Syria

[thundercleetz]

So what does everyone think? I have my opinions but I am curious to hear what other people think.

[papasmurfbell]

Stop being the world police. The only reason they are doing this now is that defense contractors are sad that their needs will not be taken care of soon.Their issues thaeir problems. Everytime we step into these things they blow up in our face.

[Spen]

I dont really disagree with Papa. I see no good out of us getting involved. This country is not in good enough shape itself to get involved in conflict after conflict.

[Robjr83]

I was about 18-19 when 9/11 hit. I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought these countries would embrace democracy and western ideas. A decade later I see nothings really changed. Egypt at one time the most stable of the Arab Nations now going down Syria's path. Stay out of Syria, no real good can come from it. My guess is well send in a few cruise missiles and that'll be it.

 

 

 

I don't get the WMD argument either.. The Govt may have gasses 300 civilians = thats horrible, war crime, intolerable. The Govt uses tanks to wipe out a town killing thousands of people = frowned apon ?

[papasmurfbell]

I find the WMD argument funny now. We sold Suddam his chem weapons. We also looked the other way when he used them on Iran. Later we have to get him for using WMD's. Nobody trusts us because we stab them in the back when it works for us.

 

Also the people are against us going at about 90%. Representetive democrace isa funny joke.

[papasmurfbell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=syv4rQiGJUQ

[RavenMad]

Let the UN decide if they want to do anything. The UK government voted against taking any action. It sucks and all what is happening but at the end of the day are we sure we would be backing the right people?

 

Anoter example to remember is the US used to be in bed with Bin Laden. They sent arms to Afghanistan to fight against Russia. Far better to stay out of it and let them resolve their own issues and then blow them to hell if it spills out onto your own shores.

[papasmurfbell]

Totally agree.

[Spen]

I get tired of our money being spent, our lives being lost and then we end up hated no matter what we do....

Edited August 31, 2013 by Spen

[papasmurfbell]

But it isn't their money or their lives so it is expendable.

[cravnravn]

screw obama, we dont need to part of this

Edited September 1, 2013 by cravnravn

[papasmurfbell]

It isn't just him. All neocons and people like them are dangerous.

[cravnravn]

I like Obama, I dont like war that effects me personally..Have you noticed gas prices in the last 10 days?

 

!0 days ago I paid 3.37 a gallon, Friday 3.57. And we are hearing its tied to Syria..I didnt know they were a major player in oil production.

[deeshopper]

None of which is anything the president can control...ever.

[cravnravn]

None of which is anything the president can control...ever.

 

Dont threaten to go to war, he most certainly does have control over what happens.

[vmax]

It's time to let the rest of the world solve their problems. The USA's answer of sending troops in doesn't work...so...don't do it.

[dc.]

While I agree with many sentiments here - keeping our troops safe, avoiding the backlash when there is no clear good guy, believing that other groups must in some way deal with their own issues, that we cannot always be the police of the world - I am reminded at times like these of a quote posted in the back of my classroom (among several dozen others):

 

“I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act.” GK Chesteron

[vmax]

That's a nice quote dc. Let's act on global warming. That is going to kill...well...maybe everybody.

[thundercleetz]

I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. GK Chesteron

How about Darfur? We are unsure who used chemical weapons in Syria but we are ready to act. There is hard evidence of genocide by a government in Darfur and we turn a blind eye. That is a good intentioned quote but we become hypocritical when we pick and choose when to live by that line of thought.

 

As it relates to Syria, every action has reactions that might not be intended. I am certainly not defending Assad, but at least Assad has had religious tolerance of some sort. My grandparents from my father's side are from Syria, so I may be more sympathetic to the potential consequences here than others. The Aleppo area in Syria served as the final stop of Armenians for death matches in the desert by Ottoman Turks during WWI. Syria took in a few hundred thousand Armenian Christian refugees after WWI and they have lived there relatively in peace since.

 

In addition to nearly 200,000 Armenian Christians, there are over 2.3 million other Christians (650,000 of which are Catholic) that reside in Syria. The native Arab Christians have inhabited the Damascus area for thousands of years.

 

Now history tells that Al Qaeda displays no religious tolerance. Here is my point: we make a move against Assad and Al Qaeda seizes control of the government, the 2.5 million Christians in that area are instantly at risk. We will see deportations, restriction of religious and cultural practices, and possibly murder. There have already been tens of thousands Armenian-Syrian refugees thanks to Syrian rebels.

 

Bottom line, we attack the Syrian government for using chemical weapons on a thousand or so Al Qaeda sympathizers, millions of other people could become in danger. I am not minimizing anyone's unfortunate death but when our national security is not at risk who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

[dc.]

Cleetz,

 

I am certainly not advocating an attack or intervention - and have no clue the right answer - but the quote always gets me. There may be no perfect response, but no response is just as damning. How can we stand by and watch? Maybe it's not about picking a winner but about creating a more balanced battle field. That's probably impossible. But also, does supporting the rebels mean supporting Al Qaeda? Some would argue yes, for many obvious reasons. Some would argue that we're not supporting a political party so much as the idea of democracy, which also may never become reality. It's all a wash.

 

You are dead right on Darfur. If anything, if we are going to choose to be the "world police," we need to embrace the role more fully. That would be an unpopular (and expensive) decision for many reasons. And I don't know that I agree with it. But I agree with your general premise.

 

That said, our failure to act in the past should not mean failure to act now. New precedent can be established.

[papasmurfbell]

I like Obama, I dont like war that effects me personally..Have you noticed gas prices in the last 10 days?

 

!0 days ago I paid 3.37 a gallon, Friday 3.57. And we are hearing its tied to Syria..I didnt know they were a major player in oil production.

 

Why would the oil speculators not like war in the middle east?

How about Darfur? We are unsure who used chemical weapons in Syria but we are ready to act. There is hard evidence of genocide by a government in Darfur and we turn a blind eye. That is a good intentioned quote but we become hypocritical when we pick and choose when to live by that line of thought.

 

As it relates to Syria, every action has reactions that might not be intended. I am certainly not defending Assad, but at least Assad has had religious tolerance of some sort. My grandparents from my father's side are from Syria, so I may be more sympathetic to the potential consequences here than others. The Aleppo area in Syria served as the final stop of Armenians for death matches in the desert by Ottoman Turks during WWI. Syria took in a few hundred thousand Armenian Christian refugees after WWI and they have lived there relatively in peace since.

 

In addition to nearly 200,000 Armenian Christians, there are over 2.3 million other Christians (650,000 of which are Catholic) that reside in Syria. The native Arab Christians have inhabited the Damascus area for thousands of years.

 

Now history tells that Al Qaeda displays no religious tolerance. Here is my point: we make a move against Assad and Al Qaeda seizes control of the government, the 2.5 million Christians in that area are instantly at risk. We will see deportations, restriction of religious and cultural practices, and possibly murder. There have already been tens of thousands Armenian-Syrian refugees thanks to Syrian rebels.

 

Bottom line, we attack the Syrian government for using chemical weapons on a thousand or so Al Qaeda sympathizers, millions of other people could become in danger. I am not minimizing anyone's unfortunate death but when our national security is not at risk who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

There is a lot of oil in Darfur so I am a little suprised that this is not an issue

 

Here is a worse scenario than AQ. Syria gets help from others in the mid east. Syria starts attacking Turkey. Nato has to come in and defend them. The Russians start throwing down. Everyone drags into a WW3 scenario.

[thundercleetz]

Cleetz,

 

I am certainly not advocating an attack or intervention - and have no clue the right answer - but the quote always gets me. There may be no perfect response, but no response is just as damning. How can we stand by and watch? Maybe it's not about picking a winner but about creating a more balanced battle field. That's probably impossible. But also, does supporting the rebels mean supporting Al Qaeda? Some would argue yes, for many obvious reasons. Some would argue that we're not supporting a political party so much as the idea of democracy, which also may never become reality. It's all a wash.

 

You are dead right on Darfur. If anything, if we are going to choose to be the "world police," we need to embrace the role more fully. That would be an unpopular (and expensive) decision for many reasons. And I don't know that I agree with it. But I agree with your general premise.

 

That said, our failure to act in the past should not mean failure to act now. New precedent can be established.

 

I think you are asking the right questions in your first paragraph. And honestly, that is the scary part: we don't know anything about our enemy or our goal. I am sure most Congressmen and women are asking the same questions. The question I want to know is what good can we do here? If we weaken Assad, is there anyone else but Al Qaeda that could benefit? At least with Assad there is a small hope for diplomacy, if Al Qaeda takes over that is out the window. Sounds like we are playing with fire to me.

 

DC no response may be damning but this situation is a lot more complex than the president is letting on. Syria's two closest allies are Russia and Iran. Russia has already moved its warships into the area. I don't think Iran would make a move but they are certainly keeping a close eye on the situation. All while China is probably wishing we go to war and continue to drive our currency into the ground (side topic: how would a new war fit with the sequester?). Is intervening because a thousand people got gassed worth worsening our foreign relations? Russian relations have been terrible during the Obama administration but that's another matter. My point, that's a lot of trouble for something that poses no national security to threat. In fact, we may be creating a new threat by pissing off Russia.

 

A couple of more complexities to ponder: there are two million Kurds in Syria. Kurds are already fighting Al Qaeda. What happens to the Kurds if Al Qaeda overthrows Assad? We know what's going on with the Kurds in Iraq. I don't mean to go conspiracy theorist here but I am very curious where this "evidence" came from that it was the Syrian government who used the chemical weapons. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the evidence came from Erdogan with Turkey trying to coax us to do their dirty work. We know Erdogan hates Assad and Turkey's "concerns" about Kurdish welfare are well documented. Turkey would love for us to get rid of two birds with one stone. Get rid of Assad then Turkey can force out all their Kurds to a Syria in chaos. All while we belittle Russia and Iran asserting Turkish influence in the Eurasian area.

 

You said "our failure to act in the past should not mean failure to act now. New precedent can be established." I would agree with you, but as a country have our leaders learned anything the past two wars about the complex culture and mindset of the Middle East? I am still not confident we know what we are doing as we are blatantly ignoring are these different factors involved. Are you confident that getting involved in Syria to help those currently in trouble won't create problems for other groups of people if Assad falls? That is certainly the case today in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that Great Britain and France are not getting involved tells me no one is sure of anything in that region.

[dc.]

Cleetz -

 

I think you are hitting pretty much all of it right on the head. I am by no means war-mongering! I just think that we have to weigh the moral statement that comes with not acting at all. People ask how using gas is any difference than using guns and tanks? It's a fair question, but I think the answer is first morality and secondly asymmetry: there is a global understanding that gas is "different" and more importantly, the use of gas constitutes a threat that no civilian population can match or respond in kind to.

 

In Libya, we were able to organize a coordinated attack that ended the asymmetry of the situation. Was it the right move? Who knows. Has it solved the problems there? Certainly not. But it was a step towards saying, "we won't just let a dictator bomb his own people."

[papasmurfbell]

Assad cankill every last civilian for all I care. It is not oour fight.

[thundercleetz]

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/09/05/multimedia/100000002421671/syrian-rebels-execute-7-soldiers.html?ref=middleeast&smid=tw-nytimes

 

Are we sure we want to pick sides here?