[cryptome] Re: Syria
- From: Andrew Hornback <achornback@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:09:17 -0400
You're approaching this from the point of view that this is a lose/lose
proposition - which opponent do you prefer, one that you know or one that
you don't know?
The loss of any life (American, Syrian, otherwise) is regrettable -
however, Europe and the United States don't exactly have a great track
record of building stable nations after "conquering" them at this point in
history. If you care to argue that point, I have a few examples for you...
Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan...
That said, the ultimate goal here, in my opinion, would be to restore
sovereignty to Syria (and hope that the people can hold Democratic
elections) while at the same time removing their capability to deploy any
form of weapons of mass destruction against anyone (foreign or domestic),
preferably without firing a shot (as per Sun Tzu).
What's the mechanism that we should use to attain that goal? Lobbing
Tomahawks doesn't seem like it would be an appropriate solution, nor does
putting lives in danger by invading. The key is to find something that
Assad needs in order to maintain control over the country and remove it
from his possession without harming the Syrian people. That takes
diplomacy and a lot of "number crunching" instead of the "gnashing of
teeth", as it were.
Acts of aggression are a sign that either a) all attempts at diplomacy have
failed or b) no further attempts at diplomacy are within the purview of the
political regime that is trying to negotiate. Some people, you simply
can't reach...
--- A
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Dark Redmond <darkredptc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 08:45 PM, Haim Barak wrote:
> > Andrew, So what do we do continue to see genocide mass destruction of
> children and women and look from the side
> > As if nothing is happening,
> There is no result that doesnt end in loss of life. The only question is
> do you want assad and his questionable human rights record or radical
> islamists in charge?
>
>
Other related posts:
