How long until somebody does something about Syria?

[Doppel]

Starting to think it is time to give Assad a deadline to gtfo and retire somewhere or else it is gadhafi time for him. I will always believe it is a moral imperative of those with the power to right injustice to right it. This is a gray area, but at some point it becomes black and white.

Maybe this is that point. Child massacre confirmd by UN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18221461

*GRAPHIC*, pics http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-kill-90-worst-attacks-ceasefire-began.html

I know some will respond to this thread pretending nothing is their problem because their selfishness is boundless and they cannot envision ever needing help themselves.

Oh yeah and the fvcking Russians are STILL selling weapons to this guy. Arms embargo should be put in effect immediately and this ship seized if it continues to Syria.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-syria-arms-russia-idUSBRE84O12F20120525

 

[Craig234]

You need to register Democratic Party, Doppel.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No oil to worry Europe. People are tired of the US being the worlds policeman. Not equipped for nation building. The country/world is not equipped for a scorched earth situation when intervention which is need to destroy a government and rebuild.
Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are examples.

 

[waggy]

You need to register Democratic Party, Doppel.

damn right. kick those GOP out of the office.

..oh wait..

 

[nextJin]

Uh yea no. I'm tired of people calling on the military to do something they wouldnt do themselves just so they can feel better about themselves. Esspecially when it in no way affects the American people one way or the other.

 

[chris9641]

Uh yea no. I'm tired of people calling on the military to do something they wouldnt do themselves just so they can feel better about themselves. Esspecially when it in no way affects the American people one way or the other.

Doesn't looking at those pictures affect you? If those children were Americans wouldn't that change your perspective, yet you have no personal connection with them regardless if they were Syrian or American.

I think the internet is bringing these atrocities into our consciousness while breaking boundaries between whether these are 'your people' or not , and as Doppel points out, "it is a moral imperative of those with the power to right injustice to right it".

 

[davmat787]

Doesn't looking at those pictures affect you? If those children were Americans wouldn't that change your perspective, yet you have no personal connection with them regardless if they were Syrian or American.

I think the internet is bringing these atrocities into our consciousness while breaking boundaries between whether these are 'your people' or not , and as Doppel points out, "it is a moral imperative of those with the power to right injustice to right it".

So what do you propose to do about it? And I am not asking this in a snide manner.

As you point out, the internet brings these atrocities to the forefront. At the same time, the consequences of any action against Syria will be brought to the forefront as well. People can't expect this problem to be solved peacefully if they want military intervention, yet they will be up in arms (no pun intended) when they see the results of military action to remove a dictator.

 

[nextJin]

As a member of the military with the experiences I have being on multiple deployments I am a steadfast believer in only going to war if you are willing to go yourself, or you are willing to send your own children to war.

When it does not directly involve the safety and security of the American people, it is not the governments responsibilty to send other peoples children to die. Nothing stops anyone, be them American, Canadian, Swedish, Saudi, etc. from going to Syria and taking up arms with the rebels if they feel strongly enough.

I used to believe in interventionist wars, the war on terror, and killing anyone who opposed us until I realised what a horrible way of thinking that was and how horribly asinine something called a war on terror actually was.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's not like the next ruler of Syria will be any better. I heard the leader of the rebels in Libya was a greenbacker just like Ghadafi was. The majority in Iraq is worse than Hussein was. The fascist who tried to replace Chavez was so unpopular that the people overthrew his ass in less than 2 days.

Democrazy and Monarchy are two sides of the same statist coin. Lew Rockwell said something like "there was no better way for statists to seize power than to tell the people that they would be the government if they were a democrazy".

 

[chris9641]

So what do you propose to do about it? And I am not asking this in a snide manner.

As you point out, the internet brings these atrocities to the forefront. At the same time, the consequences of any action against Syria will be brought to the forefront as well. People can't expect this problem to be solved peacefully if they want military intervention, yet they will be up in arms (no pun intended) when they see the results of military action to remove a dictator.

You're right, it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. An arms embargo, as the OP suggested would be a good step. Unfortunately I don't think any of us are too faithful in our representatives to handle this correctly.

I just think to turn our heads and look away and say it isn't affecting us is very dangerous, and one of the options that shouldn't IMO be in the equation.

 

[nageov3t]

until they discover more oil

 

[keird]

Having Syria embroiled in a civil war is probably a good thing for Israel. It makes things that much more costly to Iran should they engage Israel without having Syria serving as a functional proxy.

You can't fix Arab governments because they all inherently suck. Syria isn't Bosnia either.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Let the UN, Europe and the surrounding Arab nations deal with it. There is no reason why the US should be involved in that mess.

 

[chris9641]

Let the UN, Europe and the surrounding Arab nations deal with it. There is no reason why the US should be involved in that mess.

How can the US with a straight face tell other nations we have no reason to be in that mess after we intervened with specifically with Lybia, but also Iraq, and are currently occupied in Afghanistan? No hostility implied.

 

[cybrsage]

Two main reasons we are not involved in Syria.

1. No oil - Libya has lots of oil, so we got involved.
2. Russian bases in Syria - Libya had no Russian bases to worry about.

 

[cybrsage]

How can the US with a straight face tell other nations we have no reason to be in that mess after we intervened with specifically with Lybia, but also Iraq, and are currently occupied in Afghanistan? No hostility implied.

There are no Russian bases in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. There is at least one in Syria.

 

[chris9641]

There are no Russian bases in Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan. There is at least one in Syria.

So do you think we can reach some kind of resolution with Russia to stop Assad?

 

[cybrsage]

So do you think we can reach some kind of resolution with Russia to stop Assad?

The only solution to stop him is to replace him, IMO. Russia does not want him replaced because any replacement will most likely be far more religious minded than Assad - which is never good for Russia.

I suspect the Russians are trying to help him find a way out which keeps him in power. A tall order.

 

[woodie1]

I no longer think we (USA) should be the cop on the beat around the world. I'd just let the country implode on its own and be done with it.

 

[chris9641]

The only solution to stop him is to replace him, IMO. Russia does not want him replaced because any replacement will most likely be far more religious minded than Assad - which is never good for Russia.

Putin desperately needs positive press. Can we somehow convince the Russians that if they replace Assad they look like the heroes, while be bite our lip and let Putin reign in his glory.
Russia seems to be on the tipping point of a revolution themselves, being fed up of what is essentially a rigged, faux democracy.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

How can the US with a straight face tell other nations we have no reason to be in that mess after we intervened with specifically with Lybia, but also Iraq, and are currently occupied in Afghanistan? No hostility implied.

Your question assumes that our involvement in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan were all equal in terms of the reasoning and nature for each of those military actions.

One could easily argue and point out that our involvement in Afghanistan occurred mainly due to the fact that we were attacked by forces hosted and sheltered by that nation's previous government and that those forces still remain to some extent and present a danger to the safety of that government's stability along with potential future threat to our nation as well. However I personally would like us to withdraw soon because as it stands the so called elected leaders in Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan have told us now that the welcome rug has been put away so it's time to move on and bring our troops back.

In Iraq we over-stepped to remove a dictator and helped reshape the map of the Middle-east politically by helping to setup a "Democratic" government that Iraqis could have a say over, even if they disagree with each other on how that government is shaped but that is their problem to deal with as a people not ours.

Libya we did the same in terms of helping to over-throw a dictator but it was more for the benefit of Europe and the Arab League who asked for our support and sadly that affair is not looking to great right now in terms of potential future outcome.

Iraq and Libya I'll grant you were instances where we over stepped but we can't put the proverbial tooth paste back into the tube with any of the 3 mentioned cases so opening another one would not be wise IMHO.

Furthermore we have all the right in the world to say "Sorry not this time guys." because this nation has for the last 50+ years been doing all the heavy lifting around the world in terms of shaping and securing the modern world as we know it today and effectively has been the world's policeman. Coincidentally this role has earned us much criticism from these other nations for us daring to step in when they just sat/sit by idly with their hands in their pockets. This time it is my opinion that it is their turn to step up to the proverbial plate and we can sit back nit pick their actions in the Monday morning quarter-back style.

 

[chris9641]

Your question assumes that our involvement in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan were all equal in terms of the reasoning and nature for each of those military actions.

One could easily argue and point out that our involvement in Afghanistan occurred mainly due to the fact that we were attacked by forces hosted and sheltered by that nation's previous government and that those forces still remain to some extent and present a danger to the safety of that government's stability along with potential future threat to our nation as well. However I personally would like us to withdraw soon because as it stands the so called elected leaders in Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan have told us now that the welcome rug has been put away so it's time to move on and bring our troops back.

In Iraq we over-stepped to remove a dictator and helped reshape the map of the Middle-east politically by helping to setup a "Democratic" government that Iraqis could have a say over, even if they disagree with each other on how that government is shaped but that is their problem to deal with as a people not ours.

Libya we did the same in terms of helping to over-throw a dictator but it was more for the benefit of Europe and the Arab League who asked for our support and sadly that affair is not looking to great right now in terms of potential future outcome.

Iraq and Libya I'll grant you were instances where we over stepped but we can't put the proverbial tooth paste back into the tube with any of the 3 mentioned cases so opening another one would not be wise IMHO.

Furthermore we have all the right in the world to say "Sorry not this time guys." because this nation has for the last 50+ years been doing all the heavy lifting around the world in terms of shaping and securing the modern world as we know it today and effectively has been the world's policeman. Coincidentally this role has earned us much criticism frpm these other nations for daring to step in when they just sat by idly with their hands in their pockets. This time it is my opinion that it is their turn to step up to the proverbial plate and we can sit back nit pick their actions in the Monday morning quarter-back style.

Thanks for the response. You're right, the US has been the world police for more than half a century, but that role is something we as nation took upon ourselves. I see what you're saying and we have to begin a more isolationist approach at one time or another, but it seems odd that has to be now with Syria, and a bit arrogant to do so while still involved in a war.

Unfortunately I think our monday night quarterbacking at this time is going to cost a lot of lives, and I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate.

 

[keird]

Thanks for the response. You're right, the US has been the world police for more than half a century, but that role is something we as nation took upon ourselves. I see what you're saying and we have to begin a more isolationist approach at one time or another, but it seems odd that has to be now with Syria, and a bit arrogant to do so while still involved in a war.

Unfortunately I think our monday night quarterbacking at this time is going to cost a lot of lives, and I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate.

It's a bit arrogant for the U.S. to not inject itself in another foreign civil war? This is the opposite of what I've read reported about other people’s feelings of our involvement in other foreign civil wars.

 

[Doppel]

As a member of the military with the experiences I have being on multiple deployments I am a steadfast believer in only going to war if you are willing to go yourself, or you are willing to send your own children to war.

When it does not directly involve the safety and security of the American people, it is not the governments responsibilty to send other peoples children to die. Nothing stops anyone, be them American, Canadian, Swedish, Saudi, etc. from going to Syria and taking up arms with the rebels if they feel strongly enough.

I used to believe in interventionist wars, the war on terror, and killing anyone who opposed us until I realised what a horrible way of thinking that was and how horribly asinine something called a war on terror actually was.

This is a fair point and no I would not go there myself with a rifle. However, as a few UN nations did with Libya they could do here. Assad needs to be told clearly he will be targeted by serious military airpower if he doesn't cease this behavior right now.

I am not talking about boots on the ground.

Fwiw I have n idea at all what overall percentage of the population actually supports him.

The UN IS THE cop of the world and it is doing jack squat here exactly as it did in Libya for far too long.

As much as the West loves oil it was also the west that's pushed for the Libyan no fl zone and although Libya is an oil country there was never any scenario in which oil was benefitted by the ouster of gadhafi. I think western powers supported that--along with the Arab league because it was simply the right thing to do.

There comes a time when by ignoring evil that you could have stopped you have become complicit by your apathy.

 

[davmat787]

It won't be too long before there are small enough explosive micro drones that one could fly up his nose or next to his head and press the explode button. Of course that is a targeted assassination of a head of state, but on the other hand would result in the least loss of life.