A Possible 'Syrian War'

[WinePusher]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[Angel]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

In my opinion, if the only way to win is with a full scale war then we should not get involved if we can't afford it. If we can drop a few bombs here and there, sort of like how it went in Libya then I'd probably be okay with that. The only exception I could make to more full scale assault is if we had an international coalition helping us but from what I can tell we don't or maybe not yet.

[Philbert]

The Syrian conflict is mostly a case of bad guys fighting bad guys at this point, so it makes sense to steer clear. I support Obama's caution here.

However, a full scale effort to assist the refuges is certainly called for. I'm disappointed in Obama's lack of leadership here.

We might have won over the Syrian people if we'd stayed out of the war, but led a dramatic very public effort to assist the refuges. As it stands, I'm guessing we've blown a historic opportunity. Generations of Syrians will now remember the U.S. as the sleepy self absorbed country that couldn't be bothered in Syria's time of great need.

[WinePusher]

The Syrian conflict is mostly a case of bad guys fighting bad guys at this point, so it makes sense to steer clear. I support Obama's caution here.

Yes, this point is crucial. I honestly don't know whether military intervention is a good idea or not. There are international laws that prohibit the usage of chemical weapons, so if the Syrian government did in fact use chemical weapons there has to be repercussions. I agree with Angel's analysis, that bombing runs targeted at specific facilities that manufacture chemical weapons are the best route to go.

But the main point that the United States should bear in mind is that this really is a case of bad guys fighting bad guys. The Syrian government vs. the Syrian rebels. Neither side is on the right side of history.

[Philbert]

There are international laws that prohibit the usage of chemical weapons, so if the Syrian government did in fact use chemical weapons there has to be repercussions.

This is a good point.

Yes, if that law is to have any meaning, the Syrian government has to pay some penalty, suffer some loss which would discourage other actors from using these weapons.

But....

Now we are in effect saying, it's ok to slaughter 100,000 people by other means, but it's not ok to slaughter a few hundred people with chemical weapons. Not an easy message to sell...

Personally, I doubt that dictatorships in the current state of chaos the Syrian regime finds itself in can ever be talked out of doing what they see as necessary for their survival.

My vote is, take all the resources we might have used in a war with Syria, and flood the refuge camps with free services.

In the end, over the long run, the real power in Syria is the Syrian people. We should be making it utterly clear that we are on their side, whoever wins the current shoot out.

However, it seems this is not to be. I expect the Syrian people will largely hate us for decades to come.

[DanieltheDragon]

The Syrian conflict is mostly a case of bad guys fighting bad guys at this point, so it makes sense to steer clear. I support Obama's caution here.

However, a full scale effort to assist the refuges is certainly called for. I'm disappointed in Obama's lack of leadership here.

We might have won over the Syrian people if we'd stayed out of the war, but led a dramatic very public effort to assist the refuges. As it stands, I'm guessing we've blown a historic opportunity. Generations of Syrians will now remember the U.S. as the sleepy self absorbed country that couldn't be bothered in Syria's time of great need.

bulls eye. War doesn't always have to be the answer. But considering our trillion dollar military budget its the only one we know.

[bluethread]

The problem with "humanitarian aid" is that it becomes a tool of whoever controls the territory. The only way to assure true "humanitarian aid" is to control the territory. As nonPC as it sounds, we are learning, hopefully, why imperialism is the only foreign policy that works. That is why this is a loose/loose for us. The imperial nations, Russia, China and Iran are calling the shots.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

Imperialism has had its day and it doesn't work. humanitarian aid isn't perfect but it works and is temporary just ask why the british are not there anymore.....

[marketandchurch]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opini ... -wins.html

there's a great case against it, with that NYTimes piece. However, Bret Stephens at the WSJ also makes a great case for it. The issue of course is timing. We are in the position we are because of failed timing on the part of Obama. I kind of feel we have no choice but to go in, though I don't want to. If we don't go in, then the resulting population will be so radicalized that it'll become another barbarian stronghold, like Iraq and Iran became after fighting their prolonged war against each other.

Putin is now making up a lie that Saudi Arabia has threatened it with terrorists who will attack its upcoming winter games, as an excuse to attack Saudi Arabia if the US attacks Syria. An Lebanese paper, sympathetic to Assad and Hezbollah, has "confirmed" the integrity of the charge lol. It's a mess.

[marketandchurch]

There are international laws that prohibit the usage of chemical weapons, so if the Syrian government did in fact use chemical weapons there has to be repercussions.

This is a good point.

Yes, if that law is to have any meaning, the Syrian government has to pay some penalty, suffer some loss which would discourage other actors from using these weapons.

But....

Now we are in effect saying, it's ok to slaughter 100,000 people by other means, but it's not ok to slaughter a few hundred people with chemical weapons. Not an easy message to sell...

Personally, I doubt that dictatorships in the current state of chaos the Syrian regime finds itself in can ever be talked out of doing what they see as necessary for their survival.

My vote is, take all the resources we might have used in a war with Syria, and flood the refuge camps with free services.

In the end, over the long run, the real power in Syria is the Syrian people. We should be making it utterly clear that we are on their side, whoever wins the current shoot out.

However, it seems this is not to be. I expect the Syrian people will largely hate us for decades to come.

That's why I struggle to find a side to support in this mess. What does it say when a red line is the usage of chemical weapons on a thousand people, but the murder of 120,000 does not qualify for intervention?

And the need for intervention is solely on the basis that if we don't punish those who use chemical weapons, the weight of the global opposition to the usage of such weapons will amount to nothing more then lip service. In other words: Meaningless! But then where we on Saddam against the Kurds, which gassed 3 times the amount of people who have died in Syria, and where were we when Egypt used it against the Yemeni population?

There is also a case against staying out of the conflict. We supported Saddam in his war on Iran, to prolong the conflict and encourage let two devils weaken each other out, and we ended up with a more radical Iran and a more radical Iraq. Iran then went on to be the #1 state sponsor of terrorism around the world, and Iraq went on to invade Kuwait. The longer the conflict goes on, the more radical the populations that remain become, as the good, the decent, are thinned out in genocide, while either Assad wins and empowers the Iranian-Soviet pact that they are fighting on behalf, not to mention the full on genocide of every individual against Assad, or, Syria will become a terrorist state for Jihadists who have Europe and the United States in their crosshairs.

Iraqi's thank us for toppling Saddam, and in the same sentence wish us to be doused in kerosene and tossed into the inner depths of hell. Innocent Syrian refugees will not acknowledge that they were treated in Israel, for free, lest they be slaughtered by one of their fellow "innocent" family member back home. And most of these people that are treated by Israel return home to curse the Jew and Israel lol. They are an odd people. But some are at a point of desperation, because of the tribalism of the region, that they know that Israel is their only hope. Not the Turks. Not the Jordanians. Not the Egyptians. Not the Saudi's. But the Israeli's, the only decent people in the region.

I'm 55% in favor of invasion, 45% against it. But I think the relevant question isn't one of whether one is for or against intervention. The question is one of timing... intervention is inevitable, but when will it be appropriate to enter into this conflict? And what would our aims be?