn't necessarily equal fewer massacres.
I dunno - A stalemate doesn't seem ideal to anyone.
didn't see that anywhere.
Agreed

No press also means very important and necessary actions are taking place among Libya's future leaders. They are learning what is necessary to create a democratic type government. And to respect legitimate authority.

Many Libya rebel units had no leadership. Or had multiple leaders who gave contradictory orders. The previous supreme military commander (a former Libyan general and American college professor) has been replaced by a civilian equivalent of a Secretary of Defense.

As stated earlier, a long and tortuous rebellion is one the best things that could happen to the rebels. So that necessary respect and structures so important for 'planning for the peace' can be established and appreciated. So that so many factions that once only had one thing in common (a hate for Kaddafi), will now have respect for their current allies and once former adversaries.

A year long war could be a good thing for long term Libyan health. Those important accomplishments (ie nation building) would not be front page stories.

or they might be pissed at those who may have offered assistance "behind closed doors" they didn't deliver... Who knows. certainly none of us. Fun postulating though.

It has been interesting following the national conservative response to US policy and actions in Libya.

For the most part, Obama has either done too little (the McCain,William Kristol camp) and the US should always take the lead with a greater military presence rather than ceding it to NATO and we should be bombing more aggressively or we should never have gotten into Libya in the first place (the Scarborough, George Will camp).

The few who support the policy (Romney camp) do so but question Obama's leadership. Evidently, leadership requires greater personal visibility rather than a more nuanced behind the scenes approach by influencing both the military and political response by remaining in the background and letting NATO lead the military response and the Arab League and African Union lead the political response.

Maybe they will form a unified Pirate Navy, then they may have our ships.

:lol: Really? How'd that work out for Rawanda and subsequently The Congo in the years afterwards?

Putting aside the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion of Libya or the Arab spring uprisings, we knew about massacres in Rwanda and the Congo because of the press.

Try to stay on topic, please.

Actually it was quite unreported in the press. And the follow on massacres in the Congo hardly made the press at all. Don't try to deflect your failure to keep the facts straight.

Sure, if you say so and if you believe it is relevant to the Arab spring uprisings.

It is relevant to your false statement: "Zero press means fewer massacres taking place."

Only if you want to be argumentative, given that my response was directed at Libya.

You have evidence that more massacres have taken place in Libya in recent days?

Do you have evidence that no massacres took place in Libya in recent days?

I'M KIDDING!

Do you have evidence that you're kidding?

I do. I saw it in the press! ;)

It matters not, the statement was utterly false.

Actually few true massacres have taken place in Libya. Troops firing on selected crowds and killing them hardly amounts to a massacre, an atrocity certainly. Unlike when the UN failed to act in Bosnia and a true massacre did occur. NATO had to step in without a UN mandate and get the job done when the EU should have dealt with the whole issue independently.

I can't find a definition for the threshold for massacre.

We've long had the discussion of calling out someone to prove the negative...

And I FUCKIN' SAID SO in the post.
















Yes I know you were being sorta humorous as well...

Umm...I was listening to and watching the news reports of the massacres in Rwanda pretty much as they were happening. There was lots of news coverage.


[eta] Just saw on tonight's news an estimated 40 people have been massacred by government troops in Syria.

I was being completely humorous.

Syria continues to spiral downward and a soft EU-sponsored draft resolution at the UN this week that simply condemned the actions of the government was opposed by Russia and China before even coming to a vote.

I dont know a reasonable way to prevent further violence unless Russia or Iran pressures Assad.

napalm?

Me too. Lots of it.
Maybe it depends on which news sources people were watching. And if you think your news sources weren't reporting Rwanda properly, maybe you should broaden your news sources.

Tha's just today right? Because I see running totals in the several hundreds, maybe over a thousand, for the total in the recent troubles, for Syria alone.

Yes, that was one attack on a town.

As a point of reference, the Boston Massacre was when the Redcoats killed 5 colonists. That was enough to be called a massacre in America, but the British thought it was a riot.

They still call it the Kent State Massacre. 4 people.

So I'm not sure where the line between "true massacre" and "just some killins'" is. ;)

('true massacre' is a registered trademark of TheMercenary.)

Shit! does that mean we have to send him royalties every time we use that term? :rolleyes:

Yep! Crud. Now I owe.

Send me a bill. :bolt:

@ Dana and Zen -

I use a multitude of news sources... I really haven't been seeing that much in the press.
It seems like a 30 sec blip here and there on occasion. not exactly a top news story like
Wiener's wiener, Sara Palin's (waste of air/space/time/ bus tour or Ahhhnold's ugly mistress.

But they don't count being as they were drug induced, anti-American, socialist agitators. :eek:

And probably zero-liability voters as well.

And what did you read about the follow on massacres in the Congo? Did that make the news too?

Well that would be a bit of a reach. But the killing of a few protesters everyday in the current unrest of the Middle East could hardly be compared to what happened to the Jews in WWll, the Cambodians in the Killing Fields, or the 100,000 people hacked to death in 100 days in Rawanda, hell, it can't even come close to what happened in Serbia as the UN sat on their asses as men, women and children were slaughtered. And how about the events in Iraq where Saddam gassed the Kurds?!?!? or how about the Armenians, if you want to go back a bit further. Where was the press???? No press, but the events still happened....None of that compares to anything that has happened anywhere in the current unrest in the Middle East. Nothing. Yea, so far, there have been no "true massacres"... well unless you have something else to put up.

The fact that you are evidently so consumed with proving me wrong over what is simply a matter of semantics (in this post) rather than focusing on the issue of the Arab spring uprisings is really quite amusing.

Meaningless, but amusing nonetheless. :D

That is silly. You have been proven to have lied and you pass it off as a matter of "semantics".... sorry Refulx, that dog won't hunt.

Just another outbreak of Mercenary Madness to hit a discussion. Fortunately, it is not contagious and reasonable people are immune to it. ;)

Cool. Compare and Contrast Libya and Syria. How's that working out fer ya? Cite and explain... Thanks.

I have explained that several times.

There was a UN mandate for military action in Libya along with support of the Arab League. The UN wont even adopt a resolution condemning Syria, because Russia and China will veto it and the Arab League would oppose any resolution or action as well.

Libya has no allies among the other Arab powers. Syria has Iran.

A military action against Syria could have backlash against Israel, led by Hezballah and Hamas, both under the Syrian/Iranian influence.

A simple understanding of the geopolitics of the region.

So far failed. Supported by a well known terrorist organization.

Citation please. Proves how inept the UN is as an organization we should stop throwing taxpayer dollars into......

citation please.

Citation?