Comments for بنسبة لنا

Comment on “1980s Lebanon on Steroids” by Lebanon on steroids

Lebanon on steroids — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:48:13 +0000

Thanks for your interpretation, it was helpful and I came back to your website today
I bookmarked your website just now.

Meanwhile I read in WP that there are anabolic steroids, probably that was really meant. They are used by bodybuilders. Probably the idea is that Syria will be pumped (floated) with weapons and other stuff which will keep the civil war on fire and that this civil war is expected to be tougher than that in Lebanon. On one hand, I can image this, knowing the reputation of the regime but on the other hand Arab people assume that Syrians are more cultivated which contradicts this statement.

Comment on Intervention in Syria? Better Not Think First. by “It would need a savant to work out the geopolitical implications of a post-Assad Syria” « بنسبة لنا

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:32:54 +0000

[...] the risk of focusing too much on one topic, I want to bring up two great articles that were published over at RUSI debating a potential [...]

Comment on “1980s Lebanon on Steroids” by Chris Keeler

Chris Keeler — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:47:11 +0000

Lebanon on steroids is a term referring to the Lebanese Civil War. When something is on steroids, it is stronger, more powerful, etc. Lebanon on steroids would mean that the Syrian civil war would be like the Lebanese version (long, brutal) but worse. Hope that helps and thanks for reading!

Comment on “1980s Lebanon on Steroids” by Lebanon on steroids

Lebanon on steroids — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:21:31 +0000

Please could you semantically explain to a non English native speaker the expression ''Lebanon on steroids''. It is not clear to me what is meant by it.

Comment on Too Little Too Late or Just Too Little? by Intervention in Syria? Better Not Think First. « بنسبة لنا

Intervention in Syria? Better Not Think First. « بنسبة لنا — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:58:50 +0000

[...] a no fly zone (NFZ) over Syria would be far more costly and logistically complicated than in Libya (where the NFZ and major activity was limited to the coastal region). Instead of getting into [...]

Comment on In Case Anyone Still Thinks Libya is the Beginning by More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا

More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:40 +0000

[...] noted that one of the major consequences of the Libyan intervention would be future could-have-been interventions: If economic considerations and a fear of setting precedents were not enough to push Russia, China [...]

Comment on What Does Libya Mean For The Region by More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا

More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:37 +0000

[...] year, I repeatedly noted that one of the major consequences of the Libyan intervention would be future could-have-been interventions: If economic considerations and a fear of setting precedents were not [...]

Comment on Syrians Should Blame Libya by More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا

More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:33 +0000

[...] it. A long time ago. Last year, I repeatedly noted that one of the major consequences of the Libyan intervention would be future could-have-been interventions: If economic considerations and a fear of setting [...]

Comment on The End of the Responsibility to Protect? by More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا

More on Russia’s Syrian Stance « بنسبة لنا — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:39:30 +0000

[...] is the most interesting argument for me because, well, I made it. A long time ago. Last year, I repeatedly noted that one of the major consequences of the Libyan intervention would be future could-have-been [...]

Comment on “1980s Lebanon on Steroids” by Chris Keeler

Chris Keeler — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:27:30 +0000

Agreed on many points:
1) Also look at Egypt. Mubarak is gone but the regime remains.
2) The potential for Syria to expand into a regional conflict (Israel/US vs. Iran?) is just one reason why it would be greatly damaging for western intervention in Syria. Forget the logistical problems that were not present in Libya; intervention would unleash a major regional problem that would leave the United States strategically weaker.
3) Perhaps, however the Russia veto here is not really based on nationalism, but rather on Russian interests and ideals. Among other reasons, a major reason why Russia used her veto is that non-intervention has become a major facet of post-USSR Russia policy. This is a type of ideal – not moral, but strategic and representative of the Russian worldview. Non-interventionism, of course, directly contradicts the en vogue western interventionism. These are more of opposing strategic views rather than a Cold War-type struggle.

In any event, I completely agree that the situation in Syria is much larger than Syria. Considering Iran’s interest in maintaining the Syrian regime, I find it hard to believe that a major intervention by the west would not snowball into a confrontation between the west (including Israel) and Iran – particularly considering the rhetoric that has been used lately. Unfortunately, it has come to the point where I must point out that a war with Iran is probably not a good idea. Probably should be obvious, but…