April 12, 2017 - 6 minutes
An all around unpleasant situation
So disclaimer to anything, I have no feelings of like for any of the forces acting in Syria, even the Russians at this point. All forces have unpleasant things about them, but what is important is there are different things about each side that makes them unpleasant.
- Secular state, someone can be a non muslim and not be punished for it. Which puts Syria ahead of almost every other nation in the region, and way in front of the nations propped up by the United States.
- Strong socialist party within the Syrian government, of which Assad himself is a member of.
- The Syrian government is fighting ISIS, which is supposedly the United State’s #1 priority. So naturally Syria should be our friend in this conflict.
- The Syrian government is a stabilizing force in the region, replacing the current regime would only destabilize things further, leading to a worse government (ISIS) rising up. The Syrian government should be supported on this point alone.
- In the event that they win the war, it would be a strike back against the global NATO hegemoney over the world and the middle east.
- The Syrian government prior to the conflict attacked it’s own people in a peaceful protest. This is unexcusable.
- It at one point used chemical weapons, however they gave up their chemical weapons stockpile, and has not used them since.
- An overall poor record of human rights (however still better than most of it’s neighbors)
- None really.
- Use chemical weapons on civilians.
- ISIS puppet, many of them were part of the Al Nusra Front, which was a close affiliate of ISIS.
- Islamist extremists, the Salafi branch of Islam which is what Saudi Arabia espouses. It is somehow worse than the other interpretations of Islam. So expect no religious freedom from these guys.
- Horrid violation of international law, there are many videos online of these people doing horrid things. I once saw a video of a Syrian rebel cutting out the heart of a pilot fighting for the government and ate it.
- If they win it adds to the NATO hegemony over the world
Basically, they are bad for most of the same reasons ISIS is bad, since they are basically the same group/ideology.
Now there are the Kurds and ISIS, I do not think the Kurds are all that relevant in this fight, and I have no strong feelings about them. ISIS is bad for obvious reasons, that I do not need to state.
Now of all forces mentioned, it seems to me that the Syrian government is not at all ideal, but should remain in power for the sake of stability and secularism. No other force in the conflict seems to have that trait about them.
The recent cruise missle strike
I quesion this one heavily. The missle strike’s justification was supposedly that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. This seems a dubious claim at best. It should be noted that President Trump owns stock in companies that make the same missles fired. And it is known that these missles cost millions of dollars a piece, so the case can be made that the president had financial interests in doing this strike. This is why it was important for him to let go of his business interests before becoming president, however he refused to do this. So that said …
Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons again?
When the United States drew the red line about chemical weapons; the only way Syria prevented being invaded was to surrender it’s chemical weapon stockpile. In this case the Russian government also gave it’s word that the Syrian government fully gave them up. You would think that if the Syrian government turned around and did this again that it would not make them look good to the Russians, who are their biggest backer. So using chemical weapons would not be economically/militarily beneficial at all, especially against civilians who were the primary victims of the attack. If the Syrian government did this, then they get very little benefit and a whole bunch of cost, and condemnation from the international community. So it makes no real sense for them to of done it, in the mean time …
The United States has been looking for a reason to get involved in the war since it’s beginning. The ruling class of the United States cannot resist the urge to topple yet another government to continue it’s economy/conquest which is based on war and the creation of weapons, in a world that increasingly does not use them. The United States sees this 4 sided conflict as a great economic oppurtunity, and as such it will find any reason to get involved (even though it claims to hate all sides). The current justification was that civilians and children are being saved by the intervention, however they do not care when civilians in Yemen are being slautered by our Saudi allies, at much greater numbers than the Syrian government ever has. This is ignoring what Saudi Arabia does to it’s own people. So anyone saying we should get involved to oppose those who slaughter children, let us stand together to boycott Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and yes the United States. However most of the pundits appear to only consider it bad when an opposing force to the United States does this; rather than standing principle.
With that being said, it makes no real sense why the Syrian government would do something so monstrously risky and gain very little benefit. In the mean time the United States desperately wants to get in on this war. I think it is more likely that the United States (the CIA) did the actual chemical attack, and this gives the United States a supposed justification in going into the war. The United States has far more interest in the Syrian government using chemical weapons, than the Syrian government itself does. The United States has done this before when it bombed it’s own ship so it could declare war on Spain. Not to mention all the acts the CIA has done during the cold war. Due to the economics of the situation the United States has far more to gain through Syrian use of chemical weapons than does the Syrian government. It makes sense that the United States would of staged this, and is using a man getting drug off an airplane as a side story to distract people from these affairs. It also distracts people from the United States’s recent aggression against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.