There is a civil war going on. Every time it looks like the rebels are about to lose, are we going to apply just enough force to keep the damned war going? That seems needlessly cruel. Profitable for arms dealers and a few politicians trying to score points - cruel for everyone else.
We need to either pick a side and make them win (which I don’t support) or we need to butt the hell out.
The IRS “scandal” was pure made up BS.
Didn’t Wile E. Coyote order some of those from Acme Co.?
I’m not particularly in favor of it, but I checked the last one as I think that’s what’s going to happen. FTR, I think that we should generally stay out of these sorts of things, but on the other hand I don’t know that we should allow dictators to use chemical weapons on their own population. I realize we HAVE allowed it in the past (see Saddam and Iraq), but I just don’t think it’s something we SHOULD allow.
My hope is that Obama et al are smart enough to go for small strikes that demonstrate the message that it’s not cool to use WMD on your own populace, and if you do then you are going to get hammered for it. So, best stick to killing your folks the old fashioned way with tanks, planes and bombs. Perhaps rounding them up as Assad did in the early phases to pose for gun fire. THAT’S obviously ok with The World™ and the good folks here on the Straight Dope, but there has to be some limit. I think this is that limit. Obviously MMV.
Bombing a country full of Muslims this close to September 11? What could possibly go wrong!?
It’s all barbaric, sure. But given the choice between a firing squad and couple lungfulls of nerve agent I’ll take the bullet–hell, even a Louisville slugger to the noggin–every time. Nerve/blood agents are just needlessly brutal. I can see why The World gets particularly upset with chemical strikes.
This.
Except we’re intervening in response to mass murder.
US’s lapdog Saudi Arabia arms Syrian rebels. It could have used the influence it has on the Saudis and prevented much of those 100k deaths. It knew the rebels had near zero chance of toppling the regime which has a well coordinated army backed and armed by Russia and Iran.
Its not proven tht Assad ordered chemical weapons strike. Attacking Syria wouldn’t solve anything, rather elongate the civil war. They should always have tried to engage with Syrian regime and tried to strengthen what was supposed to be the most secular option for Syria.
Having listened to Assad’s interview , he seems more reasonable than even Obama, certainly not to be compared with the likes of Gaddafi/Saddam or to be replaced by the likes of Al-quaeda.
In other words, shut down demands for democracy and freedom. :rolleyes: I doubt the Syrian people would have listened to such rubbish even had we attempted it.
That would be the Free Syrian Army.
Saying all Syrian rebels are Al-Qaeda style Islamists is like saying all Resistance fighters in the Third Reich were Communists. And Assad sounding reasonable doesn’t change the fact that he’s a murderer.
[QUOTE=truthSeeker2]
Having listened to Assad’s interview , he seems more reasonable than even Obama, certainly not to be compared with the likes of Gaddafi/Saddam or to be replaced by the likes of Al-quaeda.
[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you a quick question. What started the civil war? WHY did the people start to fight back? Do you know? Because it’s kind of a key point when discussing how ‘reasonable’ Assad is, or comparing him favorably to Obama and saying there is no comparison between him and Saddam or the Gaddafi Duck, let alone the likes of AQ.
Just a hint. The protests started off peacefully but someone (who shall remain unnamed) decided to bring the hammer down…hard. Brutally. Completely over the top. And a lot of citizens died. Mind, this was before the actual civil war started, when the Syrians were still at the peaceful protest stage.
No.
This is a civil war within Syria. Let them kill each other off. I know, some of them are using nasty WMDs and all that, but it is still an internal conflict and none of our business.
Except for the fact that 65% are against it.
For those against this but were for the invasion and ocupation of Iraq, how do you justify that but not this?
Hitler was a threat to our allies. In this case our actions will endanger our allies.
We have no interest in this war and risk supporting groups directly harmful to us. You may recall that we supported Osama Bin Laden against the Soviet Union.
What’s peaceful about attacking churches?
Because the UN doesn’t work as long as China and Russia sabotage the UN from being the world police.
The Dutch have them too, IIRC. But our news media mainly report on what the US is going to do or not. No take on what we are going to do in that case. The only thing our politicians are deciding on at the moment, is if we should allow Dutch-Syrians to take their families here while the war rages.
I have nothing but disdain for how the Arab countries deal with each other. Politically, no matter how rich they are, they’re a redneck trailer park. In most trailers, the spouses beat each other senseless every night, and no-one form another trailer intervenes because they hate those assholes and besides, they dont want those assholes to intervene when they are the ones with the shouting match.
As for Syria, we just don’t know what we want to achieve and how to best achieve it. Maybe a tactical strike is the answer, maybe just refugee aid; maybe better diplomacy, maybe doing nothing. We just don’t know yet. I think Obama is wise to wait and see.
When I look at such head of states, I look at their clarity, rationalism and credentials.
He seems to have clarity of mind, rational thoughts, secular credentials (All non-sunni sects - alawites, shias, christians support him) . On basis of this, I can’t liken him to Gaddafi/Saddam or favor Al Qaeda over him. One Major factor is that Syria has sophisticated ,coordinated, motivated and resourceful army capable to defeat any kind of rebellion.
Citizens have also died in China, Egypt , in wars started by USA etc.
I probably supported wars in Iraq, Libya and certainly in Afghanistan but do not support arming of rebels and American Air strike’s in Syria. This would only risk many lives in Syria and other places.
… China?
About as peaceful as taking (and shooting) protesters, or firing indiscriminately first into the crowds and then, just for fun, shelling neighborhoods where suspected demonstrators MIGHT be. And this was before the civil war really kicked off. No doubt Assad et al were just being playful.
[QUOTE=truthSeeker2]
When I look at such head of states, I look at their clarity, rationalism and credentials.
He seems to have clarity of mind, rational thoughts, secular credentials (All non-sunni sects - alawites, shias, christians support him) . On basis of this, I can’t liken him to Gaddafi/Saddam or favor Al Qaeda over him. One Major factor is that Syria has sophisticated ,coordinated, motivated and resourceful army capable to defeat any kind of rebellion.
Citizens have also died in China, Egypt , in wars started by USA etc.
I probably supported wars in Iraq, Libya and certainly in Afghanistan but do not support arming of rebels and American Air strike’s in Syria. This would only risk many lives in Syria and other places.
[/QUOTE]
No sarcasm intended here (though there is some irony considering your user name)…you seriously need to read up about what happened and is happening in Syria because you don’t seem to really grasp the details. Another poster used this cite in another thread, and while it doesn’t go into great detail it’s a start.