> Firewing wrote:
> @Zarf
Islamistic nations are theocracies which trend to religious hate against other religions and minorities. That is because Saudi Arabia supports movements for islamistic revolutions and with the money come radical religious demands. In most cases the islamistic groups adept these demands to be more radical and an counter part to the ruling party/class/ethnic group. That is why the western world must contain islamistic movements.
In most of Africa rebels are fighting the government without direct western interventions. E. g. in Nigeria hundreds of christians were killed by islamists at christmas every year. Does the western world send forces to protect them? No.
That's it? So... there's absolutely no pragmatic foreign policy goal? Or are you saying that the religious hate against other religions and minorities results in an aggressive foreign policy? If it's the latter, then Syria is exhibiting that same aggressive foreign policy. If it's the former... then really, why is that enough to warrant foreign intervention?
> The Golan Heights were the key route for the Syrian armies in the Jom-Kippur war. If Israel would give the Golan back, it would be a sign of weakness. Israel is ruled by nationalists and radical jewish parties. They see the Golan heights with a diffrent view. For the nationalists it is a symbol for strength and glory of the Israeli people even when besieged from all sides. For the jewish radicals the Golan are already part of their sacred nation. Things are not that easy.
That still assumes a worldview in which Israel and Syria are mortal enemies. You don't need a pile of land as a show of strength against someone who is your friend... otherwise, I want to invade Canada to grab Ontario! Why? Shits and giggles.
> The Russian ship was not stoped by NATO ships, sorry for that. The cyprian administration of the port the ship entered discovered it with luck. They were not able to control the containers.
Fair enough.
> Deserters leave their lives forever if the rebellion fails. Many protestors switch to "normal" life outside the protests (which occur mostly on Fridays). A deserter is found as late as the next morning when it is discovered that he left his army unit. They have his name, adress, the names of his family...
I'll just post this and leave it at that. There's your number, fear of death be damned. That article's from today. 
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/uk-syria-defections-idUKTRE80C0ST20120113
> No perfect sources but it contains some information. I would suggest you read some books about modern russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia%E2%80%93Russia_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State
Russia "supports" other nations with weapons rather than money.
> China is the coming Great power #1 and so the world is its playground.
You're generalizing here... assuming that Syria (a country with little resources except for oil, and located on the wrong side of Africa to be the most efficient oil shipping route to China) would represent some important strategic interest to the point where China would want to actively clash with the US, Europe, Arab League, etc., on the issue? Yes, it probably represents at least some strategic interest. However, does it represent any more of an interest than any other oil nation which would better satisfy China's needs?
> Except of Tunesia the US had great influence in all other rebellions and revolutions. The egyptian army got billions of US aid and the US talked the generals to act against Mubarak. Back door diplomacy.
But the back door diplomacy occurred in all these rebellions... Syria included: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/obama-assad_n_930229.html
The military aid is only indirectly related to the rebellions, because the US has been aiding Egypt for years, so it's very likely the military wished to retain its pro-US stance... which also means even a "fundamentalist" state would either needs to work with the US or lose a huge portion of its military support.
So... does that mean the US has already intervened enough to make the rebellion work?
> Nobody uses nuclear weapons in wars. That is insane. Syria is close to the "holy land". Islamists would cry "crusaders" and the whole western world has great problems. Nothing is deeper in the regional minds than the crusades when barbaric europeans crushed the islamic world.
Remember, the US does not have a no first use doctrine. In addition, we're talking about a scenario in which one of the US' closest allies would be facing a land invasion... the threat of nuclear retaliation by the US is the only reason these countries don't produce nuclear weapons themselves (extended deterrence). Thus, unless the US were to use nuclear weapons, the credibility of its extended deterrence doctrine with other nations (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, NATO) would also be undermined... encouraging multiple scenarios of regional nuclear proliferation which the United States does not want.
I'm not saying we would nuke their army on day 1, by any means. However, the only reasons nations haven't used nuclear weapons is either due to mutually assured destruction or the fact that overwhelming conventional force was enough to avoid opening the floodgates of nuclear weapons use. Mutually assured destruction is not a factor when dealing with non-nuclear nations that aren't under a nuclear umbrella protection (as was the case with most Cold War conflicts), so the only remaining factor is conventional force effectiveness.
Remember, I'm talking about a theoretical worst case scenario in which Syria's conventional forces have overwhelmed conventional forces in Turkey... this may not be a likely scenario, but if that threshold were crossed, what would be the deterrent against nuclear use by the US?
Make Eyes Great Again!
The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...
