Back to the topic of Syria. We are the world M.F. police! Let's get our troops in there! If we invaded Iraq for fake WMD, we must get attack Syria for real WMD. Who cares which side used sarin? Who cares if the FSA is now supplanted by radicals. Let's just attack Syria, and spend 10-15 years "nationbuilding". Drones over Syria forever, for ever. That's what makes sense to me.
Well I'd of course agree..but Israel does that already...Drones thing over Syria...Well I'm not sure of that...but I'd bet my bottom dollar they do..Not in any defended air corridoors of course...Seems ok to do it over Beirut another soveriegn nation so pretty much prepared to think they do do this there too.
Premise one is iffy. As has been pointed out, making certain chemical weapons is not an insurmountable task. However, having the proper delivery systems for maximum efficiency are harder to come by than the chemical weapons themselves. Premise two, I don't agree with. Russia and also China have been fighting long and hard to prevent intervention in Syria. I am of the impression that the Russian have/had more in mind then simply embarrassing the Americans. The question is what are they protecting or hiding. Syria has long been a good military client state of the Soviet Union/Russia, the Russians would likely want to see that continue. Possibly the Russians are more involved in Syria and the Syrian Civil War they would have use believe, or the Russians are more deeply involved in Syria's chemical weapons production. Any way you slice it, Putin's embarrassing the United States appears to be "sauce for the goose" or "icing on the cake." A secondary task or possibly an unexpected development, but I doubt it was the main Russian intention.
Now, apply to this the logic of Murphy's law and you'll end-up with a disaster. A chemical attack may happen everywhere. Resources required to prepare a chemical version of 911 are much lower than that for the airborne variation. The only way to prevent the future attacks is to stop an increasing US military interventionism which produces a large number of desperate persons willing to retaliate at any cost.
Far too simplistic. Radicalized Islam would never be satisfied with even a complete withdrawal of US Military from the region and in the event it did happen they would merely show a greater interest in any state with a significant Muslim population where they would attempt to foster a true Sharia state. While this might sound desirable to us, "let them kill each other off as much as they want so long as they don't trouble us", this is far too short sighted. Since even most Muslim nations are not in favor of strict Sharia states the bloodshed could become prodigious in the extreme. As it does so the regions ability to provide oil will eventually degrade affecting all the nations relying upon such energy. Worse it would mean a massive influx of moderate Muslims to western nations as refugees. If the Radicalized Islamic faction were ever to gain ascendancy in their region of the world they would then begin to set their sights on other places where Muslims lived to continue the revolution. That means us who have been accepting Muslim refugees for decades now. I would prefer fighting them there where we still have allies, then here on our own.
The problem with leaving them to sort it out by themselves is ...... OIL and increasingly OIL MONEY by which I mean the huge amount of money accumulated over time by the "oil shehicks" that will be used to put pressure to fight a trend thar's very likely to wipe them out. The chance of radicalized Islam exporting to other areas exists in theory, but is not very realistic, the prospect of a radicalized islamist state that is both not at war with's it's neighbours, or in a permanent state of civil unrest, over doctrine and not so far fallen back to the middle ages as to be a no threat to a western country is small, Israel is a different story, they have no Turkey to act as bulkwark, so they will do all they can to get the west, and especially the USA, to have a presence in the area as a first line of defence. IMO the 3 reasons above (keep the oil flowing, oil money and Israel means staying out is not going to happen, IMHO the threat of "export" of radicalsm comes much further down the list of real motivations. One element that is often overlooked, is that "moslem" and "arab" are two very different things, IIRC Indonesia is the most populous moslem state followed by Turkey and Pakistan and neither is arab, islamist expansion would see the arabs become a small minority with lots of money, a very unsafe position.
The roots of revolt aren't in the faith (Islam) but in the immense pressure of oil companies through the Pentagon on the countries rich in oil or bordering on the routes of oil. In fact, extremely rich families who own the oil are generating terror which will once in the future end-up again on the streets of the US, killing Average Joes.
It is far from clear exactly what you are referring to as "US military interventionism" but there is a question as to whether or not such activities have meant a net increase in "desperate persons". I'm not sure what revolt you are referring to if it's the one in Syria then some of the roots arguably are. Garbage pure an simple garbage. True but then there are rich families who are working on just the opposite as well. Corruption, factionalism, and religious intolerance are arguably the driving forces.
I have to disagree : Obama is not the errand-boy of Rockefeller : not the oil companies are directing the US policy in the ME (if such a thing exist),but the ideologues,who are very hostile to the oil companies :these ideologues reappeared again in january 2009,coming from places as Fuller and Harvard (Massachusetts,I doubt that there is much difference between both),These new carpetbaggers arrived at Washington DC,unhindred by any knowledge and with the positive resolution not to let facts oppose the realisation of their theories (a hotch-potch of Wilsonian BS ,Marxism and hatred of America) : they are decided to transform the Arabs in good Democrats ,to transform Damascus in Silicon Valley and Baghdad in Detroit :they only succeeded to transform Detroit in Bagdad . That the Republican ideologues have succeeded to transform the US victory against Baghdad in a failure,will not make them to shrinking back.They stick at nothing .
Arguably they not only didn't turn "against Baghdad in a failure" they (admittedly accidently) turned it into a much larger victory than they planned or course they also succeed in discredting at least part of their philosophy in the process. Which may have been an even greater victory for the US as a whole.
After the victory of the military,the ideologues took over : instead of leaving,the army was forced to remain ,to make possible the dreams of these ideologues. results : after 10 years :4486 American dead,wast of billions of $,more than 100000 dead Iraqis. victims in 2013 : january :246 february :146 april :712 For the average Iraqi,the life was better under Saddam . And,all this,because some people were thinking that democracy deserved her place in Iraq. The truth was very simple : after victory;leave Iraq immediately,and to preserve/restore law and order,put an other Saddam in place,every body would be grateful.
The idealogy came in to play before the battle even started, the "no nation buidling" one was resoponsible for the military forces being much smaller than desired. It essentially meant that the US was going to be unable to police Iraq once the war had been won. Staying and buidling up the force to help bring law and order to Iraq (i.e. nation building) was the triumph of reason over idealogy. The period of chaos also allowed Al Quada to make the mistakes that pretty much destroyed their image and financial base in the Moslum world. For a period of time that was the case. It's not clear it is now and the possibilities for a brighter future are there. And others thought and for that matter still think that the Iraqis deserved a chance at establishing a democracy. There was also the potential blood bath that likely would have occured if the US left rapidly. That's not the truth that's your opinion and a very questionable one at that.
It essentially meant that the US was going to be unable to police Iraq once the war had been won. Thus,the logical conclusion was : to get out of Iraq immediately after the war ;
That assesement is incorrect in detail and overall. It remains to be seen what the long term effects of the nation building will be. Compared to the successful post WWII cases it was both short and rather inexpensive. Whether it will succeed in the long run is now up to the Iraqis.
It is like Vietnam. Once you commit your forces you must be prepared to commit yourselves fully with every resource and you have to present yourselves as the side whose efforts were ultimate. Otherwise morale would plummet and everyone especially home front would ask what we are doing there , what is our interest ? etc....
That's entirely true and that was the real intention behind the intervention: to weaken Iraq to that extent to turn it in a helpless vasal state. Before the intervention Iraq was one of the leading countries in the region. Invasion was a complete success.