Possible Coup de etat?

Daryl wrote:I've got mixed feelings about this. I personally abhor a theocracy, but this one was democratically elected. To have it violently replaced by a military dictatorship is not an optimal solution. If the majority do feel that their Arab Spring has been hijacked by the religious nut cases then throw them out at the next election. If there isn't a next election, then you have your revolution.

I kind of got the impression that the protesters thought they wouldn't get the chance to vote the Muslim Brotherhood out of office. They thought the Brotherhood was trying to take over and run things their way without regard to what other people wanted. They also seemed to be worried that there would not be another election. Am I misunderstanding what is going on?

Looks like a similar story in Syria. The average person is caught between a dictatorship and a potential medieval theocracy.
While this is the politics comments area I don't want to offend anyone, but the current US rhetoric of targeted limited strikes could have been used to describe 9-11. When is it OK for any country to attack another simply because they don't like the other's internal actions or policies?

Daryl wrote:Looks like a similar story in Syria. The average person is caught between a dictatorship and a potential medieval theocracy.
While this is the politics comments area I don't want to offend anyone, but the current US rhetoric of targeted limited strikes could have been used to describe 9-11. When is it OK for any country to attack another simply because they don't like the other's internal actions or policies?

History shows a nation acting as the world's policeman is doomed to decline, Rome tried it, the Franks tried it, Islam tried it, Spain tried it, England tried it, the USSR tried it, the US is trying it and in decline and now, Russia and China are thinking about it. Sigh.

Poker

Looks like a similar story in Syria. The average person is caught between a dictatorship and a potential medieval theocracy.
While this is the politics comments area I don't want to offend anyone, but the current US rhetoric of targeted limited strikes could have been used to describe 9-11. When is it OK for any country to attack another simply because they don't like the other's internal actions or policies?

The big difference is the type of targets. In 9-11 the world trade center was a civilian target. The types of targets Obama & Co. are considering in Syria are military targets.

The situation we're in right now is that since Obama announced that chemical weapons were a red line, we need to do SOMETHING or no one in the world will take him seriously again with all sorts of negative consequences for the next 3 years. Future presidents should take note. Don't say things like that unless you are genuinely prepared to back them up! My personal suggestion is to drop a Tomahawk on one of Assad's palaces and call it good. If he uses chemical weapons again, drop a Tomahawk on another palace... But don't get involved in the civil war.

biochem wrote:

Looks like a similar story in Syria. The average person is caught between a dictatorship and a potential medieval theocracy.
While this is the politics comments area I don't want to offend anyone, but the current US rhetoric of targeted limited strikes could have been used to describe 9-11. When is it OK for any country to attack another simply because they don't like the other's internal actions or policies?

The big difference is the type of targets. In 9-11 the world trade center was a civilian target. The types of targets Obama & Co. are considering in Syria are military targets.

The situation we're in right now is that since Obama announced that chemical weapons were a red line, we need to do SOMETHING or no one in the world will take him seriously again with all sorts of negative consequences for the next 3 years. Future presidents should take note. Don't say things like that unless you are genuinely prepared to back them up! My personal suggestion is to drop a Tomahawk on one of Assad's palaces and call it good. If he uses chemical weapons again, drop a Tomahawk on another palace... But don't get involved in the civil war.

Assuming said Tomahawk can get through the Russian missile envelope, because if not he will look even more ludicrous. As noted he should have kept his big mouth shut. Even more worrisome is Assad may not be the guilty party. Hmm, I wonder where the Russians will take the gas now Iraq to Syria now where? Iran?

Poker

biochem wrote:
The big difference is the type of targets. In 9-11 the world trade center was a civilian target. The types of targets Obama & Co. are considering in Syria are military targets.

Didn't previous history show that basic infrastructure like powerplants and bridges are targets of choice for american bombings?

PS no matter how i despise wahhabi terrorists, i must say they chose 911 targets (for their very limited capacities and mindset) smartly - military and finances. While there were more victims and shock value in WTC, it's attack on Pentagon that showed ambitions of Al Qaeda and laxness of US gov't(btw Pentagon is textbook example of legitimate military target).