Get involved in Syria: Yes or No? And why/not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



There are rumors going around in the Middle East right now that the US conspired with some of the rebels to use chemical weapons, simply to justify US military action against Assad. Nothing good can come from our taking any military action.

You think they would know the difference between Democrat and Republican administrations.

Actually, there is very little difference between Democrat and Republican administrations.

[Anonymous]

sanctions, yes

[Anonymous]

Remember back in the 1860's when America was having a Civil War the the Ottomans, Arab Nomads and the Persians came to our land to intervene?

Exactly. We need to stay the hell out.

[Anonymous]

We need to do this so democracy will spread through the Middle East.

[Anonymous]

We heard from Rumsfeld, what does C. Rice say? We can just do the opposite and be sure we are doing the right thing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I oppose intervention.

It is not clear to me how bombing Syria will improve the conditions of the Syrian people. More than likely, we will kill a significant number of civilians and I would not be surprised if we end up killing more civilians than were allegedly killed in the gas attack. At the end of the day, we will leave the country worse off than it is now.

Those most likely to benefit from our involvement are groups linked to al-Qaida. Such groups are currently imposing Sharia law in formerly secular Syrian cities. Why anyone believes assisting such groups is in the US interest in beyond me.

The US obviously is not concerned about Syrians being killed. There are far better ways of preventing that than bombing them. Rather, Obama laid down a red line and that line was crossed (at least in the US interpretation of events which I for one take with a grain of salt). So, what is at risk here is Obama's and by extension, the US's prestige. So, I ask, how many Syrians must die for Obama's prestige? Frankly, I don't think it is worth a single individual. John Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" There is a certain tragic irony in seeing him offer justifications for the killing of many more for another mistake.

I am against intervention in this case. I don't think it will have any humanitarian impact or any other impact frankly except it will kill innocent Syrians. However, I don't think it is precisely accurate to say that "Obama drew a line" as though he is individually responsible for a ban on chemical weapons. 187 out of 196 nations (Syria did not ratify) recognized by the UN joined the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. I realize that this does not give any nation the right to use force against Syria for using chemical weapons. but using them is certainly considered a"taboo" in warfare by the vast majority of nation. It is not something Obama pulled out of his ass to make himself feel tough. That is a mischaracterization and a simplification in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember back in the 1860's when America was having a Civil War the the Ottomans, Arab Nomads and the Persians came to our land to intervene?

Exactly. We need to stay the hell out.

I also oppose involvement in this, but your reason is silly. The world is not quite the same today as it was 150 years ago. I assume you also believe that we should have stayed out of the European Civil War of 1939, since we were never attacked by anyone other than Japan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember back in the 1860's when America was having a Civil War the the Ottomans, Arab Nomads and the Persians came to our land to intervene?

Exactly. We need to stay the hell out.

Of course if France did not intervene in the American Revolution the outcome would have been different.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but France did that to harm their traditional opponent, England. Naked political ambition. Not because they felt the rightness of the colonists' cause.

Nowadays don't we frown on intervening in foreign countries merely for our own benefit? Usually we need a pretext... like WMD or chemical weapons. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but France did that to harm their traditional opponent, England. Naked political ambition. Not because they felt the rightness of the colonists' cause.

Nowadays don't we frown on intervening in foreign countries merely for our own benefit? Usually we need a pretext... like WMD or chemical weapons. Huh.

Nope. Every nation always has and always will act on their own self interest.

[Anonymous]

The plans sound like giving your 2 year old a 30 sec time out. You feel like you are doing something but it is ineffective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plans sound like giving your 2 year old a 30 sec time out. You feel like you are doing something but it is ineffective.

Isn't that what it is? A public hand slap for using chemical weapons. But not harsh enough to actualy get rid of Assad and let the Islamists in.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think the US should absolutely be prepared to use force in Syria. I think the outcome of the last week, and the last few days in particular, is to demonstrate to extremists everywhere that there is no longer a 'good guy' in this world -- no power prepared to defend against atrocities against humanity. The US and its major allies are impotent, and the world is becoming far more dangerous for it.
The true tragedy of the Bush years is coming home to roost. This is what the reckless policies of the last decade plus have done to the US and to the world.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think the US should absolutely be prepared to use force in Syria. I think the outcome of the last week, and the last few days in particular, is to demonstrate to extremists everywhere that there is no longer a 'good guy' in this world -- no power prepared to defend against atrocities against humanity. The US and its major allies are impotent, and the world is becoming far more dangerous for it.
The true tragedy of the Bush years is coming home to roost. This is what the reckless policies of the last decade plus have done to the US and to the world.

Are you going to go do it or are you going to stay safe at home and bitch about high taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think the US should absolutely be prepared to use force in Syria. I think the outcome of the last week, and the last few days in particular, is to demonstrate to extremists everywhere that there is no longer a 'good guy' in this world -- no power prepared to defend against atrocities against humanity. The US and its major allies are impotent, and the world is becoming far more dangerous for it.
The true tragedy of the Bush years is coming home to roost. This is what the reckless policies of the last decade plus have done to the US and to the world.

What?? Bush was soundly criticized for using force and 'killing innocents', so now it's HIS fault that Obama has again overstepped his boundaries by opening his big mouth, has found that he can't even get a coalition together, and now has to try and save face at the expense of US reputation?

He is proving what Bin Laden said during the Clinton years - that the US is a paper tiger. These are progressive policies coming home to roost my friend. Once again, Netanyahu is going to have to do what progressives can't accomplish. No worries - he will take out Iranian nuke ability like he took out Hussein's so many years ago.

Say thank you.