Situation in Syria

[ulukinatme]

Middle East is one big pain in the ***.

 

[dublinirish]

Don't we have enough of our own problems? Where did we sign on to be world police? Isn't that more the United Nations role?

Really? C'mon...

 

[ChiRish]

Don't we have enough of our own problems? Where did we sign on to be world police? Isn't that more the United Nations role?

Perhaps, yes, we do have enough of our own problems. But at the end of the day, the United States represents itself to the rest of the world as the nation with the biggest influence and power (both economic, political, and militarily); essentially, based on our actions in the last century we're the self-appointed democratic beacon of light in the world. Not only can you gain from the world what we do and not have any responsibility towards maintaining it, but the US simply cannot hold themselves out to be some shining example of democracy without having some sort of responsibility uphold the principles underlying that in major world crises.

I'm not necessarily saying that Syria is the right example or time to do so, but the argument that we should just "mind our own business" because we have our own problems just isn't feasible in the modern era and quite simply, with the way that we have conducted our affairs, would be hypocritical and wrong.

 

[rikkitikki08]

Perhaps, yes, we do have enough of our own problems. But at the end of the day, the United States represents itself to the rest of the world as the nation with the biggest influence and power (both economic, political, and militarily); essentially, based on our actions in the last century we're the self-appointed democratic beacon of light in the world. Not only can you gain from the world what we do and not have any responsibility towards maintaining it, but the US simply cannot hold themselves out to be some shining example of democracy without having some sort of responsibility uphold the principles underlying that in major world crises.

I'm not necessarily saying that Syria is the right example or time to do so, but the argument that we should just "mind our own business" because we have our own problems just isn't feasible in the modern era and quite simply, with the way that we have conducted our affairs, would be hypocritical and wrong.

Nailed it

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'd like to believe that the US will meditate upon the Syrian situation with "morality" in a high priority spot on the decision-tree, but I refuse to be that naive. I have not seen an "intervention" in many years which looked like a morality-driven action.

If we act, and if others act with us, we/they will be doing so out of our/their perceived national best interests. What possible interests are these?

1). We want middle-East stability, despite the cosmic joke of believing that such is possible. Even though most wise Middle-East watchers realize that peace there is a figment of a rosy romanticist, they would take a situation allowing enough dampening of chaos to allow commerce and terrorist-retardation to continue.

2). Part of the above is the maintaining of the anti-chemical warfare convention. If the Syrian government is actually using chemical warfare, then the allowance of that without heavy payment would establish the end of the convention on a world scale, and the use of chemical weapons would become "standard" for anyone. None of these countries, even Russia for instance, wants this.

Chemical weapons are by the way, misunderstood by the American public. Chemical weapons are not bombs made out of chemicals, even napalm, as all non-nuclear bombs are "chemicals". Chemical weapons are conventional bombs or other dispersion devices which have the purpose of spewing forth dangerous chemical "poisons" usually neurotoxins [Example: Sarin gas].

The other misconception about chemical weapons is that they are "Weapons of Mass Destruction/ WMD". They are not. The inclusion of chemical warfare weapons under the WMD label was/ is a political manipulation of scientifically-ignorant publics in order to use the presence of such devices as a scare tactic making war easier to sell.

WMDs properly defined are any weapon capable of destroying humans en masse beyond conventional bombs. Chemical toxins "dissipate" upon release and have only localized destructive ability and later can be cleaned up in the focus area. The only known WMD technologies currently feasible are nuclear weapons [huge areas plus nearly impossible clean-ups], and biological weapons [on-going outcreeping disease spreads]. Despite this phony political mind-manipulation, neurotoxic chemical usages are flatly dangerously bad and particularly inhumane for some of them, and need to be stopped.

3). Several nations in the Syrian region have their own goals in Syria. Iran likes them as an arms buyer and as an anti-Israel terrorism stager, but maybe as a pipeline area for general oil sales. Russia would like to maintain several sorts of relationships and plans there [including the oil idea], but mainly has another priority. Russia has one only port on the Mediterranean Sea --- in Syria. If the US could manage to give Russia some assurance that they could maintain their port regardless of any new Syrian regime which might form, Russia might drop its interference at the UN and elsewise. This sort of assurance is basically impossible in many dimensions.

However Russia is caught currently in a big bind. They have been making gains in coming to peace with Turkey, which they desperately want to do. But Turkey HATES what's going on in Syria, and Russia's "not helping" is destroying the diplomacy/ trust.

......... so much more is going on here than the fact that the Obama administration is feeling the need to make some strong act but the bulk of the American public is saying "no way!!" This is a tough executive call. We are being forced to take SOME action, but without many committed allies, a Syrian opposition to Assad composed of moderates and wildmen, some terrorists, [within which the moderates are being squeezed out], and a US public opposed to a single "boot on the ground". The situation screams "surgical air strikes", simultaneously threats to opponents who are terrorist radicals [not in public], and propaganda within Syria for rapid motion to some sort of voted government once Assad falls/ escapes.

 

[BobD]

The reason nothing will ever be fully resolved in the middle east is because the hatred there isn't "by country", the hatred there is by faction, religion, tribe, and thousands of years of history. They have borders on the countries, but the different factions exists in every one of them. Take one dictator out, another one with a different agenda will appear.

 

[dublinirish]

The reason nothing will ever be fully resolved in the middle east is because the hatred there isn't "by country", the hatred there is by faction, religion, tribe, and thousands of years of history. They have borders on the countries, but the different factions exists in every one of them. Take one dictator out, another one with a different agenda will appear.

i would definitely agree with this. Syria was created in the same manner as Iraq, borders drawn up/nations created by Imperialist powers with no notion that others may not wish to governed or live as they do.

 

[enrico514]

Like i said America as a country has an obligation to defend civiliians due to our large amount of resources. Killing kids in a school is not ok by any standards. Does rolling into Syria make me nervous? Yes, Do i think we should allow this to continue? Absolutely not

Somehow I don't think the intervention of the US in this case will be motivated in any way with a perceived duty to protect civilians. Looks to me like the US is looking for an excuse to get involved in Syria and this is the one that they agreed on some time ago. I hope that I am wrong and that they will pursue with the same vigour the guilty party or country when the truth finally comes out... but I seriously doubt it.

 

[enrico514]

Looks like France is ready to go:
BBC News - France's Hollande backs US on Syria action

Unless I'm mistaking there will be a vote in France on September 4th... so it isn't exactly a done deal!

 

[palinurus]

Not really sure about this one, and not necessarily against intervention in principle (assuming legitimate US interests), but it's tough to sit when civilians are getting gassed by their own countrymen. The real questions become what can we do that will be effective to stop it and what happens next?

 

[enrico514]

Fact-finding at the State Department has devolved to browsing YouTube videos and social media ...

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/USGassessmentonSyria08302013.pdf

 

[Cackalacky]

Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises | Reuters

 

[rikkitikki08]

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. We have people on this site who love to assume that America has an exterior motive outside of helping civilians. I assume you are the people who say we didn't do enough to help Haiti as well. Just so every one knows, i fully support us helping the people of Syria. We cant allow children as well as adults to be hit with chemical weapons, as a country we just cant sit and watch this unfold

 

[woolybug25]

Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises | Reuters

I'm telling you, man.... and i'm not a conspiracy theorist. You can clearly see that something is up. China and Russia both walked out of the UN and then Syria chemical bombs a school the very next day? They didn't even try to hide it. Before that, they even let the UN investigate them when they had to have known that the UN would discover obvious chemical attacks.

I'm worried that China, Russian and Syria are in cahoots. That would be a very bad deal for us.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. We have people on this site who love to assume that America has an exterior motive outside of helping civilians. I assume you are the people who say we didn't do enough to help Haiti as well. Just so every one knows, i fully support us helping the people of Syria. We cant allow children as well as adults to be hit with chemical weapons, as a country we just cant sit and watch this unfold

(1) It's not yet clear who used the chemical weapons; and (2) the rebels aren't "the people of Syria".

Some of them could be accurately described as "freedom fighters", who want liberal political reforms, but a whole lot of them are foreign Jihadists who want to establish an Islamist theocracy in the country. So there isn't a clear-cut group of "good guys" for us to help here.

 

[palinurus]

For the record, I think US interests alone, let alone the humanitarian aspects, permit action, assuming (and this is a big if) we have appropriate and reasonably achievable goals and a logical legitimate follow up plan, undertaken with a full assessment of collateral problems. These are not always easy criteria to meet, as we all know. Of course, sometimes you need to act in direct national self defense (think Pearl Harbor), but that isn't this case.

I agree that the Soviet and Chinese reactions are odd; you'd think any civilized country would want to act, assuming there are achievable goals to be achieved through sensible actions.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm telling you, man.... and i'm not a conspiracy theorist. You can clearly see that something is up. China and Russia both walked out of the UN and then Syria chemical bombs a school the very next day? They didn't even try to hide it. Before that, they even let the UN investigate them when they had to have known that the UN would discover obvious chemical attacks.

I'm worried that China, Russian and Syria are in cahoots. That would be a very bad deal for us.

I'm not saying I called it but....

06-25-2013, 12:24 PM
Replies: 566
Government Spying on Millions (Verizon)
Views: 16,806
Posted By Cackalacky
Don't worry about Russia and China. We will be...

Don't worry about Russia and China. We will be seeing them in Syria soon enough.

I called it. Ratheon stock has been rising for 2 months.
*Looking back their stock has been rising since March... but anyway.

 

[woolybug25]

You said it, Cack...

One could say.... you knew this a month ago?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

For the record, I think US interests alone, let alone the humanitarian aspects, permit action, assuming (and this is a big if) we have appropriate and reasonably achievable goals and a logical legitimate follow up plan, undertaken with a full assessment of collateral problems. These are not always easy criteria to meet, as we all know. Of course, sometimes you need to act in direct national self defense (think Pearl Harbor), but that isn't this case.

1. Any definition of "US interests" that could justify going to war here is so broad as to be meaningless;
2. Even if we wanted to intervene for humanitarian reasons, we'd still have to pick a side-- foreign jihadists v. brutal secular dictator is a no-win situation for us; and
3. Given the massive amount of misinformation that was deliberately disseminated in order to generate support for the invasion of Iraq, we ought to be extremely skeptical of any justifications for intervention we're hearing now, especially from the Executive branch.

 

[irish1958]

I am still not convinced that it was the Assad government and not the insurgents who used the nerve gas. The only side that would gain if we intervened is the insurgents.

 

[woolybug25]

I am still not convinced that it was the Assad government and not the insurgents who used the nerve gas. The only side that would gain if we intervened is the insurgents.

I have a hard time believing that. They are in the midst of a civil war. If the insurgents were the real group using gas, then why aren't the Syrian government screaming from the rooftops that its them that is doing? Right now, they are denying it happened all together. Which is an obvious lie.

 

[ulukinatme]

1. Even if we wanted to intervene for humanitarian reasons, we'd still have to pick a side-- foreign jihadists v. brutal secular dictator is a no-win situation for us; and
   

 

[AvesEvo]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but Syria has a mutual pact with Iran so if Syria is attacked, Iran will retaliate. Perhaps Syria is a slight of hand for Iran?

 

[AvesEvo]

1. Any definition of "US interests" that could justify going to war here is so broad as to be meaningless;
2. Even if we wanted to intervene for humanitarian reasons, we'd still have to pick a side-- foreign jihadists v. brutal secular dictator is a no-win situation for us; and
3. Given the massive amount of misinformation that was deliberately disseminated in order to generate support for the invasion of Iraq, we ought to be extremely skeptical of any justifications for intervention we're hearing now, especially from the Executive branch.
   

Yes.

 

[Domina Nostra]

1. Any definition of "US interests" that could justify going to war here is so broad as to be meaningless;
2. Even if we wanted to intervene for humanitarian reasons, we'd still have to pick a side-- foreign jihadists v. brutal secular dictator is a no-win situation for us; and
3. Given the massive amount of misinformation that was deliberately disseminated in order to generate support for the invasion of Iraq, we ought to be extremely skeptical of any justifications for intervention we're hearing now, especially from the Executive branch.

Yep.

 

[palinurus]

1. Any definition of "US interests" that could justify going to war here is so broad as to be meaningless;
2. Even if we wanted to intervene for humanitarian reasons, we'd still have to pick a side-- foreign jihadists v. brutal secular dictator is a no-win situation for us; and
3. Given the massive amount of misinformation that was deliberately disseminated in order to generate support for the invasion of Iraq, we ought to be extremely skeptical of any justifications for intervention we're hearing now, especially from the Executive branch.

I agree with 1 and 2; 3 gets into a discussion that might derail the thread, so I'll just say that we (and the media) ought to question seriously whatever government officials tell us and, generally speaking, seek substantiation, though some situations aren't crystal clear or don't admit of providing evidence for security reasons.

 

[irish1958]

I have a hard time believing that. They are in the midst of a civil war. If the insurgents were the real group using gas, then why aren't the Syrian government screaming from the rooftops that its them that is doing? Right now, they are denying it happened all together. Which is an obvious lie.

I agree with you. But nothing makes sense in this mess and if we get involved how can we support the insurgents? Do we want another right wing Islamic theocracy in the area? Is Iraq better off now?
There is a brutal suppression of Christians and Sunni Muslems and an ipso facto elimination of the Jews. And look at what the "Muslim Brotherhood" tried to do in Egypt.
What possible reason would the Assad government have for gassing and killing 1400 civilians, most of them women and children?
President Obama must have a migraine, especially after the British pulled out.

 

[kmoose]

The community here at IE is very enlightened

What are you, new here?

 

[AvesEvo]

Even though chemical weapons were used, what makes anyone think that anyone in Syria wants the US to help? I can't recall any faction in Syria asking us for help. It is understandable, it isn't like we have improved things in Iraq. Maybe we should wait for someone to ask for help before we do.

BTW, did anyone watch the KState - NDSU game... exciting!

 

[enrico514]

I have a hard time believing that. They are in the midst of a civil war. If the insurgents were the real group using gas, then why aren't the Syrian government screaming from the rooftops that its them that is doing? Right now, they are denying it happened all together. Which is an obvious lie.

The Syrian government HAS been saying it's the rebels that used the chemical weapons. The rebels themselves have even said they would use chemical weapons.

Americans need to take the all the time that is necessary to understand what's going on before they allow their leaders to start targeting Syria. Americans could find themselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself who, after being provoked, would not hesitate to go after soft targets all across the United States. I don't think most Americans have any understanding of what their leaders are trying to get them involved in.