Syria… What to do?

Just wanted to start up a good debate on what should happen to Bashar al-Assad and Syria? Should America start a war with them. If they do would it trigger World War 3? Personally I'm on the fence as sending cruise missile would probably just kill more innocent people. The lose of life is always a terrible thing.

What do you think will/should happen?

We're screwed either way. Either we invade and get blamed for the deaths of a lot of civilians, or we don't, and get blamed for the deaths of a lot of civilians. The latter at least has the benefit of not costing us any more money. I am of the opinion that the US needs to shut down all these operations, and start taking care of our own. Our military budget is insane, and the return on investment is nil. We have all these companies that rely on a steady stream of government money to stay in business. If this goes on for too much longer, we wont be able to stop fighting wars, as the result would be massive unemployment and the economy crashing.

Seems like a Muslim vs Muslim thing - been going on for far too long for us to have a hope of settling. Why can't the other middle east countries step in & exert some pressure?

its like a reality show, speak up and you might be next? Your asking someone that has to constantly battle their borders to keep their country as good as it is, to pressure some madman tied to a faction of nutjobs ... only good could come from that.

what to do? F if I know, that is why I am not in foreign policy

Should the US do something? we already have, and someone crossed that line, now what, more world police?

sigh

Let's just get real for a minute or three.

There are many countries, states and nations across the world with human rights violations that would make the stomach of any reasonable individual churn. To claim that the action has at it's heart 'civil rights' seems disingenuous as best and callous, calculating and just plain bullsh1t in other views.

It seems incredible that so few of the people that offer an opinion on the matter have attempted to approach the issue from the perspective that would be valid if (for example) the US was in the midst of civil-war and the Russian govt was of the mind that pre-emptive strikes against the Obama regime (oops, should that be Administration in a first-world country? :p) were appropriate.

There would (quite rightly, in my opinion) be a massive outcry against the Russians and intense questioning of what on earth gives them the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state.

The simple facts of the matter are: there are allegations of human-rights violations on both sides of the conflict. The US is a member of both NATO & the UN, yet sees fit to Veto those actions it feels do not serve it's needs, while on the other hand ignoring those precautionary measures designed to ensure that action is not taken prematurely, before facts, figures and scientific evidence are in a position to trump emotions. Case in point here is the apparent intent to ignore the UNs pleas for level-headed action while the results of the tests it has claimed to have conducted are analysed and understood.

Why not go and fix Africa? What about China? Oh, that's right - the potential ROI is so much smaller in Africa and the resistance to foreign invaders crushing in China. It makes much better business sense to act as you please in a market that supplies you with oil, that you can push around, yeah?

Operation Ajax Redux.. 1953 Here we come!

I think the difference is superpowers vs some guy that owns what he can reach with a rag tag gang and a pickup truck

enhzflep:
It seems incredible that so few of the people that offer an opinion on the matter have attempted to approach the issue from the perspective that would be valid if (for example) the US was in the midst of civil-war and the Russian govt was of the mind that pre-emptive strikes against the Obama regime (oops, should that be Administration in a first-world country? :p) were appropriate.

There would (quite rightly, in my opinion) be a massive outcry against the Russians and intense questioning of what on earth gives them the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html

That, wizdum,
was the single-most level-headed approach I'm yet to encounter with respect to current world events. Wouldn't the world be a radically different place if we all empathized with, rather than demonized people!

"if we all empathized with"
Don't see it happening anytime soon. Too much corruption at the top in the regions where the resources, handily played into my tribe vs your tribe because we pray better than you do and can keep our women under better control than you. That's what it seems like at times. Been going on for 2000+ years, we're not gonna change it.

enhzflep:
That, wizdum,
was the single-most level-headed approach I'm yet to encounter with respect to current world events. Wouldn't the world be a radically different place if we all empathized with, rather than demonized people!

I'm hoping that the internet will help with this. I routinely talk to and play video games with people from all over the world. China, India, Russia, Japan, and Singapore aren't these unknown far-away places anymore, they're the homes of my Battlefield 3 squad that I talk with on a weekly basis.

The problem is, war isn't as clean as it is in Hollywood. The good guys don't dodge all the bullets and save all the innocents. Its messy business, there will always be collateral damage. You can't prevent it, but you can make the fight mean something. If the roles were reversed, and foreign planes were bombing my country and soldiers were going door to door looking for "terrorists", you can be damn sure i'd pick up a weapon and defend myself, my family, and my country.

I'm in collage and I like how my international relations professor put it "many countries have tried to tame the middle east, and non of them were success full… including America" He went on to say that really it is non of our business to send solders or "peace keeping forces" in unless our country is directly threatened which it was not the first time we went messing around in the middle east.

I think that we should Syria leave them alone. I feel bad about the innocent children that got killed but will sending missiles into syria help anything? Probably not. If anything it will just get the muslims more mad at America.

Obama to Bashar: "Missiles, bombs, tank shells, artillery and warplanes are allowed, but NOT chemical weapons!"

780864B2-BC8F-49E9-AF2B-CC180875CDB0_w640_s.jpg

oh that's just your overly libtard professor indoctrinating you into the communist democratic party (ducks and runs)

(before anyone jump up my bum, I am highly moderate)

Funny you would say that. He is actually a 80 year old general who is and always has been very anti democrat. He is a republican and has even run for some political offices (as a republican). He just thinks that the middle east is not something we should have gotten involved in.

Osgeld:
oh that's just your overly libtard professor indoctrinating you into the communist democratic party (ducks and runs)
(before anyone jump up my bum, I am highly moderate)

Sighs. Somewhere a village is looking for their idiot.

Of course it's mean, of course it's nasty and horrible. War always is. But why o why is there always someone with whom I disagree - someone that thinks it's an appropriate topic to make facetious jokes about?

(very Not Safe For Work) Go and visit liveleak, bestgore or prochan, selecting a few videos from the library of those from Syria, then come back and make jokes.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against civilians in Halabja during the Iran/Iraq war.

I honestly don't remember;

  • Did the West take any action against him at that point in time?
  • Was he on "our" side at that time?

For those who wish to attack Syria is your position that use of Chemical Weapons must always be met with an automatic armed response?

If it is then you would wish to mount an immediate armed response against China, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc. were it alleged one of them had used Chemical Weapons in a limited way?

I've been getting these (unsolicited) emails which are rather depressing:

Do you want to make megabucks due to armed conflicts? It`s the very time to do it. The moment the first bombs get to the earth in Syria, black gold prices will move up ...

In brief, no I don't want to make megabucks. It's bad enough that men, women and children are being killed, without someone seeing this as a way to make money out of it.

The moment the first bombs get to the earth in Syria

Presumably they mean the first non-Syrian bombs.

radman:
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against civilians in Halabja during the Iran/Iraq war.

I honestly don't remember;

  • Did the West take any action against him at that point in time?
    Not to my memory, the world just watched the war proceed for what 10 years?
  • Was he on "our" side at that time?

Not really, we just hated him less then Iran due to their overrunning our embassy in the 70s. Most of Iraq's military equipment was purchased from USSR/Russia.
[/list]

For those who wish to attack Syria is your position that use of Chemical Weapons must always be met with an automatic armed response?

No I would not send Tomahawk missiles in, I would send in a covert team and just take out Assad directly and blame Iran for the deed.

If it is then you would wish to mount an immediate armed response against China, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc. were it alleged one of them had used Chemical Weapons in a limited way?

No question that being the surviving sole 'superpower' has it's drawbacks and is pretty much a thankless role to play world policeman. But then again it's not like the UN is a functional body for solving such issues with five countries having veto powers over any specific action taken.
Lefty

If you're going to kill Assad for the chemical weapons in Syria it's important that you make sure that Assad is the one using them. As it is now there is plenty of evidence that the rebels in Syria are using chemical weapons.

retrolefty:

radman:

  • Did the West take any action against him at that point in time?
    Not to my memory, the world just watched the war proceed for what 10 years?

[/quote]
The attacks on the Kurds in Halabja resulted in a few thousand casualties, but Iraq had used plenty of chemical weapons against Iran (and vice-versa) throughout the Iran-Iraq war with casualties around 50,000. The UN denounced the use of chemical weapons during those attacks but never took action.

Yeah, I think that about sums it up. You don't need chemical weapons to go on a murderous rampage.

As an interesting thought experiment, what should be done if it were found that BOTH sides were using chemical weapons?