Posted by judasnixon (6195 posts) 10 months, 24 days ago

Poll: Should we intervene in Syria? (134 votes)

Yes 19%
No 80%
#201 Edited by laflux (14172 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram: @lykopis:

Obama has mentioned alot of reasons why intervention on Syria is something which is justified, including security, but most importantly a moral conviction. Its not right. And personally, I feel that many countries, not just the U.S cherry picked moral convictions in order to enhance what's correct. The whole idea of we can't stand by and do nothing loses its sting when they are Robert Mugabe has been leader of Zimbabwe for how long? When Mubarak and Gadaffi were actively supported by the U.K and the U.S despite the fact that they were dictators, because they condemned extremism.

And it always seems that Western Nations seem to ignore countries when it best suits them. Most people won't know of the top of their heads a Civil War in Nigeria known as the Biafra War, basically in which a group of Igbo people wanted to break off from Nigeria, and create their own country, known as Biafra. My Mother, who was born during the conflict, nearly died because she happened to live near the the front line at the time. Thankfully, I though, she was able to live through nearly starving and some close shaves with some RPG rounds, and as I result, I'm alive and able to make a menace of the Off Topics section today.

But why would I mention this? Its because of the Hypocrisy. The Biafra War happened during the same time as the Vietnamese war. Nigeria was left to sort out its own problems (and to be fair in the end it didn't end up as bad as it could have been, but still more than a million people died). Any intervention from the U.S, the U.K (Nigerian was a colony freed not to long ago). No. And does it make me bitter. Yes. But then I remember how intervention can cause negative effects looking at Vietnam and I feel for @deranged_midget in regard to his experiences. Point being, the argument of human suffering and moral conviction is pretty small when it compares to political/economic/military motivators if we look through the annuals of history. We would be wise to remember this.

#202 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde:

I think you need to take a deep breath.

First off -- there will be NO military placed in Syria from the United States. Not a one. So, while Canada has mentioned they aren't sending in military aid, it's because they haven't been ASKED to -- because there will be no need for it -- and more importantly, there should NEVER be. You need to read slowly.

And as for my opinion on this, I do not have to quantify for you. At all. While the only way I can share my opinion on this thread is clearly by sitting in front of a computer, what I have done, am doing and will do has diddly squat on my right on having an opinion. Like, I mentioned earlier, your opinion over mine is EQUAL on this issue. Did I say I wanted the United States to go front and centre of this? Did I say I want armed forces of any country on the ground? No. So you are speaking nonsense in response to me.

As for humanitarian aid -- I am not throwing out numbers to impress anyone -- I merely pointed out what my country has done so far for the Syrian people. Are you kidding me? We don't even HAVE cruise missiles so hey, you win. Hands down.

@pyrogram said:

@lykopis: I personally never knew the West had so much power they can bomb another country and declare it not an act of war, talk about international corruption...or bullying.

Yep. Bullying is a good word to use. The thing is, the Arab nations have their own league much like the UN and are asking the international community to step in. So Syria is pretty much getting bullied by almost everyone. The argument being put forward is that THEY are the bullies and so are being held accountable.

#204 Posted by Pyrogram (35139 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: People say all of that. But countries perform atrocities and murder their own daily and I don't see the UN or League stopping it. Regardless if this will happen or on not. It's not happening for moral reasons, it's for political reasons.

#205 Edited by giantsfan576 (1071 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course not. The US government is literally retarded. Look at Canada. They mind their own business and don't have major problems like us.

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

@laflux:

I understand -- I don't have a word in argument to you about hypocrisy. No one wins in any conflict -- and whether outside forces can be pointed to or not -- the conflict is there and therefore there will always be suffering. There should be no war, none, anywhere. And when it comes to war and especially with people who have first hand experience in the atrocities committed by them, who is to argue back? I can't exactly say to you -- oh -- that's different, because it really isn't.

I appreciate your opinion on this, as I do everyone else's. Mine is Syria should be held accountable for what they are doing because as a global community, we should react. Should it be through military strikes? Debatable. The leader of the United States has stepped up and said he's willing. Other countries are more in mind of air space restrictions, more economic sanctions and the like. Those too are debatable as to if they are beneficial or detrimental. For me, as a human being, I am of the mind something should be done. You don't. Fine. You say it's for political reasons, sure -- there might be some but for me, I don't see it as either/or. It's a smattering of lots of things which I have no problem getting into on this thread but I suspect will bring on eye-rolls of an epic size.

No matter what the reason, I say this action is worth it.

#208 Posted by TheCheeseStabber (7761 posts) - - Show Bio

Cant we all just get along....

what happened to putting people first, we shouldnt pick and choose who we should help we should try to save everyone with the least amount of violence possible.

Online
#209 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

@lykopis: People say all of that. But countries perform atrocities and murder their own daily and I don't see the UN or League stopping it. Regardless if this will happen or on not. It's not happening for moral reasons, it's for political reasons.

I have to point out there are protocols the UN have to follow which prevent them from stepping in other countries but if speaking only for myself, I think the fault is on them. They are mostly a puppet organization. I believe something should be done everywhere. But because it's not happening everywhere, doesn't mean it shouldn't at all. My opinion.

I want it to happen for moral reasons. Good enough for me.

#210 Posted by Pyrogram (35139 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: You're right. I've often thought about that , the thing about if it's not happening anywhere it should not happen at all. But, getting involved in a civil war is not right when we leave other BLATANT killings alone. Sort out the real tyrants, then intrude on other peoples business...if we must.

#211 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32749 posts) - - Show Bio

Apparently we live in a world where to wrongs now make a right

Online
#212 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

Also, the Balkan War was horrific and while I certainly understand a user's personal view due to loved ones affected by it, things are not so clear cut. I don't mean to infer they are wrong in any way -- how could that be possible as they are recounting actual events but it's important to bear in mind what led to the intervention of NATO forces in that conflict and circumstances which lead to the unfortunate and frankly, terrible consequences from it.

I know I may sound biased here Lyko but I'd just like to interject some facts. At the time, Yugoslavia as a country had a Civil War and while it was only briefly documented, those events between countries was a continuing one for years because the religious differences between the nations always caused distrust and discomfort. NATO chose then to intervene when they saw fit because they deemed it so and because apparently, other countries cannot handle their own business. The situation didn't even severely escalate until NATO decided to pick a side and bomb the living hell out of the country for seventy-two days straight. What's even worse is that with this decision, they ended up murdering hundreds upon hundreds of Albanian refugees that Serbia ALLOWED to let enter the country, the same people NATO were trying to "protect" and all because they were utterly ignorant to what the situation was in Yugoslavia at the time.

That intervention literally signed the country's death warrant. My mother visited back home back in July to see her own mother and luckily, she lives in a part of the city where it's relatively unaffected. But the other parts? There are literally ruins of leftover apartment buildings in the middle of the city because they cannot afford to rebuild. The economy has ruptured, corruption has slowly been taking over, people living on the streets because there are no jobs. This hasn't been a recent turn of events, this has been going on for over the past decade. My parents, my Aunt and Uncle, they love their country but it pains them unbearably to see the state it's in. Enough so that they wouldn't even dream of moving back there. And this isn't just because of the visible state that the country has been left in, but how the country has been slowly deteriorating internally.

The events that partook in the Kosovo War at that time were horrible, as is with any Civil War but who gives another country the authoritative right to determine whether another country is allowed to dive in and attempt to solve those problems without properly analysing what the after effects may be. So really, it's on the interventionists themselves who should take a step back to figure out what's "clear cut" about it all. Recounting our past history and experiences should be our goal as it's the only way we as humanity will learn from our mistakes and prevent similar events from happening once again.

Moderator
#213 Posted by kasino (1525 posts) - - Show Bio

either help everyone or no one

#214 Posted by DoomDoomDoom (4212 posts) - - Show Bio

If you lived in Syria would you want the U.S. to intervene? I'm still not sure how I feel about this.

#215 Edited by Impala (264 posts) - - Show Bio

Doesn't U.S just love agent orange.

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

@deranged_midget:

I get that. I really, really do. The war in your family's country had been ongoing for so long and Europe kept insisting it would help since it was in their "backyard" (their words at the time) but did nothing. Yugoslavia, that beautiful and stunning country was getting destroyed and horror stories of ethnic cleansing and rape and destruction were taking over the news and still, no one did anything. It's the worst catastrophe from war in Europe since World War II. I can't, I really, really cannot imagine what your mom and her family went through and are still going through. In fact, if I may point this out to you, Serbia is used as an example as what NOT to do when it comes to international "assistance" in school so I don't think you and I disagree here -- and believe me, I don't want to debate you over something which hasn't affected me personally, but does you.

The crucial difference here -- and this is where I am repeating myself -- there is no intention of the United States or any other country doing the following:

"another country the authoritative right to determine whether another country is allowed to dive in and attempt to solve those problems without properly analysing what the after effects may be."

What the United States is proposing (or rather, Obama) is a very clear message, in the form of a few strikes on areas where the Syrian government has their weapons, vehicles - what have you. None in or close to civilian areas and even further to that -- no strikes which would take out the Syrian Army in such a way to determine the outcome of their civil war. It's a military exercise very small in scope to follow through on warnings already issued two years ago from the international community when chemical warfare was suspected to have been already utilized. This isn't like what happened in your family's home country -- in your instance, one side was winning (which meant the end of their civil war) and it was through the assistance of NATO forces that very clearly and decisively, turned the tide in favour of the other side. There can be no defending that, regardless if the side winning is in the "wrong" or not.

#217 Edited by Myrmidon_ (5081 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: (This is Pyro here)

I don't see how the US or NATO has a right to intervene in wars like this and leave the world in a state elsewhere. They've done too much damage elsewhere time and time again and have never actually helped a country properly with these type of actions, have they? If so - why is it not being televised in favor to try and gain public support? The government relies on people (like you, no offence, just an example) who are "moral" to perform acts of war on other nations for pure political profit and a show power. They rely on people to want to do this morally, when they hypocritically ignore things like this happening all over the world.

#218 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: I apologize if I came off as ill-mannered in any way.

What the United States is proposing (or rather, Obama) is a very clear message, in the form of a few strikes on areas where the Syrian government has their weapons, vehicles - what have you. None in or close to civilian areas and even further to that -- no strikes which would take out the Syrian Army in such a way to determine the outcome of their civil war. It's a military exercise very small in scope to follow through on warnings already issued two years ago from the international community when chemical warfare was suspected to have been already utilized.

You see, that's where I remain conflicted. Their intentions are clear and potentially proper but that's where the visibility ends for me. Where I think the problem rests is with the unpredictability with these strikes. They may have only the best intentions but they cannot possibly predict what the implications may be or how the more rebellious parties may react. There is a greater risk of responsive acts resulting from these strikes or they may as well be perceived as something different than what was intended. That's my issue and if history has anything to say, it almost never goes according to plan which is truly unfortunate.

Moderator
#219 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@myrmidon_:

That is a valid but extremely cynical point of view. You have to keep trying. You have to do what you can. Take what you can get. Expand on the small victories and learn from the losses. Governments actually don't want people like me -- I would be against an invasion of the country. If the United States and any of its allies are intending to take over this conflict for its own benefit, I would be the loudest in my condemnation of it. My support is purely humanitarian based, fully aware of the shades of grey at play here.

@deranged_midget:

That's fair and quite possible.

You have Russia on one hand who has been very aggressive in their wording should the coalition do anything and they, along with the Syrian government have already put out the idea this chemical attack on civilians were perpetrated by the UN, and/or the Arab League and even the rebels themselves. To think the Syrian government and its allies won't respond is naive -- so yes, there is no way to be absolutely certain what the outcome can/will be. There will always be some bad and some good -- the hope is less bad, more good. We should always bear in mind history and yes, we need to be aware of possible repercussions but to do nothing is to pretty much state the UN and treaties and agreements between countries over the past century mean nothing and to stand down in the face of a country who is well aware of what the consequences might be for their actions is putting out an equally dangerous idea they (and others) can continue to perform atrocities on their people (and enemies) with impunity.

This is where you and I differ. You prefer nothing be done because of the potential loss of life and suffering and I prefer something be done because of the potential loss of life and suffering. We both want the same thing, but have differing views on how to go about it. You cite history and I push for better practices and approaches. We won't progress as a species otherwise. If there is anything which is wrong, its the secrecy. I can easily argue against this proposed strike based on information which @aiden_cross has provided some of and including my own which clearly demonstrate possible ulterior motives for every nation and group who support this initiative. My focus however is on the people of this country and considering the extent of human rights abuses their government has inflicted on them -- murders, rapes, torture of civilians from elderly to newborn in retaliation to what in the beginning had been only peaceful protests, I say something should be/has to be done.

If anything, holding to my ideals and values and understanding of the situation with application of theoretic learning I've gained, something should have been done under the UN banner a long, long time ago.

#220 Posted by Aiden Cross (15562 posts) - - Show Bio

Unfortunately both sides do unspeakable horrors, both the government and the FSA. Schools are being taken over and used as bases, the children there get abused and raped, or enlisted in the army (against their will) or used as human shields. Both sides also have chemical weapons... It hasn't even been proven which side is responsible for the most recent chemical attack. Although it's very likely both sides have access to it. So really, you can support the rebels cause or the governments but the horrors won't stop. If anything they should pick the side of the innocent people...

#221 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32749 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#222 Posted by WillPayton (9159 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I am not saying I don't care about freedom around the world I am saying the US government doesn't and that is fact. I don't hate the US because every other country in existence has only cared about themselves.

Saddam clearly had WMDs (gas) and used them on his own people for decades. We didn't care about him gassing his own Kurdish citizens until he quit being a US ally against Iran. It is clearly documented that Saddam used gas. So you saying we as a nation care about other people's safety is idiotic and a childish idea.

It's not "idiotic and childish". We as a nation do in fact care about other people's safety. The fact that we have other considerations as well, of wish our own safety and welfare are at the top of the list doesnt negate this. It just means that our motivations are complex, and not as simplistic as you would believe. What is childish is thinking that a countries motivations boil down to selfishness and nothing else. You're just projecting your own lack of concern for others to everyone else and to the government.

@edamame said:
@willpayton said:

It's quite similar to Germany killing millions of Jews in WWII and the world standing by and watching and not giving a shit. Hey, it's their problem, right?

Well, the entire nation of Germany was not killing European Jews during World War II. Besides, most of the ordinary and regular people didn't even know that the Holocaust was happening. It's not like the Nazis were publicly announcing that they were killing European Jews. Also, don't forget about the Nazi sympathizers in Europe, the Middle East and America.

I have no idea how any of this is a logical reply to what I wrote.

#223 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: That's where you've got me wrong. It doesn't sit well with me at all having to sit back nor is it my preference. Your basic comparison between us is accurate yes as I don't want further intervention because potential loss of life might be larger than if nothing was done initially. It's as @laflux stated earlier with the unfortunate Biafra War. No one came to their aid and thousands died but would the inclusion of an outside force really quelled that initial bloodshed or added onto it? I don't want to sound like a broken record but that's exactly where an example of the Kosovo War comes in. Thousands of people died in the Civil War between the warring Nations but the intrusion of NATO only worsened the situation despite their "best intentions". Again, the biggest factor is unpredictability in my opinion. Regardless of what happens, the loss of life will unfortunately occur. The only difference is, would we attribute to it? You brought up better practices, tactics and approaches. I'm glad that you did because that would be wonderful if they actually decided on focusing on those sort of possibilities. Instead, I cited history and evidently, we as a species tend to constantly and consistently repeat it whether we like it or not. Choosing "targeted" airstrikes is not a better tactic in my opinion because despite it sounding more precise, the end result is exactly the same.

Moderator
#224 Edited by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget:

Just to be sure, in your opinion, a small, targeted strike will result in killing innocent civilians and destroying homes/building etc? Or do you mean, you anticipate it to become much larger due to retaliation? That's a fair possibility to point out, if this is the case. This is where we need to make governments accountable -- we as a collective group instead of sitting back and criticizing (this isn't meant to come off as accusatory, I myself am part of this group).

As for history repeating itself, I am not confident in stating it's never happened but I am confident in stating it's not always the case. I am even more confident in stating it's getting better. The idea of a global community coming together to assist each other is still in its infancy, whether its helping people starving in Ethiopia, tsunami victims in Southeast Asia or earthquakes in Japan. This has only been attempted (in any real, concentrated way) this past century due to formations like the United Nations and NATO and to an extent, the Arab League. This includes stepping in and assisting a country who's internal conflicts have caused tremendous human rights infractions. I believe in the potential of these type of organizations and coalitions and I believe it will become a norm purely for humanitarian reasons. Sure, it's a dream which will only be realized far, far in the future, beyond mine or your lifetimes but that's okay. It has to start somewhere and this is what I encourage participation in.

#225 Edited by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

The latter, I think it's quite fair to state that a potential retaliation would most definitely be at hand if these strikes were to be had, especially if they were "targeted". Yes, I do agree that global unity in helping those in need has improved over the past couple decades or so but I also believe there's a distinctive and clear difference between helping those in need after natural disasters and a certain nation stuck in war, whether it be civil, undeclared, etc. In regards to the latter, it's not as simple as just rushing over and providing aid to those who may have been injured or left homeless. There are sometimes factors beyond our understanding or comprehension and as a few users have stated, despite our own perspective, perhaps there are those stuck in that warring position who may seen an intervention as a possible sign of hostility and may react accordingly so. None of us want bloodshed, that much has been established, but I don't think air strikes give off the right message about our desire to help.

Moderator
#226 Posted by Oscars94 (2326 posts) - - Show Bio

Syria and Egypt are what I like to call the NO NO PLACES. I find it unwise to even think of going to the no no places... We should explain it like this so that the American Government can understand us...

#227 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget:

None of us want bloodshed, that much has been established, but I don't think air strikes give off the right message about our desire to help.

I can't argue with that - I really can't. Point taken.

#228 Edited by mikethekiller (8311 posts) - - Show Bio

Wait what type of targets are the U.S planning on striking?

#229 Edited by Edamame (27974 posts) - - Show Bio
@willpayton said:

@edamame said:
@willpayton said:

It's quite similar to Germany killing millions of Jews in WWII and the world standing by and watching and not giving a shit. Hey, it's their problem, right?

Well, the entire nation of Germany was not killing European Jews during World War II. Besides, most of the ordinary and regular people didn't even know that the Holocaust was happening. It's not like the Nazis were publicly announcing that they were killing European Jews.

I have no idea how any of this is a logical reply to what I wrote.

Well, I guess I somewhat misinterpreted your post. I assumed that you were saying that the entire nation of Germany was/is responsible for the Holocaust. Sorry about that.

I also was correcting you because most of the ordinary and regular people at that time did not know that the Holocaust was happening. So I don't understand why you said that "the world [was] standing by and watching and not giving a ...".

#230 Posted by WillPayton (9159 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

Well, I guess I somewhat misinterpreted your post. I assumed that you were saying that the entire nation of Germany was/is responsible for the Holocaust. Sorry about that.

I didnt mean everyone in Germany. Obviously it was the Nazis (although even then not all of them). However, there were large numbers of civilians that knew about what was going on and did nothing.

@edamame said:

I also was correcting you because most of the ordinary and regular people at that time did not know that the Holocaust was happening. So I don't understand why you said that "the world [was] standing by and watching and not giving a ...".

Most people in the world did not know, that is correct. But some people and governments did know, or at least had an idea of what was going on. Even before WWII started, Jews were publicly being persecuted and forced out of Germany for years. That was public knowledge. Some governments and leaders like Chamberlain knew how bad Hitler was, but decided to try to appease him and the Nazis because they didnt want conflict and war. It didnt work. All that happened was that the appeasement encouraged Hitler even more and likely extended WWII and resulted in more people dying.

We can even see this in the Libya/Syria example. We intervened in Libya and between 2,500 to 25,000 people died. In Syria so far, without intervention... 100,000 have died. By the time it's over maybe twice that number will have died.

If the excuse for not intervening is that doing so will save lives, that argument simply doesnt make sense. Yes, some may die as a direct result of intervention, but how many more will be saved? How much shorter will the war be? How much shorter and less bloody would WWII have been if the US has stepped in much earlier? We only did because of Pearl Harbor. What if that attack hadnt happened? Would we have waited until after Great Britain got taken over? By then it would have been too late, because we'd have no foothold in Europe at all.

#231 Posted by Illuminatus (9491 posts) - - Show Bio

The Canadians couldn't take out Detroit, let alone effectively intervene in Syria without US and European logistical capabilities backing them up. This has been the case since the 70's when the Canadians started abdicating many of their NATO duties to countries with a higher priority in regards to their military. The Canadians may have had a guy lead the NATO charge in Libya (the Europeans, specifically French, did most of the real work), but they really don't have the tools to do real, punitive damage for several weeks in Syria. I'd argue that the the Russians would take it as a sign of Western weakness if the Canadians, French and Turks were the only ones to show up, so everyone needs the US to step in and counterbalance the Kremlin. That's pretty much why the Canadians and Europeans arguing on behalf of US intervention are so adamant in their convictions: their countries can't get the job done and they know it.

#232 Edited by Illuminatus (9491 posts) - - Show Bio

Also, the civil war isn't going to stop if we blow some stuff up and beat our chests. The Europeans who cut up this part of the world did not account for ethnic and religious animosities, hence why we see so much violence, why authoritarian dictatorships are the only types of governance capable of maintaining a reasonable standard of law and order, and why there is always a power vacuum and untold civil strife whenever a dictator or elite group are removed from power. This violence is more ancient than the concept of the 'nation-state', and will proliferate until an Enlightenment and Renaissance period graces the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa.

#233 Posted by lykopis (10756 posts) - - Show Bio

@illuminatus:

Wow. You know, us Canadians aren't so scary, lol. Bear in mind, it's your President who suggested this operation - and no, I am not arguing on behalf of your country's involvement, I am arguing for the entire world to. The only reason I mention the United States is because it's your leader who wants to do this. If anything, it would be great for another country to take a leadership position - which is possible considering the scope of the strike being proposed.

And try the @ next time. I noticed your lovely, personal attack on me in the previous pages and ignored it because it was obvious you were having an off day/night. It appears to be continuing.

#234 Posted by Acro808 (11 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Better to not have a disaster on our hands stepping into this.

#235 Edited by Illuminatus (9491 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis It's easy to dismiss things when there's no real way to refute what I've said. Your pleas for intervention in Syria are purely emotional, and do not take into account geopolitical, monetary, and human consequences of engagement.

Obama is behind it because the man made a blunder without his teleprompter and painted himself into a corner. He literally had a Freudian slip cause this entire fiasco about the US response to chemical weapons. Most of Europe wont support this, nobody in South America gives a hoot, the East Asians (except for China) couldn't be bothered, and the Russians are the money-masters everyone wants to fight against. You want global retribution? Too bad, nobody cares anymore, and it really breaks my heart to say that. Everyone can see the writing on the wall: this is a religious conflict and it's never going to end, regardless of how much money and how many cruise missiles you pour into the region. I've already told you what you could do, and it doesn't seem like you've done any of those things, as you're still here trying to rally support on a comic book website. Give away all of your excess funds to Syrian refugees, if you care. Track down the girl in that emotionally subversive picture you posted and take her back to Canada, if you care. Global action starts with the person advocating for it.

If anything, it would be great for another country to take a leadership position

How is this even in the best interests of Western nations (especially North Americans such as you and myself) to lead the charge? We're not even in close proximity. India is closer to Syria than the US is, and yet nobody demands action from them, a developed nation with a strong military and competent generals. Nobody is demanding the Arab League step in and actually fulfill a role in the region, other than discussing how they'll keep their populations in check when the oil runs out. Nobody is telling the French to take the initiative for once in the past fifty years and intervene themselves.

I do not see any rational arguments for North American intervention into Syria, other than emotional pleas based on the use of a type of weapon that killed a small fraction of those who have already died, and the always dubious and perplexing arguments of enforcing international law. Surprisingly, I do care about Canadians, almost as much as I care about US citizens. We have common interests and goals in the world, and I do not want to see both of our nations thrown into a conflict which we do not fully comprehend, and which we do not truly have an endgame thought out. The regional powers need to grow a couple pairs and intervene on their own.

#236 Posted by Bogey (934 posts) - - Show Bio

The title of this post is misleading. The US Government, which "We" have no part of it's decision, has already intervened in Syria by aiding the mercenaries. Why do you think this conflict has lasted so long? Instead of attacking the country, the government should stop supporting the mercenaries and let democratic reform come through the current system. But the US government rather take orders from Israel, who has already preemptively conducted illegal air strikes against Syria. The American people know that the reports are falsified considering the intelligence of three different Presidents attacking Iraq were flat out lies.

#237 Edited by Illuminatus (9491 posts) - - Show Bio

Just so everyone has an idea..

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

@illuminatus:

Between you and I, it's really been you who has been emotional in your responses about and to me. Take a look at your posts -- you were rude, derogatory and dismissive - and made a lot of assumptions which you continue to do. My take on the Syrian issue is not emotion based, I am well aware of the country's entire history and what forces have been, are and will potentially be in play. This is not a clear cut case of swooping in, assisting the five million people displaced by this civil war and holding hands in one great big circle singing kumbayah. I am very aware of the politics at play here and while I appreciate your informed opinion about politics and economics in general, in this specific instance I do know what I am speaking of.

Of course the region should step up -- and they won't do any more than they already have, kicking Syria out their group due to the country's infractions against the Arab League's rules. You have a region where any western influence is met with hostility mostly due to religious conflict and the hypocrisy is so glaring, they should all choke on it. You have Saudi Arabia -- the country which holds the holiest site of Islam allowing the United States to have armed forces on their land -- permanently for all intents and purposes and who are sympathetic to countries who govern with Islamic laws in place. Syria is sectarian in that respect -- as is Iran -- and that is unforgivable in the region's eyes. There are even Al Qaeda fighters joining the rebels purely so that an Islamic friendly government will take over, and even worse, there are actually three factions who all have different takes on how the Syria should be governed and their alliance can be described as precarious at best.

I could go on and on. There are oil pipes lines at play which required Syrian permission to reach out into the Mediterranean Sea, benefitting Europe and Saudi Arabia and other countries surrounding the Persian Gulf economically -- there are lots of reasons why countries in the region are upset and want to see Syria topple. Israel is obvious and Turkey because of the financial strain placed on them for housing over one million refugees (and growing).

Anyway, I get it. My stance is a humanitarian one and while it may appear emotional on the surface, I assure you, it isn't. I feel a very strong responsibility for everyone, especially because I was lucky enough to be born in a country where I can sit in front of my computer and type these words to you. As for me "getting up and doing something about it" -- you know as well as I do, despite your cynicism of government, that my vote alone is instrumental in my country's foreign policy which have my tax dollars being spent in humanitarian aid. You are focused on your country's domestic needs and best interests and I respect that. I however have a different view on what my country should do and not do in terms of the world around us.

Like I said from the outset, it's the civilians I am focused on. My concern and yes, my compassion for them can be construed as emotional in that context but it's not a blind, ignorant reaction to five hundred kids murdered by chemical warfare. I am smart enough to consider what is at stake potentially for any foreign country's involvement in this situation and I have. So, it's unfair of anyone to assert my opinion was cavalierly reached and inspired only by images of suffering.

Despite the above, I don't hesitate in stating I believe human rights violations are more than enough reason for global involvement in any conflict within any country in the world. You appear not to agree. So be it.

#239 Posted by mikethekiller (8311 posts) - - Show Bio

Wait what type of targets are the U.S planning on striking?

#240 Edited by joshmightbe (24623 posts) - - Show Bio
#241 Edited by The_Titan_Lord (4641 posts) - - Show Bio

What's the point of having international laws if nobody is going to enforce them?

This.

#242 Posted by Lunacyde (17896 posts) - - Show Bio
#243 Posted by joshmightbe (24623 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_titan_lord: But as I pointed out above its not the official government that has the chemical weapons, its the rebels.

#244 Posted by Xwraith (15330 posts) - - Show Bio

I say no, because I'm worried about what it could lead to (especially use of nuclear weapons).

#245 Posted by Pyrogram (35139 posts) - - Show Bio

@xwraith said:

I say no, because I'm worried about what it could lead to (especially use of nuclear weapons).

What gives you that impression lol?

#247 Edited by Xwraith (15330 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram: Mostly my own tendency to jump to extremes, but I've seen people who think it could cause a third world war.

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

@lunacyde said:

@joshmightbe said:

@lykopis: Turns out those poor rebels that the Government wants to help out were the ones who had chemical weapons.

Rebels responsible for chemical weapons

Two thumbs up.

Before I get to that report, the reality is both sides of this civil war have in their possession chemical weapons. Furthermore, the use of the word "both" can be debated since the rebel forces in this conflict are a mish mash of several factions - most of whom are sketchy at best. My opinion about this situation has nothing to do with the supposed "right" or "wrong" side -- just the use of chemical warfare by any government and the protection of civilians. This war and the reasons for it are worth discussing and debating -- of course they are -- but they have nothing to do with my humanitarian stance on this and the violation of chemical warfare used by any government under the UN Charter. Radical factions and their use of chemical weapons (and other horrific tools of war) are worth pointing out. Not for anything, I can really get into it and discuss how most of the multiple groups making up the "rebel" side of things are puppets of other regimes.

Now -- that report, unfortunately, has been downgraded to suspect due to the claim that a) it was written under the banner of the Associated Press and b) the accounts of witnesses were obtained directly by a free-lance reporter affiliated by the AP, Dale Gavlak. These claims have been proven as not true and unfortunately, the multiple sites who have posted this report are also suspect with agendas (Iraeli/Christian/Anti-American/Pro-Russian rhetoric). Also, the translation of the accounts itself has come under fire, relegating this report to the large and growing pile of conspiracy theories being thrown about by many groups who have agendas in the outcome of the war itself on the internet. I am aware of them all, I have been following this extensively and yes -- I myself am becoming extremely wary of the United States stance on this since having discovered what is being asked of its Congress. This is not a one-time military strike to which would serve as a symbolic rebuke against the Syrian government for its use of chemical warfare against civilians, but an extended 60 day frame to continue strikes and escalation in response to potential retaliation etc, etc.

No good.

I ask of you both, are you against humanitarian assistance in this? Are you against a UN mandate to penalize a government which has used chemical weapons against its populace? This is where I stand -- this is what I think the world should be focused on. A military strike is not the only option -- there can be a no-fly zone enforced, followed by a larger push of humanitarian aid in the way of shelter, food, water and protection. So while I am happy people are looking into this situation and learning for themselves what is going on, the idea of who is right or wrong being a determinant for a stance on international intervention is confusing to me. My focus is on the people, my focus is on the political will and integrity of the world's nations who have sat down and made commitments to each other and to us -- their citizens -- to ensure we strive for a better world where human rights are not just expected, but guaranteed through united campaigns such as the one I am hoping is in the making.

Is your take on this no military action, whatsoever? No humanitarian aid? No action whatsoever by your government on behalf of the civilians suffering due to their government's use of chemical weapons on them? No help in the refugee crisis? This is what I got from previous conversations in this thread and this is where I feel differently. So while I appreciate discussion of the conflict itself, putting forward stories about rebel forces being just as atrocious as the Syrian government under the understanding it undermines my stance is misplaced. The rebels are not all good guys here -- I can tell you why if you're interested -- but again, let me be clear -- my focus is on the innocent civilians who are suffering tremendously by this civil war. Pretty simple.

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

@the_titan_lord: But as I pointed out above its not the official government that has the chemical weapons, its the rebels.

No -- they all have chemical weapons. The Syrian government has never hidden the fact they manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons. Many countries do.

#250 Edited by Pyrogram (35139 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

Is your take on this no military action, whatsoever? No humanitarian aid? No action whatsoever by your government on behalf of the civilians suffering due to their government's use of chemical weapons on them? No help in the refugee crisis? This is what I got from previous conversations in this thread and this is where I feel differently. So while I appreciate discussion of the conflict itself, putting forward stories about rebel forces being just as atrocious as the Syrian government under the understanding it undermines my stance is misplaced. The rebels are not all good guys here -- I can tell you why if you're interested -- but again, let me be clear -- my focus is on the innocent civilians who are suffering tremendously by this civil war. Pretty simple.

What is a rebel and an innocent? Read up about Vietnam, it's not as black and white as you may like to say. I bet, I would actually place money on some "innocents" actually being rebels in disguise. It's how these type of conflicts have worked, and will always work.