But, you have a point, 1.5 billion, an easy number to contend with for the geniuses. Looks like the European solution is surrender by sublimation (I recall somewhere the bloody Hindu - Muslim riots, must be the temporary
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
Well, well he was not a muslim religious nutjob which was my point. Whether he was "almost as bad" is a matter of perspective. He was certainly better than what Iran has now. Dont you agree?!Diogenes wrote: He was a socialist. Almost as bad. As for them being religious nut jobs, much of the Muslim world was relatively sane during this period.
Of course! That was my point! The problem was that the Shah had successfully destroyed the middle class in his country. When the middle class is destroyed, you always have a powderkeg. The mob is easily rallied against the ruling classes without a middle class in its way. When the middle class is weak, they look the other way. They have their own problems to take care of.Diogenes wrote: They just wanted power and that was the only excuse they could find to seize upon. The average Iranian did not really give a crap, it was the small determined minority among them that agitated the overthrow of the Shah and the institutionalization of Theocratic Islam.
You can see that in any revolution that leads to a ideologically motivated totalitarian regime. It always is the same pattern. It is usually preceded by some event that drains and/or breaks the middle class.Diogenes wrote: We have seen over and over again, that in a Muslim country, the "moderate" Muslims will stand around wringing their hands and saying "Oh Dear", while the radicals implement actual Islam, and go about killing heretics and infidels. "Heretic" is here defined as anyone who opposes the Islamic based killings they are committing.
Let me see: Iran Contra, not sure this can be called "good".Diogenes wrote: When we fail in our foreign politics, it is usually the result of having a Democrat running foreign policy, or from listening to the "nation building" component of our Ivy League (bleeding heart liberal socialist) trained Diplomatic corps. Reagan's foreign policy was mostly pretty good. He made a few blunders, but he more than made up for them with his overall performance.
So what? At least he was secular and not a religious nutjob. You can't have it both ways.Diogenes wrote: Like I said, he was a D@mn socialist, and addressing the relative moderateness of 1950s Iran, I have to compare them to Gremlins.
Those refugees are not fleeing from Assad, but from ISIS! And ISIS is there because the US supported the rebels against Assad in Syria. All the Syrians I know here that used to be against Assad prefer him over ISIS. So yeah, great win there! Sometimes I wonder whether the US is doing this on purpose to destabilize the region and harm Europe with the waves of refugees. It would explain why the US is not taking any relevant numbers of Syrians after the mess they have caused there.ladajo wrote: Well, uh-huh. And how's that working out with the million refugees and growing issue? Like maybe Europe (and the US) should have headed the whole thing off at the pass and taken out Assad up front?
Uh...no. They are fleeing for all sorts of reasons, most of which involve random parties trying to kill them, which includes Assad.skipjack wrote:Those refugees are not fleeing from Assad, but from ISIS!
Much of this mess is because of the US interfering in something that should have been left alone. Assad is not our problem, never was. As I said, most of the Syrians I know (quite a few have come to Detroit which has a large Arab minority) were originally in favor of the rebellion. They have changed their mind now and are backing Assad again. Naturally Russia will try to increase its influence in the region by helping out Assad. That is not very different from what the US tried in Iraq. We will see how that works for them. Probably not well.ladajo wrote:Uh...no. They are fleeing for all sorts of reasons, most of which involve random parties trying to kill them, which includes Assad.skipjack wrote:Those refugees are not fleeing from Assad, but from ISIS!
It is a great misconception to think that IS is the only fight going on in the Greater Syria War(GSW). It looks an awful lot like Bosnia, or Lybia, or Afghanistan, or other places where central authority collapsed and it became a free for all grab for dominance. Even if it was just in your 'local' area.
I am thinking that you are fairly thin on understanding, or even be aware of, the complex dynamics in play.
Strangely enough, in the GSW, the moderate Kurds are the key. But right now the dynamics are artificially limiting any ability to leverage that.
It is, in my humble opinion, the only stop the train could make. And currently, I don't see that stop on the schedule, nor do I see a viable means to get it added.
The optimist in me would like to think that things can be influence to re-create that option, but right now, I think the stop was missed.
Soon to accelerate the train, will be the combination of Russian escalation and the influx of Iranian Instability Warfare $$$ on both sides of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
You think it looks like an out of control mess now. Just wait. Won't it be funny if the Russians defacto annex Syria...
Before this is said and done, and probably within the decade, maybe within five years, someone is going to get nuked. But first there will be some general mayhem beyond what you are seeing now.
If you are wondering what the tell is going to be, it is Lebanon. When you see the big crack, right before the Lebanese implosion, I recommend you encourage friends and family in the area to beat feet. Once Lebanon implodes, things are going to go downhill exponentially fast.
See what sticking your European head in the sand accomplishes? Multiple global scale conflicts, deaths of millions, destruction of multiple societies.
Diplomacy has become the art of avoidance. It did not used to be. Avoidance is not a viable long term strategy. History is primarily built on that lesson and the bodies of its victims. Sigh.
Well, actually the U.S. tried to leave it alone, but was dragged into action (again) by who? And, in fact, the trying to leave it alone allowed it to morph out of control as the "hands off" policy held the day. That all went away when pressures mounted due to Assad beginning and prosecuting a strong indiscriminate murder campaign of his nation's citizens. This in turn cause much hand wringing and looking to the U.S. for someone to do something. ISIS came after the fact, and as a direct result of "hands off". Again, if quick, determined, and focused action had occured right up front, and removed Assad from the argument, things would look significantly different today. Now that everyone has a head of steam, their is again "no stops on that train".skipjack wrote:Much of this mess is because of the US interfering in something that should have been left alone.
Yes, but please note that it is two major factions, as well as several other minor factions, and in the two majors, there are significant numbers of subdivisions that also do not agree with anyone.hanelyp wrote:Regarding 1.5 Billion Muslims, I note 2 points:
- they are deeply divided into 2 factions almost as inclined to shoot at each other as to shoot at the rest of us.
- I expect a great many are muslim as the religion of least resistance. Prune enough of the worst and those remaining have a hope of moderating.
Now, I am curious. When was that and by who? Assad has been there all the time. It has been the same for years. The great migration of refugees only started after the rebellion and especially when ISIS came in.ladajo wrote:Well, actually the U.S. tried to leave it alone, but was dragged into action (again) by who?skipjack wrote:Much of this mess is because of the US interfering in something that should have been left alone.
Why would the Iranian troops do that? Right now they are interested in fighting against ISIS. Going against Israel is a distraction. I think that having foreign troops in their country will be a big problem for Syria more than anyone else. It is really hard to get rid of them, once they are there. Then you have foreign interests in your country and that is not good either. Assad had little choice but to take their help against ISIS. But I dont think he is really happy about it (he would be stupid if he was).choff wrote:Now that the Russians are in Syria, Iranian troops are apparently flocking in to join them in combating ISIS. This could be problematic for the Russians if those same Iranian troops decided to launch attacks on Israel. The situation in the ME could not be more FUBAR.(I could be wrong, our great leaders might outdo themselves yet.)
Whatever...ladajo wrote:Oh, almost forgot. I don't need to talk to your Syrian buddies. I was just on the ground in Southern Turkey a couple of weeks ago for a couple of weeks. Plenty of Syrians running around. Well to be fair, mostly not running around, mostly hanging out on the ground next to their piles of stuff watching others walk west looking for boats. Almost two million of them in Turkey right now. Plenty to talk to of all flavors, and decidedly more relevant to the discussion than your "buddies".