# Should We (USA) Attack Syria? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200 "2004-12-16T20:20:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/161 "2004-12-27T17:46:37Z")
> **[Opinion | Worth a Thousand Words (Published 2004)](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/opinion/worth-a-thousand-words.html)** > > Thomas L Friedman Op-Ed column says current war in Iraq is between those trying to organize election to choose their own leaders and write their own constitution versus all forces arrayed against them; calls insurgents nihilist minority; says noble... > [@](#): > > As the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum so rightly pointed out to me, “These so-called insurgents in Iraq are the real fascists, the real colonialists, the real imperialists of our age.” They are a tiny minority who want to rule Iraq by force and rip off its oil wealth for themselves. It’s time we called them by their real names. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/162 "2004-12-27T17:46:42Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > If we’ve now reached the point where people are actually saying that invading a country, killing thousands of its people, and placing it under a military dictatorship isn’t “conquest,” we surely have gone through the looking-glass. > > Here’s a handy chart for those who want to invade Syria and think invading Iraq was a great idea: > > **Don’t Say:** > Conquest > **Do Say:** > Regime Change > > **Don’t Say:** > Dead Children > \*\*Do Say: \*\* > Collateral Damage > > **Don’t Say:** > Bombs > **Do Say:** > Improvised Explosive Devices > > **Don’t Say:** > Occupation > **Do Say:** > Happy Fun Visit **Don’t Say:** Brtual Baathist regime. **Do say:** Necessity. **Don’t Say:** Terrorists **Do say:** Insurgents/Militia **Don’t Mention:** Riverbend, the ‘true’ voice of Iraqis is actually a pissed off Sunni with Baathist connections **Do say:** The true heart and voice of Iraq **Don’t Mention:** The UN is a corrupt useless club for dictators **Do say:** A necessity to solve world problems. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/163 "2004-12-28T02:39:01Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > **Don’t Mention:** > The UN is a corrupt useless club for dictators > **Do say:** > A necessity to solve world problems. Just so. As it happens, the UN is **not** a corrupt useless club for dictators and **is** a necessity to solve world problems. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/164 "2004-12-28T03:27:46Z")
> [@barbitu8](#): > > How many did Hussein kill before we overthrew his regime? Hundreds of thousands, not to mention the number he just tortured without killing. Hussein wasn’t a dictator? Who said he wasn’t? Dude, if the best you can say is that you might have killed fewer civilians than Saddam Hussein, you’re in a pathetic state. That’s not a comparison you want to make. > [@](#): > > And the goal, of course, is to establish a democracy. Which I simply do not believe, inasmuch as it’s not consistent with 3,500 years of the history of superpower dealings with small vassal nations in general, and the dealings of the USA with its vassal states in particular. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, the UN was even more feckless in regards to Iraq, so we had to do it ourselves, along with the other nations that participated. Exactly why did those people need to be killed? Does it not strike you as being just the slightest bit suspicious that the absolute, #1 primary reason for starting the war, as claimed by the United States government, turned our to be a lie? Doesn’t that make you just a little bit skeptical about their intentions? Maybe just a tad doubtful? You know, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me, and all that? > [@](#): > > No nation, let alone the League of Nations, intervened to stop the Holocaust although the world knew what was going on. Jesus Christ, man. The Holocaust did not begin until AFTER THE WAR HAD STARTED. What more can do you beyond fighting a full scale war? The rest of your post was a litany of nonsense. The war was an “Extension of the first war”? Oh, come off it; surely you’re not going to trot our such transparent malarkey as to pretend the first Gulf War hadn’t ended? Hussein was a neo-Hitler? Well, why not a neo-Suharto? Oh, I forgot, the USA supported Suharto. the insurgents are only from one religious faction? Check a map and find Mosul, dude. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/165 "2004-12-28T14:23:52Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Who said he wasn’t? > > Dude, if the best you can say is that you might have killed fewer civilians than Saddam Hussein, you’re in a pathetic state. That’s not a comparison you want to make. The point is that the killing by Hussein has been stopped. And all the killings would be stopped if the terrorists would cease. Most of the killings now are the result of the terrorists who consist of a small fraction of the Sunnis and outsiders. > [@](#): > > Which I simply do not believe, inasmuch as it’s not consistent with 3,500 years of the history of superpower dealings with small vassal nations in general, and the dealings of the USA with its vassal states in particular. In the past the superpowers tried to colonize these nations. The USA has never done that. > [@](#): > > Does it not strike you as being just the slightest bit suspicious that the absolute, #1 primary reason for starting the war, as claimed by the United States government, turned our to be a lie? Doesn’t that make you just a little bit skeptical about their intentions? Maybe just a tad doubtful? You know, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me, and all that? It wasn’t a lie. We were mistaken, but the government never lied. The heads of states of both Egypt and Jordan told us that Iraq had WMD, and other info indicated this. If he didn’t have them, why did he stop the inspections? More evidence that he had them. The real reason he stopped them is that he wanted to reinstitute them. > [@](#): > > Jesus Christ, man. The Holocaust did not begin until AFTER THE WAR HAD STARTED. What more can do you beyond fighting a full scale war? The beginning of the Holocaust started before the war and the war was not fought to stop it. The USA was a late entry and only Pearl Harbor finally brought us into it. More war effort could have easily been furnished towards stopping the Holocaust. That was not of any importance to the Allies. The rest of your post was a litany of nonsense. The war was an “Extension of the first war”? Oh, come off it; surely you’re not going to trot our such transparent malarkey as to pretend the first Gulf War hadn’t ended? Hussein was a neo-Hitler? Well, why not a neo-Suharto? Oh, I forgot, the USA supported Suharto. the insurgents are only from one religious faction? Check a map and find Mosul, dude. [/QUOTE] The fact remains, although you can dismiss it as malarkey, that Hussein did not abide by the terms of the surrender. My last paragraph is also nonsense? It is a fact that Syria is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Is that nonsense to you? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/166 "2004-12-28T15:36:03Z")
> [@barbitu8](#): > > The point is that the killing by Hussein has been stopped. And all the killings would be stopped if the terrorists would cease. Most of the killings now are the result of the terrorists who consist of a small fraction of the Sunnis and outsiders. Well, you’re technically right. If the Iraqis would just roll over like a servile dog and obey their American masters, the killing would definitely stop. And if the Afghans had stopped resisting their Soviet liberators, the killing there would have stopped right away. How foolish of them to resist their Russian friends! In fact, why not just extend this logic to all little, powerless countries? Why shouldn’t the USA invade Canada? After all, the killing would quickly stop if the pesky Canadians would just not resist. It’d be a harmless invasion. > [@](#): > > In the past the superpowers tried to colonize these nations. The USA has never done that. Gosh no. Let’s ignore Cuba. Oh, and the Philippines. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t a lie. We were mistaken, but the government never lied. Pal, you need to start reading something other than the Limbaugh Letter. If the Bush administration legitimately believed IRaq had weapons of mass destruction in the quantities they claimed, then please, please, please explain to us all why there was virtually no effort to secure alleged WMD sites during the invasion. If uou’re invading because of the WMDs, isn’t it sort of logical that you’d try to prevent Iraq from moving, hiding or selling them? Why wasn’t that attempted? I’ll give you one thing; you’re… trusting. > [@](#): > > The beginning of the Holocaust started before the war and the war was not fought to stop it. The USA was a late entry and only Pearl Harbor finally brought us into it. More war effort could have easily been furnished towards stopping the Holocaust. That was not of any importance to the Allies. Honest to God, man, pick up a book. The Holocaust, meaning the murder of the European Jews, DIDN’T start before September 1, 1939. It began in 1941, when mass murders of Jews fist started on the Eastern Front, mostly committed by the Einsatzgruppen, after Operation Barbarossa; the decision to commence systematic murder was not made until the Wannsee Conference in Jan. 1942, probably based on orders from Hitler gave late in 1941. There was no evidence prior to September 1, 1939, that Germany or Hitler planned mass industrial murder of Jews; certainly Jews were horribly mistreated, but there wasn’t any precedent for a minority denied civil rights to have things escalated to such a ghastly scale. As to your claim the Allies could have done more, I would suggest that talk is cheap sixty years after the fact when you aren’t the one mobilizing an entire nation to war. Practically speaking, no, there was little else that could have been done; to stop the Holocaust, Germany had to be conquered. You can’t just come up with a few dozen divisions out of thin air and teleport them to western Poland. Any deviation from the destruction of Germany would have slowed the end of the war (well, I guess it could not have bene slowed beyond the use of atomic weapons in August 1945) and prolonged the murders. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/167 "2004-12-28T18:20:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Just so. As it happens, the UN is **not** a corrupt useless club for dictators and **is** a necessity to solve world problems. Well if you say it, it must be true. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/168 "2004-12-28T20:55:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, you’re technically right. If the Iraqis would just roll over like a servile dog and obey their American masters, the killing would definitely stop. And if the Afghans had stopped resisting their Soviet liberators, the killing there would have stopped right away. How foolish of them to resist their Russian friends! > > In fact, why not just extend this logic to all little, powerless countries? Why shouldn’t the USA invade Canada? After all, the killing would quickly stop if the pesky Canadians would just not resist. It’d be a harmless invasion. > Gosh no. Let’s ignore Cuba. Oh, and the Philippines. > Pal, you need to start reading something other than the Limbaugh Letter. If the Bush administration legitimately believed IRaq had weapons of mass destruction in the quantities they claimed, then please, please, please explain to us all why there was virtually no effort to secure alleged WMD sites during the invasion. If uou’re invading because of the WMDs, isn’t it sort of logical that you’d try to prevent Iraq from moving, hiding or selling them? Why wasn’t that attempted? > > I’ll give you one thing; you’re… trusting. There was no effort to secure even weapons of ordinary destruction, but WMD would have been well hidden and would not have been seen by the troops on the ground, who were provided gas masks and other paraphenalia against chemical attacks. > [@](#): > > The Holocaust, meaning the murder of the European Jews, DIDN’T start before September 1, 1939. It began in 1941, when mass murders of Jews fist started on the Eastern Front, mostly committed by the Einsatzgruppen, after Operation Barbarossa; the decision to commence systematic murder was not made until the Wannsee Conference in Jan. 1942, probably based on orders from Hitler gave late in 1941. > > There was no evidence prior to September 1, 1939, that Germany or Hitler planned mass industrial murder of Jews; certainly Jews were horribly mistreated, but there wasn’t any precedent for a minority denied civil rights to have things escalated to such a ghastly scale. > > As to your claim the Allies could have done more, I would suggest that talk is cheap sixty years after the fact when you aren’t the one mobilizing an entire nation to war. Practically speaking, no, there was little else that could have been done; to stop the Holocaust, Germany had to be conquered. You can’t just come up with a few dozen divisions out of thin air and teleport them to western Poland. Any deviation from the destruction of Germany would have slowed the end of the war (well, I guess it could not have bene slowed beyond the use of atomic weapons in August 1945) and prolonged the murders. The Holocaust was not submitted to any referendum, but its execution required the industrious exertions of hundreds of thousands of willing accessories, both German and non-German, as well as the acquiescence or indifference of millions of others. And the rest of the non-Jewish world, including even those who became allies against Nazi Germany, maintained barriers - as at Evian before the war and at Bermuda during the war - against any possible mass escape of Jews from Nazis. You’re the one who implied that the war was undertaken, at least in part, due to the war. Nothing could have been further from the truth. If Hitler were satisfied with annexing Austria and Czeckoslavakia, there would have been no war, although many Jews were already being murdered and had no rights at all in Germany. As I noted above, there were even active measures to prevent the Jews from leaving. Why do you think all the Jews who could fled Germany well before 1941? More could have been done quite easily, such as bombing the trains delivering the Jews to their deaths or bombing the concentration camps. That would have resulted in many of their deaths, but many also would have been saved. Sort of like Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200/169 "2004-12-29T03:47:57Z")
> [@barbitu8](#): > > In the past the superpowers tried to colonize these nations. The USA has never done that. I don’t think that makes any difference to Islamic extremists, Ba’athists, Arab nationalists, and everybody else in the MENA who hates us. In their eyes, we’re just a relatively recent offshoot of the European Christian civilization that waged the Crusades in the Middle Ages, colonized several Arab and other Islamic nations in the 19th and 20th Centuries, and has been interfering or trying to interfere with their internal affairs ever since WWII. French, Brits, Americans, what’s the difference? Not saying that attitude is justified, only that we have to take it into account. In part this whole set of conflicts is your conventional international struggle over power and resources; in (very small) part it is an ideological struggle between secular capitalistic liberal democracy and other political and social systems; but it could also be a playing out of the post-Cold-War “Clash of Civilizations” identified by Samuel Huntington in his 1996 book of that name. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash\_of\_civilizations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-usa-attack-syria/280200.md?page=8)