Syria - The US Empire's Suez Crisis?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Syria - The US Empire's Suez Crisis?
Since the other thread is about former British Empire angst, perhaps a separate thread on the implications of the Syria crisis for the US Empire would be appropriate. As the readers of this forum probably don't need a history lesson perhaps we can jump straight to its parallels with Suez.
Attempted strong arming of a country of geopolitical importance, under false pretences, expecting the support of its traditional friend who, on assessing the implications, backs out - thus marking the moment where the prevailing Empire discovers it can no longer get it's way.
Cue the slow (and hopefully dignified) decline.
Attempted strong arming of a country of geopolitical importance, under false pretences, expecting the support of its traditional friend who, on assessing the implications, backs out - thus marking the moment where the prevailing Empire discovers it can no longer get it's way.
Cue the slow (and hopefully dignified) decline.
Last edited by LT Selfridge; 30th Aug 2013 at 13:52.
...expecting the support of its traditional friend who, on assessing the implications, backs out - thus marking the moment where the prevailing Empire discovers it can no longer get it's way.
The US was bankrolling the UK during Suez, and its threat to pull-the-plug if we didn't cease-and-desist would have bankrupted the country, so demonstrating what a paper tiger we had become by then and so hastening our further decline on the world stage.
By contrast, while the US would like UK support for political reasons, it doesn't need it to intervene in Syria in the same way that we needed US support over Suez, and not getting it certainly won't usher in the end of the 'American Empire', as you so glibly put it.
Also, many will find your assertion that the West is looking at "strong arming of a country of geopolitical importance, under false pretences" offensive. Gassing your own population is not a false pretence, and demands a response.
Last edited by melmothtw; 30th Aug 2013 at 14:11.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like the US Empire has a new best friend, quite a change for the cheese eating yellow bellied surrender monkeys. Or is it just the usual French desire to demonstrate their weaponry to the world's markets? Whoops, got a bit cynical at the end there 
So profound for a 13 year old. Majored in history I guess.
I think you will find the offending phrase ceybsm is a quotation, and I am sure the author knew that.
After all, just because the said ceybsm don't like us, there is no reason for us to dislike them, is there?
After all, just because the said ceybsm don't like us, there is no reason for us to dislike them, is there?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Gassing your own population is not a false pretence, and demands a response.
Genocide is genocide, a pogrom is a pogrom. Determining whether a military response is required by the means used to murder the population is completely asinine, and points to populism and global attention getting rather than any moral fortitude about truly protecting the innocent.
By rights nothing bad would happen to anyone and there literally would be a policeman for every incident. We know that won't happen because it's such a huge burden to carry.
But we'd probably rather things don't get any worse. Against someone with a gun you can at least hide or find your own gun or throw a rock but you can't really respond to people shooting nerve gas shells at you.
And now everyone else in the world will be thinking about getting their own supply - since it's tolerated and effective.
But we'd probably rather things don't get any worse. Against someone with a gun you can at least hide or find your own gun or throw a rock but you can't really respond to people shooting nerve gas shells at you.
And now everyone else in the world will be thinking about getting their own supply - since it's tolerated and effective.
Snafu and Two's in, I absolutely agree! I made the point about CW as that (appeared to be) the 'red line' and that the international community had drawn and what had brought us to the current position of impending strikes (by the US and France at least), but I definitely feel that action should have been taken long before now.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the Americans of all people to accuse any nation of 'war crimes 'is cynical to say the least.In Vietnam they napalmed, bombed and contaminated with agent orange thousands of children without a second thought.Remember Mai Lai?- hundreds of Vietnamese men women children and babies machine gunned by American troops under the command of Lt William Caley. More would have died except for the bravery of a Huey pilot who told them to stop or he would order his door gunner to open fire.
That was only one of several incidents - the rest were kept quiet.
Try to read an article by Nicolas Tomalin - later killed on the Golan - entitled ' The General goes zapping Charlie Cong'
That was only one of several incidents - the rest were kept quiet.
Try to read an article by Nicolas Tomalin - later killed on the Golan - entitled ' The General goes zapping Charlie Cong'
Last edited by bcgallacher; 30th Aug 2013 at 15:59. Reason: correction
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I definitely feel that action should have been taken long before now.
What action, and siding with which side?
The Mekon had previously, publically stated, that they wanted to arm 'the rebels'. Why?
This is a very nasty, very dirty civil war, where whether you like it or not, a regime/government, is fighting to save their country. If the boot were on the other foot, we would do the same, I hope.
So tell me Shack, when do the French do anything that doesn't support their own self interest?
As regards a Suez moment - forget the generally well-informed and much travelled American members on this thread, I suspect a sizeable majority of the US population have never heard of the "special relationship", and couldn't care less (translation "could care less"
) what decision the UK makes in this matter.
Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 30th Aug 2013 at 16:19.
The wretched Mekon has been noticeable by his absence from the media today....
..............
Which is the Foreign Secretary....and which is the Treen??
..............
Which is the Foreign Secretary....and which is the Treen??
Last edited by BEagle; 30th Aug 2013 at 21:55.
Two countries trying to deflect their people from troubles at home, particularly from the financial troubles.
You could have said the same about the Spanish Civil War Maxred, but history condems us for not intervening to help the Republicans against Franco's fascists.
We were worried about communists then in the same way we're fretting about Islamists now, but there is no equivalency between the actions of the rebels and those of the government in Syria today. To suggest there is is to repeat the mistakes of Bosnia when we referred to "all parties in the conflict", as though those being beseiged in Sarajevo and ethnically cleansed in the countryside were equally culpable as those perpetrating those crimes - it's an excuse to look the other way and do nothing, and it's reprehensible.
We were worried about communists then in the same way we're fretting about Islamists now, but there is no equivalency between the actions of the rebels and those of the government in Syria today. To suggest there is is to repeat the mistakes of Bosnia when we referred to "all parties in the conflict", as though those being beseiged in Sarajevo and ethnically cleansed in the countryside were equally culpable as those perpetrating those crimes - it's an excuse to look the other way and do nothing, and it's reprehensible.
Last edited by melmothtw; 30th Aug 2013 at 16:38.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the Suez comparison is accurate as previously discussed above this post.
I also don't think Obama has a clue of what to do. We can discuss the absurd irony of his willingness to schwack someone without UN and/or a coalition's support.
This, if it happens, is a face-saving gesture on his part. He proclaimed his red line a year ago and until the latest mess complete with widespread photos appeared, he was satisfied to think he had spoken. Which is all he can really do well.
Now that the liberal press, world, and hand-wringers are in full cry to "do something!" he thinks he is John Wayne.
Well done to the British Parliament for saying "Hell no!" and keeping you out of it and cutting Barry off at the knees.
Pity our Legislature won't. Most likely it'll be ignored and then won't do anything about that slight, just as they didn't for Libya. War Powers Act be damned, never mind the Constitution.
There is no U.S. vital national interest at stake in Syria.
Just Barry's pride.
I also don't think Obama has a clue of what to do. We can discuss the absurd irony of his willingness to schwack someone without UN and/or a coalition's support.
This, if it happens, is a face-saving gesture on his part. He proclaimed his red line a year ago and until the latest mess complete with widespread photos appeared, he was satisfied to think he had spoken. Which is all he can really do well.
Now that the liberal press, world, and hand-wringers are in full cry to "do something!" he thinks he is John Wayne.
Well done to the British Parliament for saying "Hell no!" and keeping you out of it and cutting Barry off at the knees.
Pity our Legislature won't. Most likely it'll be ignored and then won't do anything about that slight, just as they didn't for Libya. War Powers Act be damned, never mind the Constitution.
There is no U.S. vital national interest at stake in Syria.
Just Barry's pride.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
melmothtw, only about 9% of the population of the UK, France and the USA support military action. Getting involved would be a disaster. The best outcome is for Assad to hold onto power. The idea of the rebels taking control of all of Syria is terrifying beyond comprehension! How long before the west then has to fight them somewhere, possibly even in our own nations, after they have created even more terrorists from the training camps they would likely put into operation in Syria. I do wish the Assad regime would use some restraint in its actions to civilians and this needs to be pointed out to him by Russia. But give me a somewhat secular dictator over a bunch of terrorists any day.
All this talk of how if Assad remains its the end of the world, he and his father before him have ruled this country for decades, I hardly see how its now now priority number one for the west! Sorting our own economies out at home and defeating Al-Qaeda and other such groups should be our priority. Not removing a long established dictator in the middle east, especially when the last two times we did have lead to a total disaster and chaos in the two nations concerned.
All this talk of how if Assad remains its the end of the world, he and his father before him have ruled this country for decades, I hardly see how its now now priority number one for the west! Sorting our own economies out at home and defeating Al-Qaeda and other such groups should be our priority. Not removing a long established dictator in the middle east, especially when the last two times we did have lead to a total disaster and chaos in the two nations concerned.
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 30th Aug 2013 at 17:01.
Ronald Reagan, if you think that not acting will help defeat Al Qaeda you're wrong. Our inaction in Syria has only strengthened their hand. Assad and Putin will be celebrating the UK's decision not to intervene, and that tells me all I need to know about that.