Time for a Syrian No-Fly Zone?

[Brigandier]

Tanks Move into Protest City

Time to help the Syrians? If not, why not?

 

[wuliheron]

Be careful what you wish for. The US, NATO, or whoever could intervene in every country in the world with any serious internal conflict. The question isn't why not, but why get involved in the first place?

 

[Tom]

The world would get far more benefit from a free democratic Syria than just about any other middle eastern country, except Egypt and Iran.

Problem is, we have no way of knowing if it would turn out that way, no matter what we do. Just like we have no idea what will happen in Iraq or Egypt.

 

[Craig234]

In principle, yes. There are a lot of issues to look at to figure out how best to help, but yes, I'd like to look at how to support democracy and prevent slaughter of citizens.

 

[Schadenfroh]

No, not this again, we should not interfere in the affairs of other countries like this. We should not be in Libya either. Let them sort it out themselves.

If we intervene, all we will hear about on the news / see on TV is pictures of dead women and children that were "supposedly" killed by NATO bombs. Terrorist groups will use it as propaganda to recruit more followers and the people will rally behind their dictator to remove foreigners from their lands. They will grow to hate the west even more.

People prefer a cruel tyrant that is one of their own over foreign rulers that wish to cause massive social upheavals (even if it results in much greater freedom).

 

[Craig234]

No, not this again, we should not interfere in the affairs of other countries like this. We should not be in Libya either. Let them sort it out themselves.

If we intervene, all we will hear about on the news / see on TV is pictures of dead women and children that were "supposedly" killed by NATO bombs. Terrorist groups will use it as propaganda to recruit more followers and the people will rally behind their dictator to remove foreigners from their lands. They will grow to hate the west even more.

People prefer a cruel tyrant that is one of their own over foreign rulers that wish to cause massive social upheavals (even if it results in much greater freedom).

If you go and get killed by the Syrian authorities, I'll agree to your position to do nothing.

I'm not talking about a ground invasion here.

Otherwise, you are just not giving a crap about other people. You are happy to see them killed for petty, selfish reasons not to be 'bothered'.

I'm not wanting us to get involved in every civil uprising by any means - we put down one in our own country a while back.

But when it appears there's a real democratic uprising against oppression and the modern military strength is used for murdering citizens, we should look at it.

 

[a777pilot]

Yeman.
Saudi Arabia.
Iraq.
Syria.
Egypt.
Libya.
Tunisia.

...and others.

What do they have in common that would make Bobo, the Post Turtle, to call for and support those government's overthrow?

I opine, they have a non-muslim secular government. Bobo, the Post Turtle, has said in the past that he supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No.

 

[irishScott]

They have less oil, so no.

 

[Lemon law]

I only agree with Shradenfroh up to a point. While I agree the USA can no longer act against foreign Countries, we can and should be part of international coalition.

We are doing exactly that in Libya to prevent an pre-existing civil war from getting larger and bloodier.

In Syria there is sadly no US rationale to yet act, because the Arab League has yet done anything to authorize action against Syria.

But that seems to be the emerging consensus of the Arab spring, namely that any dictator who use violence against his own people as they demonstrate non-violently will soon have to go. And if the regional powers that be take action against Assad, it may be Turkey itself that carries the bulk of any coalition load.

But that is the other thing to point to, Mubarak failed to cling to power simply because his own army refused to use violence against their own people, and in terms of convincing Assad's army to do the same using diplomats is also easier done by a local regional power, but a distant power like the USA has little chance in that area.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No, not this again, we should not interfere in the affairs of other countries like this. We should not be in Libya either. Let them sort it out themselves.

If we intervene, all we will hear about on the news / see on TV is pictures of dead women and children that were "supposedly" killed by NATO bombs. Terrorist groups will use it as propaganda to recruit more followers and the people will rally behind their dictator to remove foreigners from their lands. They will grow to hate the west even more.

People prefer a cruel tyrant that is one of their own over foreign rulers that wish to cause massive social upheavals (even if it results in much greater freedom).

I agree 110%!!!

 

[MotF Bane]

In principle, yes. There are a lot of issues to look at to figure out how best to help, but yes, I'd like to look at how to support democracy and prevent slaughter of citizens.

War is bad. Except when it's good.

 

[Jaskalas]

But when it appears there's a real democratic uprising against oppression and the modern military strength is used for murdering citizens, we should look at it.

Neocons, bringing Democracy to a freedom-loving Middle East.

 

[Schadenfroh]

If you go and get killed by the Syrian authorities, I'll agree to your position to do nothing.

Feel free to go over there and take up arms for the cause of the rebels. Sorta like that Italian guy that felt so sorry for the Palestinians that he moved to the Gaza Strip to help in their cause.

I'm not talking about a ground invasion here.

Then you want a stalemate that will last years? You will need "boots on the ground" to violently force a regime change, otherwise it will be a stalemate like in Libya. The stalemate / civil war will end up killing scores of civilians as well, especially when one side starts losing and gets desperate. Then, the real genocide starts.

We start out with air-strikes, which require special-ops teams on the ground to help select targets and minimize civilian deaths, then we move on to providing arms and advisors and the next thing you know, we are in another Vietnam.

Otherwise, you are just not giving a crap about other people. You are happy to see them killed for petty, selfish reasons not to be 'bothered'.
...
But when it appears there's a real democratic uprising against oppression and the modern military strength is used for murdering citizens, we should look at it.

Sounds almost like a Neocon... You would have supported invading and occupying Iraq during the rebellion that happened after Gulf War I when Saddam slaughtered untold numbers of his own civilians to maintain power? How about aiding the Northern Alliance and overthrowing the Taliban?

It will all result in a civil war, sectarian violence, etc. The only difference is that we will have both Americans dieing and the indigenous population.

If the U.N. wants to do something, fine, let them do it, just do not expect American blood to be spilled to help prop up a "democratically elected" corrupt government (**cough** Karzai **cough**) that replaces a corrupt dictatorship or theocracy.

Bring our troops and pilots home from these endless foreign wars, do not start anymore.

 

[Craig234]

Neocons, bringing Democracy to a freedom-loving Middle East.

No, Neocons had a very different agenda, and said a lot of lies to sell that agenda. This is very different. Neocons should not be allowed to steal and dirty words like democracy.

 

[Craig234]

Feel free to go over there and take up arms for the cause of the rebels. Sorta like that Italian guy that felt so sorry for the Palestinians that he moved to the Gaza Strip to help in their cause.

I'm not advocating a ground invasion, so you're the one who needs to take responsibility for your selfish policy to let people be killed.

Then you want a stalemate that will last years?

No. If I had to pick, a stalemate or a slaughter, I'd pick stalemate, but that's not the expected result - in Syria or in Lybia.

Egypt was at a stalemate, too - entrenched President for 30 years saying he definitely would not leave power - then it wasn't.

We start out with air-strikes, which require special-ops teams on the ground to help select targets and minimize civilian deaths, then we move on to providing arms and advisors and the next thing you know, we are in another Vietnam.

Slippery slope, and wrong. Where is Vietnam in Libya?

Sounds almost like a Neocon... You would have supported invading and occupying Iraq during the rebellion that happened after Gulf War I when Saddam slaughtered untold numbers of his own civilians to maintain power? How about aiding the Northern Alliance and overthrowing the Taliban?

Actually, I don't have enough info to say for sure, but probably yes - reports suggest the opposition to Saddam was likely going to be able to overthrow him if he wasn't allowed to use things like his air power to kill them, and we terribly first encouraged them to rise up, and then apparently changed our minds that we'd rather keep the devil we knew and let him kill them. He was a terrible dictator, and that uprising may have been a good one to let overthrow him.

Yes, there were questions - Iraq was set up intentionally to include three factions who want to kill each other, to help the British be able to keep them fighitng each other and easier to control. We'd have had to try to figure out how to deal with that - something that has been looked at, including ideas like splitting it into three countries (remember the Biden plan?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html

 

[matt0611]

No, not this again, we should not interfere in the affairs of other countries like this. We should not be in Libya either. Let them sort it out themselves.

If we intervene, all we will hear about on the news / see on TV is pictures of dead women and children that were "supposedly" killed by NATO bombs. Terrorist groups will use it as propaganda to recruit more followers and the people will rally behind their dictator to remove foreigners from their lands. They will grow to hate the west even more.

People prefer a cruel tyrant that is one of their own over foreign rulers that wish to cause massive social upheavals (even if it results in much greater freedom).

This, a million times this.

 

[Craig234]

This, a million times this.

If the French followed your advice, there wouldn't be a United States of America.

 

[matt0611]

If the French followed your advice, there wouldn't be a United States of America.

The French helped the US for their own interests.

A good quote to sum up my feelings on foreign intervention:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."

-John Quincy Adams

 

[Nintendesert]

Holy fuck where does it end? You all fuckers go fight these wars. I'm tired of doing it.