Syria
 

Given that it looks like there'll be another conflict on the horizon, I was wondering if you thought military action was warranted against the Al-Assad administration.

I'd just like to hear opinions, so I'll leave it at that. God willing, this will be civilized.

I don't like that the west is so eager to jump in without demonstrating that Assad's government was actually responsible for the attack.

If he was, then I'm not sure. I guess you have to worry about the precedent of allowing dictators to use chemical attacks on their people, but honestly the thought of another mid-east intervention is hardly appealing. I'd probably prefer we stay out of it either way. Not that that's going to happen.

But you shot Abe Lincoln in the back of the head. If anyone knows about impulse, its you.

can someone tldr the entire situation in syria lol

i feel confused what exactly is happenin


edit: just read a page long tldr somewhere else. i think i get it



sounds like the USA doesnt want to get involved. seems like a major problem would be who would run the country if assad is overthrown??

UK already backed out of getting involved

The US wants to get involved but with just a few limited strikes or something along those lines but are being hesitant about that as well.

In the end they are probably not going to do anything and just show Syria that it's okay to use chemical attacks against civilians because other countries are tired of always getting involved and then terrorist groups will roll with this and decide that chemical attacks are the way to go.

Expect to see more chemical attacks happening because everyone's whining about "oh the west shouldn't get involved"

I'd support some kind of intervention if it involved trying to end the violence and find some kind of amicable conclusion but in the current state of sweeping in and bombing Assad into submission I'm against it. We seem to be far too keen to excuse the rebels of their own horrific war crimes because of the arbitrary line we draw on chemical weapons and I don't think supporting them unconditionally is going to make the situation any better afterwards.

Right, because as it stands terrorist groups are totally against chemical attacks and indiscriminate violence...

Not to mention that 'the rebels' are not a single cohesive group, and you can expect to the inevitable power struggle play out once the regime falls.

They aren't against it but now that they have seen a test run with results of course it will become more frequent.

If there's one thing that gets my gonads in a twist, it's the American government talking about "intervening" in this or that conflict. It's not our war. There's no way of telling what the effects of our involvement might be. After Gadahfi was ousted in Lybia all of his mercenaris from Mali went back to their homeland with all of their weapons and caused havoc in the civil war that was already going on and now Al Qaeda is gaining more and more power there, and it was all because of the Arab Spring.

Gadhafi’s Mercenaries Spread Guns and Fighting in Africa - ABC News

And now we're talking about interfering in Syria without any respect for the law of unintended consequences? **** this bull****. And the idea that we're only going to do limited bombing is a crock. We were only going to do limited bombing in Kosovo. Clinton promised that there would be no troops on the ground. But, shockingly, the bombing didn't work and troops were deployed. Not to mention we didn't have Russia and China breathing down out backs in Kosovo. It's tragic what's happening in Syria but the truth is that it's Syria's problem, not ours. Sending our men and women to die in a foreign country for a conflict that has nothing to do with them just because people feel bad is short-sighted and idiotic.

It's short-sighted not to intervene. I'm sure intelligence is weighing the options of what the outcome would be with or without intervention. It's not just a decision that's being made hastily and without forethought regardless of what other events has happened in the past.

Really, I think history tells us just the opposite in respect to this type of conflict. When countries get dragged into these conflicts, it's usually for the long haul and all the knock-on bad effects that go with it. The zone affected normally become far less stable and causes an international headache. Dictators despite their evils, do keep a certain amount of stability within the zone. Personally I'm happy that for once the UK is not getting involved in something, that has nothing to do with them.

Does anyone know if the UN has mentioned anything?

Ya, DJ Chameleon. The U.N. has actually come out and accused Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons: link

Oh snap. You mean has anyone substantiated reports that the Syrian Government used Chemical Weapons? No, because Rebel groups refuse to allow U.N. inspectors in.

Not quite. Saddam Hussein made far more extensive use of gas against the Kurds in the 90s, and his usage of it in the Iran-Iraq War is certainly not forgotten either. Did the lack of response by the international community result in a surge of chemical warfare immediately following either example? No.

Why? Because it will lead to more chemical attacks? We already knew they were killing their own people. Now they're just doing it in an even less politically correct manner. As far as I'm concerned nothing has changed. Let them do what they're going to do. Our involvement is only going to cause unforseen problems for them and for us.

And I'd just like to say that if you want us to intervene then you should feel some obligation to join the military or at least in some way to support the military in any way you can besides just talking. If you want to send others to die for your moral beliefs that you have no desire to back up with your own actions then that is unconscionable and is why these pointless wars happen in the first place.

from what i've read theres no chance we will send troops. military support on our end would be in the form of arming he rebels with more serious firepower or possibly missile strikes from afar. i dont think we would put our troops on the ground over there. not that i dont think we are stupid enough but ive just read obama is reluctant to jump into anything and we wont throw troops at assad. chamaleon could be talkin about ground troops tho i dunno for sure


the more i read i feel pretty apprehensive about arming the rebels cause it sounds like theres a good chance those weapons would end up in the hands of religous group terrorists or al quadea and i dont want them to have our weapons lol. maybe we could booby trap the weapons and give them directly to al quada?? lol thatd be awesome

I'm not sure if you know it but I am a veteran. If I could sign back up and go over there. I would. I already served my time in the military. I just feel like there is information that our intelligence knows why they are even considering getting involved. Also, I wasn't talking about ground troops batty just made the leap because he thinks that's the direction it will head in.

Again. Look at Kosovo. Clinton was dead-set against sending in troops, but once the air attacks failed then he did it anyway. Once we've committed to a goal we're going to do our damndest to accomplish it if only to save face. Which means that I have no faith in Obama's assurances to not send in troops. Obama's foreign policy is no different than Bush's. He's just as much of a war mongering neo-con and can go **** himself as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I have no faith in the cause of the rebels. Even if it doesn't lead to Al Qaeda seizing power I imagine it'll just lead to someone as bad or worse than Assad. Look at Egypt. Not nearly as bloody a conflict as Syria, and yet it's already going to ****. Violent revolutions never end well.

Do you think the threat of a military response is an effective deterrent against terrorism?
In Egypt there was never really a transfer of power. The military regime maintained control the whole time.

As for violent revolutions... I can think of at least 1 that worked out alright.

It IS our war. We really can't stay out of it. This is based on if poison gas is really being used. That has to concern us. It has to concern the world.

It won't be good because it never is. What else is new?

We invaded Iraq based on lies. It's a little late to start worrying about unintended consequences.

No, it's not but that **** is not okay what went down and to turn a blind eye to it and shrug it off like it's not our problem will cause it to be our problem in the future.

But there are at least a dozen conflicts going on in the world at the moment, so what makes one conflict more worthy of US interference than another?

I don't care how Assad kills his people, the United States should not get involved, the logic of the US is insane basically our gov't was ok w/ him shooting his people to death but somehow a line is crossed when chemicals are used to achieve the same goal.

Foh if we get into a war w/ these retards I swear I'm moving to Canada or Sweeden I refuse to pay for another stupid war.

Not our part of the world, not our citizens, not our government in jeopardy, not our war.

And if you could explain how exactly Syria using chemical weapons should concern the entire world then I could actually go about discussing this point.


So...you agree that getting involved in a volatile situation with unknown variables, outcomes, and consequences is a bad idea?


First of all, what does this have to do with Iraq? Secondly, why is it too late? It's never too late to start thinking in the long term.

If you're talking about the American Revolution, then I have to disagree. Not because it didn't turn out well, it just wasn't a revolution in the same sense as the French, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc, etc, etc revolutions were. The current system of power (i.e. the US colonial government rather than the British government) wasn't overthrown. Our Continental Congress remained in power, our politicians were the same ones afterward as before, our institutions didn't change, and most importantly of all there wasn't a revolutionary force rebelling against the local government. For all intents and purposes the American Revolution was a sovereign nation repelling a foreign occupying force.

Two words: Fucking Israel.

What happens when we do nothing and another faction decides that they are going to use chemical weapons too. Then another, then another. That stuff gets into the oceans, into the wind and innocent countries can suffer the consequences.

Nearly every nation has signed and ratified the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction in the Hague. Two have signed but not ratified--Myanmar and Israel. Here are the rest that haven't done either: North Korea, Angola, South Sudan, Egypt and Syria. Those five just happen to be the most volatile places on earth. And I'm sure if we sit back and do nothing there's no chance this will escalate--naaaaaw, couldn't happen.

It's a perfectly horrible idea. But even that is better than no idea. We have to show these nations who are willing to use chemical weapons that we will f-uck them up and drag ourselves into another hopeless war if that's what they really want.

But, again, I want to make clear that this is based on the use of chemical weapons being proved beyond a doubt. We're idiots if we allow ourselves to get sucked into another WMD bulls-hit wild goose chase. If it's just a bombs and bullets war then f-uck it. I want nothing to do with it.

Everything from our end of it. The world is still sore about us invading Iraq over non-existent WMD. We cannot go into Syria using the same rationale unless it is proven to the world beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Bush's war cost us $120 BILLION dollars a day, killed over 100,000 innocent people, allowed thieves called "contractors" to steal billions from the US Treasury that will never be recovered, destroyed the lives of countless soldiers, lost us any hope of winning in Afghanistan, allowed Iran to rise up unchecked, precipitated the financial meltdown that tanked our economy--and you're worried about what happening?

I'd just like to point out that they already had chemical weapons and they already had ties to terrorists. If they were going to give them to said terrorists then I'm sure they would have done so already. How they use them in their own country is not my business. If we can trace chemical weapons used in an international attack back to Syrian involvement then we can talk about that, but as it stands now I don't think it's worth it.


I have no idea what point you're making. Is that supposed to be an argument FOR going into Syria? If not, then I'm on board. I want no part of another cluster ****.

The idea that America can manage every wayward regime with its military might is really starting to get us in trouble. At the end of the day the real reason Obama has to strike is because to not strike will make America appear weak, especially since he already went running his mouth about it.

We'll just see how this works out. A few strategical strikes, right? What're they gonna do? They can't bomb the stockpiles for obvious reasons. They say they're not in favor of regime change (because they're rightfully scared of the rebels) yet to weaken to army will certainly tip the scale against the regime. If the regime does fall then the weapons don't simply disappear, they fall into the hands of the rebels. It seems very unlikely that a few strikes is going to solve much of anything at all.

And you know they haven't because...?

Agreed. But we know it won't end there. don't we? It never does. If we learned anything at all from 9-11, it should have been that.

So we'll just wait until that happens. That last time we did that, we ended up in a full-scale war--exactly where you don't want to be. And you know what they say about definition of insane is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Forget about Syria. We're going into Syria now no matter what--that's a done deal and nothing is going to change it no matter what happens. I'm talking about future regimes getting bright ideas about using chemical weapons. We have to show them that this will happen to them too. Yes, it sucks for us--it f-ucking blows. But the effects are way worse on them and if that's what they want to drag to their doorsteps then start dragging. But as for going into Syria--that isn't worth debating. We're going.

Who do you think Syria is going to attack with chemical weapons? I can't imagine who else Assad's regime would have the incentive of attacking right now besides the people trying to oust him.

We're talking about Muslims. You can't expect logical thinking from these people. Who will they gas next? That's exactly the problem--who the f-uck knows??

You can't attribute logical motives into the heads of people who are encouraged if not mandated to think irrationally at least I sure wouldn't recommend it.

Nonsense. You need to come up with something better than "Muslims are crazy!" to support the argument you're trying to make.

Most countries are knowingly contaminating the planet in one way or another, I don't think chemical warfare should be picked on solely for this reason.

The first paragraph is basically a narrow view on the motives of the Syrian regime and Muslims in general. The regime is all about consolidating what it has, rather than an expansionist one. Whenever Syria has attempted to wage war before, it has always needed to be part of an Arab pact and even then its successes were extremely limited.

No, I don't.

Then this is hardly a debate, if you're not willing to expand on certain points raised.

Chemical weapons are made to kill immediately or severely disable a person physically (I know of one that would raise painful blisters all over the body such that wearing clothing was impossible causing the afflicted person to die of exposure). The kind of poisoning you're talking about is like someone smoking--yeah, it's stupid and unhealthy and sooner or later these is going to be reckoning--but chemical weapons are especially bad because they are MEANT to f-uck you up and and fast and those who resort to them are not interested in negotiating or they wouldn't have them in the first place.

I don't care which country over there rules whom, I don't care which is expansionist. One is as bad as the other so it makes no difference. I don't care if they beat and torture people and throw acid on women for not wearing their veils. All of that is just fine with me. Just stay away from the chemical weapons, bio weapons, nukes--I don't trust those people. I was stationed over there in the service and I do not trust those people.

I've talked my damned head off already. Nothing I've said has been addressed so I'm done.

I wasn't suggesting that chemical weapons didn't do any of these above horrors, just that your earlier reason for stating that they shouldn't be used was a weak one.

This basically explains why you're not objective about the whole situation, as you've already had your fingers burnt.

You've only been on here for a couple of pages!

I mean, in order to make the argument successfully, you kinda do.

Assad's regime isn't acting on religious motives. This is ultimately a struggle for self-preservation. So the crazy Muslims card isn't exactly appropriate here. It would actually be more accurate to make the accusation of religious extremism against some of the people who are fighting against him.

You know what? I'm going to change my stance. Let's not intervene in Syria no matter what happens over there. Not our fight. You're absolutely right, I was absolutely wrong. I bow out.

You need a chill pill.


Does anyone feel this situation with Syria is going to improve?

No, it's not going to improve.

What kind of sucks though is that Obama is leaving it up to Congress to decide whether we go in or not. I don't feel like Obama is skilled enough to get the supporters to back it in congress behind the scenes. Also there are international allies that also feel that military action should be done but they just say it behind closed doors. They don't want to openly come out and say they support it. They just want the US to go ahead and do what the US does and when/if things go wrong they can just sit on the sidelines and say "phew we are so glad that we didn't openly back them and it's great that they can take all the hate for this."



I know people just love to hate Obama for every little thing but he makes some good points.