SYRIA: What do the neighbors think of potential Western strikes

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
Lebanon

“
Security is tightening and there is a mood of growing worry and angst in the streets of Beirut, where many are convinced that strikes on Damascus will further destabilize the country that, aside from Syria, has suffered the most as a result of the war.
“
Politicians who support al-Assad say the proposed airstrikes are reminiscent of the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
“
(One politician who supports the rebels) said strikes would not deal a fatal blow to the Syrian regime: "The action will not be decisive, particularly in the absence of international consensus on strike or on the post-strike era."
“
An anti-Assad member of the Lebanese parliament, said the ramifications of airstrikes would probably depend on the reaction of Hezbollah.
“
One in six people in Lebanon is now a Syrian refugee, and tensions between Lebanese and Syrians are rising.
“
But despite these deep divisions, many Lebanese are united in the belief that potential strikes are little more than a superficial show of power from an American president backed into a corner by his "red line" declaration about chemical weapons use in Syria.

Israel
“
Thousands of scared residents in cities across Israel made their way to gas-mask distribution centers amid fears that potential airstrikes on Syria could result in retaliatory chemical attacks.
“
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the country is ready for any scenario and is warning Syria that he will respond with force if Israel is attacked.

Jordan

“
There are fears that Jordan's involvement in the civil war could lead to attacks on its own soil.
“
The vast majority of the country's citizens are Sunni and sympathize with the plight of the Syrian rebels trying to topple the country's Alawite regime.

Iraq
“
In Iraq, where at least 30,000 Syrian refugees fled over a five-day period in late August, the government is on high alert.
“
Iraq's Shiite-dominated government is wary that the Sunni Islamists who've been involved in fighting al-Assad's regime are targeting the government in Baghdad.

Saudi Arabia

“
While many observers believe the Saudis tacitly approve of the strikes, the government has not come out publicly in support of Western military intervention.

Egypt
“
Tamarrod spokesman said: "The U.S. is an imperial state that has destroyed Iraq and aims to destroy Syria and intervene in Egyptian affairs." Another spokesman, "demanded the closure of the Suez Canal" if there is any naval movement toward Syria.

Yemen
“
In Yemen, a country living under the constant specter of American drone strikes targeting al Qaeda militants, it is nearly impossible to find anyone who supports Western bombs in Syria, despite mixed attitudes about the Assad regime.
“
While many Yemenis would like to see al-Assad deposed, others are worried about the Sunni extremist groups that could replace him if he went
http://margaretkatheryn.newsvine.co...-neighbors-think-of-potential-western-strikes
 
I guess you see it as cheaper to just allow dictators to gas men women and children to death so they can stay in power.


your moral compass is broken
 
What Obama has stated is that proposed strikes on Syria will be limited and severely circumscribed. This is what he recently said of Syria on the PBS Newshour:

And although what’s happened there is tragic, and although I have called for Assad to leave and make sure that we got a transitional government that could be inclusive in Syria, what I’ve also concluded is that direct military engagement, involvement in the civil war in Syria, would not help the situation on the ground.
Click to expand...

And yet the American military proxy of Qatar (home to the U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters) has spent billions to fund mercenaries in Syria.
Saudi money funds the Slafist militia Jabhat al-Nusra, which is allied with with al-Qaeda in Iraq. Jabhat al-Nusra in turn recruits jihadis from Iraq and Libya and elsewhere, furnishing the Syrian resistance with even more fighters.
And the U.S. funds both the Qatari and Saudi regimes. The CIA runs a network of covert arms dealers that has been working overtime to funnel weapons into Syria via routes thought Turkey and Jordan.
In short, despite Obama's public protestations that he will not use military means to oust Assad, a well funded and organized covert war is already underway that seeks regime change.
The naval and air operations that Obama is proposing to initiate against Syria would complement these covert efforts, not replace them.[/B
]
Further, the Obama administration has already decided to provide small arms directly to the rebels in Syria. Syrian rebel groups have already asked for a no-fly zone and rockets with which to combat the Syrian army, and these may be forthcoming with the initiation of direct hostilities between the U.S. and Syria.
In other words, this war is in a phase of escalation. Get used to that word -- escalation -- in relation to the American war in Syria.
We may be debating the meaning of that word for some time to come, just as we did during the Vietnam War.



The Syrian Authorization does not restrict U.S. military operations to only Tomahawk missile attacks, nor does it preclude the use of U.S. troops in Syria.
It should be pointed out that while the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution clearly restricted U.S. military operations to southeat Asia, and primarily to Vietnam, the proposed Syrian Authorization authorizes operations planet-wide.
The President could, using this authorization, invade Lebanon just like Nixon invaded Cambodia, if he could assert that WMDs or WMD delivery systems (rockets or rocket parts) were flowing through Lebanon into Syria. Since the Syrian civil war has already spilled over into Lebanon, this is not hard to imagine.

The Syrian Authorization could be used by the President to justify an attack on Iran, as the Iranians are supporting the Assad regime, and are therefore supporting the use of WMDs. Furthermore, the Syrian Authorization could clearly be used to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, the arming of Syrian rebels with advanced weaponry, a naval blockade of Syria, a naval blockade of Iran, or an expanded covert war against Iran.

The proposed Syrian Authorization of Military Force is a dream come true for the neocons, as it could be used to justify a gradual morphing of the Syrian civil war into a total war aginst Iran.
If the Assad regime engages in retaliation against Israel or Saudi Arabia in response to American attacks, either of those countries could in turn attack Iran, thus pulling the U.S. into a very large regional war that very well might go nuclear.
And even if a larger region-wide war does not result, geopolitical tensions in the area are bound to increase, which could precipitously increase the price of oil and jeopardize the American economy.

Given the very significant downsides of authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria, Congress would be wise to deny President Obama his own Gulf of Tonkin Resolution....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ss-for-His-Very-Own-Gulf-of-Tonkin-Resolution

time to start thinking outside a limited Congressional authorization, to another more expansive authorization/escalation
 
The goal of the proposed action in Syria is not to deal a fatal blow to the regime.
 
Jarod said:
The goal of the proposed action in Syria is not to deal a fatal blow to the regime.
Click to expand...
It is long term, de-stabilze, degrade, and arm up the rebels.

Why do this if not regime change? It can't be said so now - as that backtracks on Obama's statements (yet again), and might very well jeapoardize the authorization.

Once an authorization is passed -who knows where it goes?
Take the "no fly" UN authorization for Libya -which quickly did become regime change
 
It is to STOP the areas dictators from gassing their people to control them.



why cant you accept that?
 
annata said:
It is long term, de-stabilze, degrade, and arm up the rebels.

Why do this if not regime change? It can't be said so now - as that backtracks on Obama's statements (yet again), and might very well jeapoardize the authorization.

Once an authorization is passed -who knows where it goes?
Take the "no fly" UN authorization for Libya -which quickly did become regime change
Click to expand...

The reason to do this is to show the world that the use of chemical weapons will be more harmful to your cause than beneficial.
 
evince said:
It is to STOP the areas dictators from gassing their people to control them.
why cant you accept that?
Click to expand...
because you only see the superficial, and will not dig any further.

I've posted it's about Iranian WMD's /regime change by dgrading Assad, and covert training by the CIA.

Not wanting to argue with you, but you consistently miss, or bypass these points.
 
evince said:
that shows what John Mccain wants
Click to expand...

The CIA runs a network of covert arms dealers that has been working overtime to funnel weapons into Syria via routes thought Turkey and Jordan.
In short, despite Obama's public protestations that he will not use military means to oust Assad, a well funded and organized covert war is already underway that seeks regime change.
The naval and air operations that Obama is proposing to initiate against Syria would complement these covert efforts, not replace them.


Since the Syrian civil war has already spilled over into Lebanon, this is not hard to imagine.(bombings)

The Syrian Authorization could be used by the President to justify an attack on Iran, as the Iranians are supporting the Assad regime, and are therefore supporting the use of WMDs. Furthermore, the Syrian Authorization could clearly be used to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, the arming of Syrian rebels with advanced weaponry, a naval blockade of Syria, a naval blockade of Iran, or an expanded covert war against Iran.

The proposed Syrian Authorization of Military Force is a dream come true for the neocons, as it could be used to justify a gradual morphing of the Syrian civil war into a total war aginst Iran.
If the Assad regime engages in retaliation against Israel or Saudi Arabia in response to American attacks, either of those countries could in turn attack Iran, thus pulling the U.S. into a very large regional war that very well might go nuclear.
And even if a larger region-wide war does not result, geopolitical tensions in the area are bound to increase

Kerry argued that inaction could embolden Iran or nonstate terrorists to strike those Middle East allies, and further encourage Iran and North Korea to press ahead with their nuclear programs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top