The Syrian civil conflict. To intervene or to stay out?

[nonsensical]

I say stay out of this mess! As outsiders, I feel it's difficult for us to even comprehend who the real good guys are here. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend, and forcefully overthrowing the Assad regime would likely have little impact on the civilian infighting taking place. Outsider involvement will only incite more violence by those who despise a foreign entity meddling in their affairs. Retaliations to those outsiders will be a given. The middle east is too volatile of an area where constantly clashing religious ideologies only serve to prolong the cycle of death and destruction. As a US citizen, I believe our possible and/or likely stepping in is going to open a whole new can of worms in the middle east. I believe the masses deserve the governments they get. If enough of the population rises up on their own volition, Assad, and any other dictatorial leaders can be overthrown from within. Why is it our job to do this for them?

 

[King_Oni]

I don't even keep track of all the wars going on globally at any time.

But; I see no reason why a country should intervene with an army anywhere. Why should the US, the UN or whatever group enforce regulations on that area? Clearly people in country X are not happy, they either fight or they deal with the regime that's at hand. I mean, Egypt tried to resolve it by rioting. Not supporting that either, but at least those people will try really hard. And I guess there's a thing to be said about the many African countries that have powerhungry dictators and warlords running rampant. Should we leave them to do all the killing in their own nation? Arguably no.

On the other hand; all these missions to preserve peace in wherever someone decides that taking a game of Risk to the next level do cost a nation a hefty amount of money, which I think is better spent to make their own nation a better place for all the citizens.

So perhaps I'm more biased towards something economical rather than "ethical" in terms of warfare. The Netherlands has sent out so many soldiers across the globe to help out on "peace missions" (what a eufemism; preserving the peace with guns and tanks) that, if for instance Germany would decide to invade us, we wouldn't have an army to save ourselves since they're all abroad.

 

[Soup]

That is one freakin' mess! I agree with all the viewpoints already expressed. However, Western countries tend to intervene in the internal conflicts in foreign countries when they have 'interests' (highly profitable money-making interests, that is) in those countries. A good example is George Bush's rush to allegedly 'protect innocent Kuwaitis from the evil Iraqis'. This, we are supposed to be stupid enough to believe, was a purely moral humanitarian effort having nothing to do with American oil interests there it wanted to safeguard. The plight of innocent Dinkas, Tutsis or Tamils was somehow irrelevant; the absence of western interests was merely coincidental!

Syria is another such mess: to whom would we provide aid: the ousted tyrant or the rebels who ousted him who would likely prefer their own brand of religious far right tyranny? It is complicated further because Syria shares a border with Israel: the west's most stalwart ally in the region. It is not unfathomable that Assad, knowing he is on his way down decides to launch a major offensive against Israel just to take a few of them out with him. It is also problematic that Russia, the long-standing enemy of the west (led by its own home-grown tyrant) who is openly supporting Assad: any 'interference' from the west against Assad would be seen by them as a move against Russia as well. What a disaster that might create. Another problem is that places like Iran, a powerful anti-west enemy would see any move against Assad as an attack on Islam & the Muslim world:further evidence of The West's anti Muslim foreign policy. Al Qaeda, however, needs no further 'evidence'. They want to see a fundamentalist Islamist world: no compromises with anyone: including the vast majority of moderate Muslims who are as terrified of & disgusted with them as the west is. After all, most victims of their bombings have been other Muslims!

Another big problem is where to house all the refugees pouring out of Syria (& Egypt too now) like rain. The West loves to crow about how open-minded, humanitarian & tolerant it is. With the US economy firmly in the crapper & many European economies swirling around in there too (think Greece & Spain). Many countries are not prepared to or able to live up to their 'welcome to all' hype. People in western countries who are themselves hurting, unemployed, lacking health care & losing their homes want to see any funds going to help their own citizens! Many in Canadian urban centres are feeling overwhelmed by the huge influxes of refugees they've let in. Once in a country, they have a long list of costly needs that a society must be prepared to meet. What to do? We cannot realistically slam our borders shut in the face of yet another humanitarian disaster. All our democratic (& Christian) moralizing precludes this as does our extravagant comparative wealth. Also, the west took pleasure in spending centuries exploiting (conquering, robbing blind) many 3rd world countries & still does: the hypocrisy of our western non-interference stance seems grotesque in light of what we are plundering from poor nations. Since many former citizens of these same countries now live in the west, we are creating internal enemies by our conduct. It really IS a mess: we intervene when we have interests in a place or when we want to grab up some resource like oil in Iraq BUT plead indifference & respect for another nation's sovereignty when we don't. MANOMANOMAN! So glad it isn't my decision to make!

 

[Peace]

Killing people to stop the killing.

I don't even keep track of all the wars going on globally at any time.

But; I see no reason why a country should intervene with an army anywhere. Why should the US, the UN or whatever group enforce regulations on that area? Clearly people in country X are not happy, they either fight or they deal with the regime that's at hand. I mean, Egypt tried to resolve it by rioting. Not supporting that either, but at least those people will try really hard. And I guess there's a thing to be said about the many African countries that have powerhungry dictators and warlords running rampant. Should we leave them to do all the killing in their own nation? Arguably no.

On the other hand; all these missions to preserve peace in wherever someone decides that taking a game of Risk to the next level do cost a nation a hefty amount of money, which I think is better spent to make their own nation a better place for all the citizens.

So perhaps I'm more biased towards something economical rather than "ethical" in terms of warfare. The Netherlands has sent out so many soldiers across the globe to help out on "peace missions" (what a eufemism; preserving the peace with guns and tanks) that, if for instance Germany would decide to invade us, we wouldn't have an army to save ourselves since they're all abroad.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

I am unsure what should be done, but I feel like the situation makes a little more sense to me after reading this:

Barack Obama’s logic for bombing Syria: The United States will seek to put an end to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. - Slate Magazine

 

[Mellotron]

When you look back at history the whole idea of American interference in foreign conflicts these days is really a complete turnaround after WW2. The US didn't involve itself in WW1 until the conflict was well underway and Germany was losing ground. If not for the Zimmerman telegram who knows if public sentiment would ever have supported that war. Similarly the US didn't enter WW2 as an active participant until Pearl Harbor gave the citizens enough reason to support it. Even as Germany bombed London the US still didn't involve itself to help its ally.

So now today the US involves itself in loads of conflicts, some of which have no bearing on it directly. I am personally against getting involved in Syria altogether. I've seen what good the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have done :: and I'm not really willing to watch another one of those.

 

[Geordie]

The UK said no. The US should do the same.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Syria, and if the UK or US goes there, they will create many more years of debt and mess. Repay any debt first, then use the money to build interstates, railways, seaports, airports and other facilities to support nation building - did I mention that they also better support defense, if needed?

Obama's political legacy - given perhaps seemingly weak popular support of the war, the vote may most likely be defeated. He may unintentionally set a precedent for restraint and popular support for future wars. He may not be a great president, but he certainly is a good one - better than what I expected. He isn't weak, but the alternatives will weaken the US.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Stay out. There's no good reason for the UK or USA to intervene.

Here's something related to it as well.
This isn't written by me.

[Mod note: link to article on conspiracy theory and pseudoscience-heavy site removed. This is why we generally don't like things of that nature to be shared here: http://www.aspiescentral.com/obsess...piracy-theories-other-paranoia.html#post33739]

Part 2: Lies and Deception...

President Obama & John Kerry have been caught deliberately misleading the American people about Syria & Weapons Inspectors. He's made it clear he will attack without Congressional Authorization. PLEASE pass that on to everyone you can.
Please Retweet this tweet: http://bit.ly/PleaseRetweet #NoObamaWar - Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria over Chemical Weapons, IT'S ILLEGAL - YouTube

[video=youtube;c4c4YuAUByw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c4c4YuAUByw[/video]



3. Here's the clincher...

Pictures have emerged showing the US Secretary of State John Kerry dining with President Bashar al-Assad, as Mr Kerry continued to push for a military strike on Syria following a suspected chemical attack.

The images, believed to have been captured in Damascus in February 2009, come in stark contrast to comments Mr Kerry recently made about the Syrian president, describing him as a "thug" and drawing comparisons between Mr Assad and Adolf Hitler over their use of chemical weapons.

Mr Kerry was visiting the region when he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He met with Mr Assad at least six times, according to The Daily Telegraph.

During the visit, he said in a press conference: ?President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process.

"Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region."

The restaurant pictured is understood to be situated in Damascus' Old Town, where Mr Kerry and Mr Assad were joined by their wives Teresa Heinz and Asma al-Assad, the First Lady of Syria.

Mr Kerry was also reportedly a strong supporter of the decision made by the US government to send an ambassador to Damascus in January 2011.

(Source Article: Pictures emerge showing US Secretary John Kerry and President Assad dining in Syria together - Middle East - World - The Independent

 

[Sparticus]

I avoid believing much of the news; too much disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, counter propaganda and what others here have said. It's so easy for the media to put a photo on tv/internet of the ____ people marching and say "look at these people they are against the ____."

Sure, right, whatever you say...blow me.

Give back my Constitutional right to be a father...give non-custodial mothers back their right to have communications with their children. Give grandparents the right to visit grandchildren who are caught stuck in a divorce situation...

Where are the Tzaddiks when you need them?

PS: an old political trick is when you have domestic trouble {jobs, economy, etc} then declare war on another country so Citizens don't think about domestic troubles

 

[Sparticus]

I like what nonsensical & everyone else has said. I'm stressed out about tomorrow's social event at work to be of much help here... :-(

 

[Soup]

PS: an old political trick is when you have domestic trouble {jobs, economy, etc} then declare war on another country so Citizens don't think about domestic troubles- Sparticus

YEP! Another reason flailing nations do this is that, depending upon the country's political/economic structure, a war can stimulate the economy & prove very profitable for many. Unemployed or underemployed young men (mostly) join the military in droves because it is a better option than welfare. Many of them will be killed (a sick way of culling the poor & reducing their numbers). Sons (& daughters) of affluent people seldom join the army & the few that do are NEVER ordinary grunts sent to the front-lines where the risks are highest.

The Tzaddiks, pundits & assorted allegedly wise & holy men are usually right in the thick of most social & political disasters! As for 'the right to' be a parent, this is something (from my perspective as a teacher where I see MANY parents) is something people need to begin seeing as a privilege . Anyone fertile can make a baby with someone else fertile but not everyone can parent well. In the end, the kids pay the price for our parental slip-ups. I hate it when people become vindictive in a divorce & use the kids as pawns or misrepresent the other parent & mislead a court into depriving them of their kids. Again the KIDS are the big losers if they lose a loving parent because of another parent's lies or exaggerations.

On the other hand, there's the parent who is in deep denial of how crappy mother or father s/he really is. This is a truly dangerous situation I've seen wherein a parent who was volatile & abusive describes him or herself (in my case it was a crazy mother) as merely strict.

 

[Sparticus]

I'm obsessed with justice even though I'm human and have my own prejudiced flaws. But the chestnuts I just ate made me feel better
What you said Soup about the economy seems to be right on. It is sad especially the Vet survivors who might get subpar medical treatment or lack of opportunities when they come home. As a teacher you must of seen a lot per the children and their parents.

I have to talk to my therapist and get past my bitterness per the past. What happened to me in childhood in a way happened to my son and I was powerless to stop it/fight the Court system. Have always wondered if anyone knew or found out what parents were faking it/telling lies about the other parent while hurting their own children. None of it made any sense to me as I was in the middle of grieving/being in shock...seemed like so many were just corrupt. I never thought anyone would ever hurt their own children so much.

For me I thought it would be better not fighting the mother of my son in Court. I had no idea of events to come.

So how crazy was that mother?

PS: an old political trick is when you have domestic trouble {jobs, economy, etc} then declare war on another country so Citizens don't think about domestic troubles- Sparticus

YEP! Another reason flailing nations do this is that, depending upon the country's political/economic structure, a war can stimulate the economy & prove very profitable for many. Unemployed or underemployed young men (mostly) join the military in droves because it is a better option than welfare. Many of them will be killed (a sick way of culling the poor & reducing their numbers). Sons (& daughters) of affluent people seldom join the army & the few that do are NEVER ordinary grunts sent to the front-lines where the risks are highest.

The Tzaddiks, pundits & assorted allegedly wise & holy men are usually right in the thick of most social & political disasters! As for 'the right to' be a parent, this is something (from my perspective as a teacher where I see MANY parents) is something people need to begin seeing as a privilege . Anyone fertile can make a baby with someone else fertile but not everyone can parent well. In the end, the kids pay the price for our parental slip-ups. I hate it when people become vindictive in a divorce & use the kids as pawns or misrepresent the other parent & mislead a court into depriving them of their kids. Again the KIDS are the big losers if they lose a loving parent because of another parent's lies or exaggerations.

On the other hand, there's the parent who is in deep denial of how crappy mother or father s/he really is. This is a truly dangerous situation I've seen wherein a parent who was volatile & abusive describes him or herself (in my case it was a crazy mother) as merely strict.

 

[Sparticus]

I'm not informed on the geopolitical situation between Israel & Syria so I might be wrong about my answer above.

 

[IContainMultitudes]

This thread is starting to drift a bit off topic, if you would like to further discuss the topic of parental rights/privileges, please do it in a new thread.

 

[Ste11aeres]

From what I can tell, Assad is pretty nasty , but so are the rebels Obama promised to strengthen...the rebels have been murdering civilians, etc...

 

[Spinning Compass]

I say stay out. I see no good coming out of this. It seems we haven't learned anything at all since Vietnam.

So we do go in. We remove Assad, then what next? Will the Syrians thank us for leaving a mess like we did in Iraq?

If we do go in then we need to fully commit. We cannot go in and leave a job half done. Which means, I'm afraid, occupation WWII-style in Japan, where we basically take over the whole country. I do not think the US has the resources to do this even if we had the will, which I don't think so.

On the other hand, war is very good for the economy, removing the surplus unemployed, etc. just so long as the war takes place somewhere else.

 

[Soup]

I don't think that the US should go in either. With the economy so severely shattered & 2 botched wars in recent times, people do not seem to want the US to become embroiled in another far away mess. Assad is definitely a tyrannical dictator who used poison gas on civilians. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that 'the rebels' are any better: seems they've been committing atrocities too. If they had such a weapon at their command, would they have used it? My guess is probably. We don't even know who the rebels are & whom they plan to replace Assad with. Often with so-called revolutions, rebels have many slogans & a bucketful of ideals but no viable plan. Oftentimes, as soon as the so called unified rebels oust whomever they oust, they almost immediately split into different factions & a bloody power grab occurs as each faction wants to see their ideologies implemented & their guy placed in power. With both Al Qaeda & Russia & probably many other shady groups in the mix, the US would be stepping into a minefield & there re just too many unknown variables.

I'm concerned about the refugee crisis as embattled & bedraggled civilians make their way out of Syria & into crude desert camps in countries that would rather not have them (like Turkey). Their needs grow daily along with their numbers. These camps are breeding grounds for all sorts of nasty illnesses that can quickly take the lives of the unfortunate who have lost all else. I remember seeing an interview with psychiatrists without borders & there are deep concerns about the psychological traumas many have suffered. Kids who had no previous mental illnesses are showing disturbing symptoms: what they have seen & experienced has deranged many of them. Perhaps the west needs to step away from their Globocop role & focus instead on humanitarian crisis management such as getting badly needed resources to the refugees.

 

[Manuheleku]

Every war that this country has been in during my lifetime (since Vietnam) has been fought because one group of politicians didn't like another group of politicians and decided to go to war. They were generally prodded along to do so by industry, all about the profit they could make. No concern seemed to be had for all the soldiers and innocents who died, collateral damage they said. No, war is VERY hard to justify, extreme circumstances need be present.