Posted by judasnixon (5437 posts) 7 months, 17 days ago

Should we intervene in Syria? (134 votes)

Yes 19%
No 80%
#51 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes.

#52 Edited by dngn4774 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio
#53 Edited by Dabee (2359 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee said:

They're gassing innocent kids. It's no different to those affected than if it was happening here. To be against it just shows ignorance towards what's really going on down there, or sadism.

Why don't we stop every tyrant inside of Africa doing the same on a daily basis?

You cannot. And SHOULD NOT police the world.

So it's better just to let them die? We as humans have an obligation to protect humans that are being treated in such a way. It's because of people with your philosophy that the Holocaust was able to have such a large scope. We have the resources to help the Syrians, so we have a responsibility to do so. If you were put in one of their refugee camps, and were covered in phosphorus, you would definitely not say "Well, the US doesn't need to help. I know they can, but it's not their job." You would say "..." nothing because you would be dead because of people with your "stay silent" philosophy. Silence towards what's going on is extremely dangerous.

#54 Edited by dngn4774 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee said:

@supreme_chancellor said:

@dabee said:

They're gassing innocent kids. It's no different to those affected than if it was happening here. To be against it just shows ignorance towards what's really going on down there, or sadism.

Why don't we stop every tyrant inside of Africa doing the same on a daily basis?

You cannot. And SHOULD NOT police the world.

So it's better just to let them die? We as humans have an obligation to protect humans that are being treated in such a way. It's because of people with your philosophy that the Holocaust was able to have such a large scope. We have the resources to help the Syrians, so we have a responsibility to do so. If you were put in one of their refugee camps, and were covered in phosphorus, you would definitely not say "Well, the US doesn't need to help. I know they can, but it's not their job." You would say "..." nothing because you would be dead because of people with your "stay silent" philosophy. Silence towards what's going on is extremely dangerous.

And what is the alternative? We go in, take out the old government and replace with a puppet regime that obeys our interest before their own people, like we do every time in that particular region of the world! How does that give the people of Syria any more freedom? At least in a civil war the rebels have a chance at controlling their own destiny. The problem in the Middle East is that we are not fighting men we are fighting corrupt ideals. Unfortunately, you cannot stop an idea with a bullet, you have to do it with diplomacy and education.

#55 Posted by ARMIV2 (7653 posts) - - Show Bio

I...don't know.

#57 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio
#58 Edited by dngn4774 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: I could easily show you the child of a dead soldier, but that wouldn't prove a point. There are casualties in every war, for every cause, but emotion doesn't make either of our opinions more accurate.

#59 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@dngn4774 said:

@lykopis: I could easily show you the child of a dead soldier, but that wouldn't prove a point. There are casualties in every war, for every cause, but emotion doesn't make either of our opinions more accurate.

I am not using emotion. Common sense. Is her life less important than a child born in your country? It's a fair question -- not an emotional one. If you feel comfortable living in a world that allows close to 500 children die due to gas-based weaponry -- that's your right. I however, am not. This is my opinion.

#60 Edited by judasnixon (5437 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: @dngn4774: Here is my problem with the situation. If we intervene it doesn't mean the death toll will go down, if anything it might go up. We have no idea what will happen. I hate the idea of sitting back and doing nothing while people die, but I really hate the Idea of the U.S. going in and making it worse....... I also hate the idea of chemical weapons was the red line. killing people is killing people. Does it make a difference if you killed someone with a bullet or with some poison gas?

#61 Posted by _Grifter_ (10487 posts) - - Show Bio

At this moment in time, no. Our house if far from being in order and needs some cleaning up before we even think about getting involved in another fight.

#62 Edited by Night Thrasher (3447 posts) - - Show Bio

Okay so here's the deal with Syria...

1) The previous two 'conflicts' that we've been in have soured the American public for violence and military intervention to an extent of being cautious to an extent of ignorance.

2) Intervening in Serbia would actually be in line with a tradition of the United States of playing international police and using force of governments and factions who have used weapons deemed unacceptable by the world community on other combatants and their own populace.

3) Unlike the previous commitments it seems that the current President is seeking congressional approval for military action.

4) The administration states that it's goal is not a regime change but rather to stop the use of chemical weapons against the populace.

My personal opinion based on what I know is that it wouldn't be unlike us to use military actions much like we did in Kosovo but I think the findings of the UN investigators should weigh heavily on the decision. If chemical weapons are proven to have been used then we can't back away from a moral stand because we're 'tired of wars'. To use a comic book analogy since this is a comic book site; would Batman let Joker poison Gotham with Joker gas because he just got through fighting Bane and Killer Croc and he's 'tired of fighting'? If Assad used chemical weapons then we have to stick to our guns and take a stance on what we believe.

#63 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@judasnixon:

There is a huge difference. Very. As ludicrous as it sounds, the manner in which you kill people during war does matter when it comes to countries having agreed what is acceptable or not. Chemical warfare is illegal (again, a ludicrous statement since war is war) but this follows along the same ideals put in place with prisoners of war and how war crimes are charged in international courts after the conflict.

@night_thrasher:

Exactly. Either previous ratified UN protocols get enforced, or just tear the entire system down and admit it's a puppet theatre. And this is an international effort -- and while the US is the most powerful, it's for every country to stand up and declare its agreement with the effort. Obama does not advocate for a military effort on the ground -- this is to strike at Syrian Armed Forces bases which have been bombarding its own people with chemical weapons.

This is a country who has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons -- have been since the 1960's specifically because of the Israeli state. This is a country who until the mid 2000's occupied Lebanon and who despite their protestations to the UN, refused to recognize its findings that they assassinated a former leader of Lebanon because of his strong and popular stance against Syria's presence in his country. And Syria is a country who withdrew from Lebanon with its tail between its legs because President Bush (Jr) told them to get out -- or else -- with the UN backing him (again, with Russia and China objecting).

I don't want to bore everyone with the history of Syria -- but bear in mind, this is a country with a lot of blood of its own people on their hands. Chemical warfare has been denounced and universally agreed by the majority of countries on our planet to be unacceptable. Unacceptable during war efforts, let alone on its own people. The results will be positive -- there is no doubt. This isn't like an assumption of nuclear weapons in Iraq -- chemical weapons are produced and held in inventory by this country for decades. There is a lot at stake here.

#64 Edited by WillPayton (8409 posts) - - Show Bio

I have to reluctantly say, yes.

Why?

Lets assume that the regime did indeed use chemical weapons in this latest attack. This means this is the second time they've used chemical weapons in this war. Also, they just finished napalming a school full of children. None of this is acceptable, even in a war. We have already determined this long ago as a planet. And, sure, it's not our war. But, who's going to do something about it if we dont? The UN? Hell no. China and Russia, the two most evil countries in the world, will make sure that the UN does nothing to overthrow their lackey Assad. So, it comes to us, the U.S.

"With great power comes great responsibility." You guys should all know where that comes from. We're not the policemen of the world, we're not responsible for that war, and we dont have to do anything about it. But, being the most powerful country in the world means we have certain moral responsibilities. Maybe not to invade, 'cause I certainly dont want that. But at the least we should take some of those ultra high tech weapons that we spend so much on, and shove some of them down Assad's throat. People like him only know one thing, strength. If we dont do anything, no one will do anything. And if no one does anything, evil bastards like him will keep on using chemical weapons as they please. Why not? Who's going to stop them? Russia, China, the UN?

If we have the power to act, then we should act. After World War II people said that we'd never stand by and watch another genocide happen. After World War I we said we'd never allow chemical weapons to be used. Did we learn nothing, or have we just forgotten?

Apparently most of the world doesnt give a shit if Assad drops napalm or nerve gas on his own people. Looks like the U.K. doesnt. Certainly Russia and China dont. Do we want to be like them?

#65 Edited by mikethekiller (8157 posts) - - Show Bio

At first I would have said no but after further thought I'd saying yes because someone has to enforce ban.

#66 Posted by Aiden Cross (15510 posts) - - Show Bio

Kerry gave 'proof' about a chemical weapon attack in the form of four pages without sources or incriminating evidence. I don't find it odd the UN or other countries want solid proof before approving a military action. After the 'mistakes' made with Irak (proof of weapons of mass destructions turned out to be false) they set the bar higher. A mandate through the UN council won't work because China and Russia will veto it. And while the USA might not put much stock in the UN research about the chemical weapons being used, my country does. As long as there's no definitive conclusion about the research and which side used the chemical attacks i don't feel my country should be apart of any military action. I also believe that chemical weapons have been used, but after 2003 i want to be sure.

If everything possible has been done to gain a mandate through legal means and was unable to it's a different story. Because you can say that you tried everything, it may be illegal but on humanitarian reasons it would be legitimate. But at this point i don't see the US doing everything possible to legally gain a mandate. Something is to be said about either viewpoint however.

If we intervene however, there should be solid plan behind it. Because i've seen many times that we fighta war but things go right back to the way they were before after it's all said and done.

To be fair, it isn't even so much about Syria at this point. It's about the US ignoring the laws and rules the world set up together and if it's valid for them to do is. And unfortunately that goes at the expense of the innocent people of that country. It's a sad story all around....

#67 Posted by CheeseSticks (2261 posts) - - Show Bio

The sadness that takes me when people think taxes are more important than human lives...

#68 Posted by Deranged Midget (17598 posts) - - Show Bio

My opinion? No country should have the authority to determine whether they alone can intervene anywhere else.

Moderator
#69 Posted by BumpyBoo (7215 posts) - - Show Bio

#70 Posted by consolemaster001 (4473 posts) - - Show Bio

Why are you still arguing ? America isn't going to intervene, just hit specific points so Assad doesn't gas the civillians.

Online
#71 Posted by dngn4774 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: If this was just about the gas we wouldn't be arguing but it's not. There's no situation where we jump in as a referee, the stop the match, remove the chemical weapons, then ring the bell again. We are talking about using our military's power to force our ideas upon another nation.

@willpayton:

This isn't a comic book or an action movie, it's real life. In the modern era of history, there are no good guys, there are just varying levels of villainy. Nowadays,

moral obligations

have become a codephrase for colonization and no problems are solved when our nation forces its beliefs on others. The most we should do is remove the chemical weapons but our history tells us that we never just stop there. This leaves us with two options

Option 1, we kill Al-Assad, (after a trial he had no chance of winning, to make ourselves feel civil) then we replace him with a figurehead that does whatever we want him to do. Eventually the people will get pissed off at the figurehead and riot until they successfully overthrow the government and the group with the most hate for the the Western world will consolidate the most power.

Option 2, we try to build a democratic state (which neither side actually wants) and encourage the Syrians to vote for the western-friendly party and if they don't we start looking for ways to involve are military into their conflicts down the road, so we can try it again in a couple of decades.

The only way we break this cycle is if we let the people take control of their own country, without acting on the constant urge to spread our Empire's influence over that part of the world.

#72 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27321 posts) - - Show Bio
#73 Posted by Deranged Midget (17598 posts) - - Show Bio

if that was the case my family wouldn't exist

I lost relatives, and my parents their friends, due to the ignorant interference of NATO back in '99 in what is now known as former Yugoslavia or currently Serbia. It goes both ways mate.

Moderator
#74 Posted by No_Trolling (653 posts) - - Show Bio

Like we're in a state to war with another country.... it's the U.S that always has to do something... all eyes on the U.S yet all they hate directed toward the U.S at the same time...

#75 Edited by silkyballfro94 (1355 posts) - - Show Bio

Does SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in debt mean anything!? I understand people are dying but this country is already fubar. What will my future look like and what will my children's children's future look like. I don't know, let's say we do do something, and this escalates to a full out world war. Will this world war be worth one country? Anything can happen. Would YOU be willing to go to the frontline or how would you feel knowing your friend or brother is getting shot at while you're eating or sleeping? Everyone is always quick to say hey let's Go To War while they're busy playing grabass and playing house while our 18 year old volunteers get shot at.

#76 Edited by Pyrogram (32226 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@dngn4774 said:

@lykopis said:

Yes.

Might I ask why?

Her.

No offence but that's not an argument. I don't see the world stopping the thousands upon thousands of people dying in Africa due to tyrants daily. We see this in Syria and make all kinds of fuss and shit about it and say "look a girl is dying" and then look at a TV advertisement to sponsor a starving child in Africa and change the channel. The world is full of hypocrites.

#77 Posted by joshmightbe (24101 posts) - - Show Bio

America shouldn't be the world cop, sure its terrible if Syria is gassing their own people but guess what, terrible stuff happens every day in places without oil and the U.S. does nothing, why is having some black goo under Syria make their morally horrible acts worse than things like the Genocides currently going on?

#78 Posted by joshmightbe (24101 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

@lykopis said:

@dngn4774 said:

@lykopis said:

Yes.

Might I ask why?

Her.

No offence but that's not an argument. I don't see the world stopping the thousands upon thousands of people dying in Africa due to tyrants daily. We see this in Syria and make all kinds of fuss and shit about it and say "look a girl is dying" and then look at a TV advertisement to sponsor a starving child in Africa and change the channel. The world is full of hypocrites.

Don't you know, America is only morally responsible to intervene when a nation possesses oil or some other thing we need. All the rest of the horrible shit happening in the world that we ignore is just fine because those people weren't smart enough to build their thousand year old cultures right above a pool of goo that was useless up till around 150 years ago.

#79 Posted by henrik (559 posts) - - Show Bio

Im hungarian, so I dont Care LOL

#80 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5210 posts) - - Show Bio

No, the United States at least should stay out of situations we are not personally involved in.

#81 Posted by Lunacyde (17387 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

You're making the assumption that intervening in the Syrian conflict will make that little girl, or civilians there in general safer. This is FAR from certain. If the history of our interventionism in the Middle East has anything to tell us about it she may well be better off without our help. Iraq is more dangerous for the average citizen after our intervention than before it. American drone strikes in Afghanistan have killed innocents, even children like the girl you posted. It's not intentional, but it happens.

Furthermore children die from all kinds of horrible means across the world. They are killed with machetes in Rwanda, land mines in Cambodia, Ak47s in Somalia, mortars in Myanmar, used as sex slaves in the Congo and drug miles in Columbia. I'm sorry but it is impossible to stop every piece of violence and harm in the world. We have millions of children who are literally starving in our own nation.

I am sorry, my heart goes out to all those effected, but I am not willing to spend money we don't have, the lives of our sons, daughters, sisters and brothers in a conflict we have no idea we can even begin to make a positive difference in.

Lastly I would like to point out that we aren't even sure who was responsible for the gas attack.

#82 Posted by BumpyBoo (7215 posts) - - Show Bio
#83 Posted by Lunacyde (17387 posts) - - Show Bio

@cheesesticks:

It's not about taxes. It's about crushing debt. I don't think people understand the ultimate consequences of this debt. TODAY we have millions of children in our nation who are starving. In the United States of America, the richest nation in the world. We have senior citizens in the same situation. Imagine if the crushing weight of this debt finally causes the system to collapse. Millions will starve, die of illness, etc and that's not even counting the violence we could see here in the U.S....it's not about taxes, it's about the future of our nation and the lives of our children.

#84 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27321 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: you realise there is zero oil in Afghanistan right?

#85 Edited by mikethekiller (8157 posts) - - Show Bio

You know what I take it back I still don't know what to think about this, it seems like a lose lose situation either way.

#86 Posted by joshmightbe (24101 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous: True, but we thought Bin Ladin was there, now that we know he wasn't and he is dead and all we really shouldn't be there any more. We didn't go to Afghanistan for any moral purpose, they were known for harboring Alqueda which was our enemy so we went in for pragmatic reasons, and stayed because our nation is run by morons.

#87 Posted by Deranged Midget (17598 posts) - - Show Bio

@bumpyboo: Thank you Bumps, it's ok though. My only point was that harmless civilians were killed then because of the ignorance and brash actions of other countries who deem themselves the peace keepers of the world. Random bombings, not direct combat were the cause of these deaths and not by those involved in the Civil War (i.e Serbs and Croatians), but from NATO. It's completely unfair and arrogant for them to think that they have the right to intervene with something they have absolutely no knowledge regarding how it may affect the people of that country and clearly it only proves to worsen the situation.

Moderator
#88 Posted by Baberaham_Lincoln (896 posts) - - Show Bio

at the end of the day, it's the American people who have the ultimate say in it... but they've been swindled by their government to the point where they honestly just don't give a shit. I'm from Australia, and i say no to intervention (my country is too busy with our own problems)...

The America regime really want Assad out for some reason... claims of his killings of innocent civilians and use of Sarin Gas (chem weps) on them... why on earth would he do it if:

  1. He's winning
  2. Knows that's the wests' trump card FOR intervention

It doesn't seem to fit for me. Obama says he'll seek congressional permission, why not the security council or UN permission?

#89 Edited by BumpyBoo (7215 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: I see where you are coming from, absolutely :) It is more than understandable that you feel that way, having had direct experience with the after effects of misguided military intervention. A lot of it amounts to little more than bullying.

#90 Edited by OblivionKnight (3332 posts) - - Show Bio

The best thing for the US is for some of these other countries to get off their butts and do something.

As many have said, the US is severely in debt. One of the biggest reasons we shouldn't go is so our economy can recover. But that's not the end of it. OUR men have been dying in wars repeatedly to "help" other countries. If it's not about the money, it's about that fact that we essentially just pulled our troops out of Afghanistan, only to send them back into battle. If we don't start fixing ourselves now, things will only get worse economically.

On the other hand, the very implications that turning a blind eye to these killings can have are enormous. What's to stop Syrias killings from spilling over into other countries? This is looking to be a grandeose war if not handled delicately. Does everyone remember the Rwandan genocide? The country was left to its own devices and hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered. Syria's case may become even worse, with its ties to other countries.

So, really, the best thing for AMERICA is that another country(ies) handles this situation. America has made quite a few "friends" over the years. It's time we cash in a few favors. Help from France and Britain would be great.

#91 Posted by consolemaster001 (4473 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: Oh man i'm so sorry to hear that. I totally get where you're coming from.

Online
#92 Edited by AweSam (7059 posts) - - Show Bio

I think everyone should mind their own business. Everytime a country (especially America) tries solving another country's problems, they end up making it worse. What's happening in Syria should be left to the Syrians. It's not going to get any better if someone intervenes. If people aren't allowed to sort their own problems out, then they don't get resolved.

#93 Edited by The_Absolute (892 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: Countries with Oil have the power to affect the world at large, not just America's pocketbook. I think we need to stop being so schizophrenic about our duty to humanity as a world power. First we shouldn't intervene because it's not our problem, then we should because it's a moral issue, then we shouldn't because we don't intervene in other places, then we should because it affects our national security, then we shouldn't just because we have the weapons so we might as well use them, then we should since we have the weapons and might as well use them.

My point is we need to choose where our principles lie and follow through.

What would you do?

#94 Edited by Aiden Cross (15510 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll just throw this in and highlight a piece

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

#95 Posted by Deranged Midget (17598 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
#96 Posted by Samimista (20177 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

I think everyone should mind their own business. Everytime a country (especially America) tries solving another country's problems, they end up making it worse. What's happening in Syria should be left to the Syrians. It's not going to get any better if someone intervenes. If people aren't allowed to sort their own problems out, then they don't get resolved.

Agreed.

#97 Edited by CheeseSticks (2261 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@cheesesticks:

It's not about taxes. It's about crushing debt. I don't think people understand the ultimate consequences of this debt. TODAY we have millions of children in our nation who are starving. In the United States of America, the richest nation in the world. We have senior citizens in the same situation. Imagine if the crushing weight of this debt finally causes the system to collapse. Millions will starve, die of illness, etc and that's not even counting the violence we could see here in the U.S....it's not about taxes, it's about the future of our nation and the lives of our children.

Who cares about the debt? It will continue to increase whatever we do. In a thousand year it will probably be 1000 times what it is today. If Human race still exist of course.

#99 Posted by WillPayton (8409 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

I think everyone should mind their own business. Everytime a country (especially America) tries solving another country's problems, they end up making it worse. What's happening in Syria should be left to the Syrians. It's not going to get any better if someone intervenes. If people aren't allowed to sort their own problems out, then they don't get resolved.

Agreed.

I wonder how you'd feel if someone attacks you in the middle of the street and starts wailing on you. Would you want the people standing around to do something, or should they just "mind their own business"?

It's easy to say this, until it's you that needs help and then you'll want people to rush in to help.

The innocent people in Syria getting attacked with chemical weapons, and having their kids killed by napalm while at school, they're hoping someone comes in to help. The rebels cant do it. Only outside countries can.

#100 Edited by AweSam (7059 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: If someone's attackIng me on the street, I won't wait for another country to bomb my city. If America doesn't intervene, then innocents will die. If America intervenes, then innocents will die. It's a matter of which side gets hit. Should someone intervene, then the problem will not be resolved.

If you pick a fight with your friend over something and I split you two up, the second I leave, you'll be at it again. Except this time you'll have bad blood towards me. America has enough enemies as it is. The thing is, no one in the Middle East like America, or most western countries for that matter. Jumping into their country and dropping a few bombs will not make it better.

As I said before. Everyone should mind their own business and let it run it's course.