Syria

[outragous76]

Why are we (or moreso the usa)intervening?

Seems like there are many more appropriate nations to be at the head of the queue. Team America, world police.

The nerve gas attack stinks to me! Way too convenient, and no solid evidence all of a sudden after immense international pressure. I know Assad is a mentalist, but of all the things he could due, surely that would be up there with the most stupid? Conventional killing seems to have been serving him just fine to date.  

Too many respected voices say military intervention is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I think the UN And "talking" will get is nowhere and certainly won't stop the killing anytime soon. I'm just not sure dropping bombs will stop the killing either

[Karabiner]

How does Syria get solved without an intervention?

(genuine question)

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

Or any Arab country that has a Sunni/Shia juxtaposition being held in check underneath a dictatorship which obviously has it's own agenda.

I do actually feel that there might well be a better case for Western intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds than there ever was in Iraq on dubitable grounds.

[Ironside]

ok never seen this thread when i posted this on my diary
the fact is now that even if the inspectors come back with concrete proof we cant intervene  to stop future use of chemical weapons which are horrific 

I Hope that Tony Blair is happy with his legacy now that the UK are too afraid too intervene after chemical weapons have been used too kill innocent men women and children. This will give tyrants and terrorists all over the world the carte blanche too do what they want with some really terrifying evil weapons.
But its ok Tony your legacy is in tact even if we didn't become ther 53rd state of the USA

[celtic]

What are the 51st and 52nd states?

[Waz1892]

Take away Russia/China from the equation, we'd be in there like a shot?!

Why does it take chemical weapons for the West to "ramp up" the intervention debate, when it sits and watches 90k+ innocent people being killed over the past 2-3 years.  I ended up turning over the news when it showed various politic personnel spout on about "we condemn..."  "we appeal for the Assad regime to stop..."

Talking, to my knowledge, has never stopped a nut-job from stopping what he/she beings doing.  They get caught or are killed.  Threat all you wish, talk all you wish, he'll not stop until he's dead.

[Ironside]

What are the 51st and 52nd states?

canada and mexico

[Ironside]

Take away Russia/China from the equation, we'd be in there like a shot?!

Why does it take chemical weapons for the West to "ramp up" the intervention debate, when it sits and watches 90k+ innocent people being killed over the past 2-3 years.  I ended up turning over the news when it showed various politic personnel spout on about "we condemn..."  "we appeal for the Assad regime to stop..."

Talking, to my knowledge, has never stopped a nut-job from stopping what he/she beings doing.  They get caught or are killed.  Threat all you wish, talk all you wish, he'll not stop until he's dead.

chemical weapons are a totally different ball game

[redarmi]

Take away Russia/China from the equation, we'd be in there like a shot?!

Why does it take chemical weapons for the West to "ramp up" the intervention debate, when it sits and watches 90k+ innocent people being killed over the past 2-3 years.  I ended up turning over the news when it showed various politic personnel spout on about "we condemn..."  "we appeal for the Assad regime to stop..."

Talking, to my knowledge, has never stopped a nut-job from stopping what he/she beings doing.  They get caught or are killed.  Threat all you wish, talk all you wish, he'll not stop until he's dead.

I have fairly mixed thoughts on this but I have to admit that I don't really get how chemical weapons become the line which leads to intervention.  We are happy to stand by and see thousands of people massacred on each side but then if they use mustard gas it is out of order.  It is as though we are now ranking the way people are killed with some of them being acceptable.  Seems pretty ridiculous to me on the one hand to have effectively ignored Rwanda but to get involved in Syria now.

[Waz1892]

Take away Russia/China from the equation, we'd be in there like a shot?!

Why does it take chemical weapons for the West to "ramp up" the intervention debate, when it sits and watches 90k+ innocent people being killed over the past 2-3 years.  I ended up turning over the news when it showed various politic personnel spout on about "we condemn..."  "we appeal for the Assad regime to stop..."

Talking, to my knowledge, has never stopped a nut-job from stopping what he/she beings doing.  They get caught or are killed.  Threat all you wish, talk all you wish, he'll not stop until he's dead.

chemical weapons are a totally different ball game

still shouldn't take this to start thinking of intervening.  Shouldn't be a case of..well your killing your own people, children and all, please stop....oh hang on, now you're using a bigger gun..now we can't have that

The famous red line.....yet we still condemn and talk....

[leethefish]

damned is you do, damned if you don't.

When they invade Israel for their chemical attacks then I will support an attack on Syria, alas that's never gonna happen.

[TightEnd]

found this useful

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[The Baron]

Garry Kasparov's view:

Intervention is not magic. I am not naive. But when the people of the free world stop trying to help those in the unfree world it is tragic. It requires the courage to say certain beliefs are worth fighting for, anywhere, and to risk failure by fighting for them over and over.

The UK vote for action on Syria failed by 13 votes; it needed only seven members to switch. The combination of annoyance over interrupted vacations and Tony Blair was enough! Bringing back the memories of Blair, Bush, Powell, and WMD claims in Iraq ten years ago was too much. But here there is no mystery, chemicals were *used*. There's no guarantee things would improve with military intervention in Syria, but there is a guarantee they will get much worse without it. Now watching Fox with Rumsfeld & Bolton saying Obama shouldn't act in Syria! This is how domestic partisanship destroys global credibility. They are so motivated to attack Obama they ignore how they pushed to enter Iraq with far less WMD evidence than Obama has now in Syria.

And for the "realist" isolationists who say "America first" or "UK first", fine. But problems you ignore have a way of coming to your door. Many are asking me why the USA has to be the "world police." Do you still think America was a beacon of hope to so many because of bluejeans and McDonalds? I am not American but as a child of the USSR I can tell you how much it mattered to us knowing someone out there cared for these things. Read US history, the words of US leaders from both parties, about why fighting tyranny globally matters to all. That is why America matters.

Politically there is never an "acceptable" plan, all options will have negatives and it is easier to do nothing. But you must do what you can. You cannot hide from the world in London or New York. Better to have consequences of actions with a moral basis than inaction of cowardice. "We must not now, as we once did, acquiesce to tyranny while there are those, at greater risk than ourselves, who dare to resist." That is from a speech by US Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, about the USSR in 1972. Worthwhile reading! http://www.hmjackson.org/downloads/speech.pdf

The free world has unparalleled economic and military powers and it stands by while innocents die, despite saying "never again" each time. History is longer than the news cycle or term of office. We always look back and say "Why didn't we act, or act earlier?" Or the worst, "Why did we not at least try?" Instead we find excuses in the moment and whitewash history for our shame.

[MintTrav]

Rwanda has been mentioned a couple of times. In Rwanda, nearly 1m people were killed in 100 days in an attempt to wipe out a race, which was 75-85% successful. I guess people are trying to make the point that world leaders didn't act then when they should have, but the Syrian situation has nothing in common with what happened in Rwanda.

[kinboshi]

It's referenced because of the apparent arbitrary nature of when the'West' intervenes.

Maybe an alternative comparison would be Iraq and Saddam. There wasn't an immediate military response when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds was there, something that was recognised as genocide? Weren't there years of sanctions and attempted diplomatic pressure before the use of military aggression.

History doesn't write a favourable account on many scores with regards to Iraq.

[kinboshi]

This is an interesting article from back in March.

http://www.ibtimes.com/25-years-after-worst-chemical-weapon-massacre-history-saddam-husseins-attack-halabja-iraq-city

The arbitrary nature of intervention can be seen by the support of Assad by Russia who obviously have a vested interest there, as did the UK and the US in the Iran-Iraq war, or of course the US and Israel.