Should US bomb Syria?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I long for the good old days where the CIA could just kill Assad and nobody would know the difference.
 
Basically we are pretty sure the use of chemical weapons comes from the government, it's a question really of whether it was on Assad's express orders, some sources seem to be saying it may have come from his brother Maher, who has a reputation of being a thug and bit more erratic, who has control of his own army division I believe.

Anyway I don't think anyone buys the glorious rebel nonsense, I think we are fairly cognisant they are a disparate group of Islamists and some other factions as well, who are just as likely to descend into civil war if left in charge. I don't see doing nothing as compromising our morality anymore than our morality has already been compromised by our decades of dubious involvement in the Middle East.

Personally I don't know why chemical weapons are such a red line, they are nasty but Assad has killed many more with conventional means before even using gas, so do we only go to war depending on the nastiness of the killing? So if he killed his people as 'humanely' as possible we would do nothing? It seems arbitrary.
 
Should the US bomb Syria?

Absolutely NOT!!! Stop being the policemen of the world and focus on taking care of our own citizens (which they have hard enough time doing) instead of starting more bullshit in the middle east. And they wonder why the terrorists hate us....

Oh that's right, because we are free. :rolleyes:

How's that for being "conservative?"
 
bigjohn2441 said:
Should the US bomb Syria?

Absolutely NOT!!! Stop being the policemen of the world and focus on taking care of our own citizens (which they have hard enough time doing)
Click to expand...

There are some rather severe national security concerns at stake here -- not the least of which is Syria's alliance with Russia and China, and the potential for this situation to ignite the entire Middle East. (Egypt, for example, which is another tinderbox.)

An exploding Middle East, complete with tyrants who can gas their own people with impunity, benefits no one.
 
nathan1977 said:
There are some rather severe national security concerns at stake here -- not the least of which is Syria's alliance with Russia and China, and the potential for this situation to ignite the entire Middle East. (Egypt, for example, which is another tinderbox.)

An exploding Middle East, complete with tyrants who can gas their own people with impunity, benefits no one.
Click to expand...

So does Syria pose a DIRECT threat to the USA? To they have the capability to launch missiles that can reach the US or have the troops to invade the US? I don't think so. Why does the US have to always be the one to intervene? Don't we have enough of our own problems? Let some other country deal with this crap for a change.

Oh yeah because we're number 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
They got terrorist that can fly planes into your World Trade center, killing thousands..... :shrug: That a direct threat enough for you mr number 1?
 
Also, for what it's worth, al-Qaeda may very well be happy to see the US intervene against Assad. al-Qaeda and Assad are hardly allies.
 
Galeongirl said:
They got terrorist that can fly planes into your World Trade center, killing thousands..... :shrug: That a direct threat enough for you mr number 1?
Click to expand...


Syria did 9-11? Might want to check your history a bit.

Speaking of that, why would the terrorists have done 9-11 in the first place?

Oh yeah, maybe because the USA has been fucking around in the Middle East meddling in their affairs since the 50's.

Or it could just be because they hate our freedom, just like Bush said.
 
bigjohn2441 said:
Don't we have enough of our own problems? Let some other country deal with this crap for a change.
Click to expand...

Not a judgement on your position, but it's worth noting that isolationism is what kept Great Britain and the US out of WW II for so long and allowed the situation to get so out of control there. Staying out of it doesn't always work out in the way that you want it to. That said, I'm not a big fan of fucking around in the Middle East.
 
I'm so confused by this thread.

Is the US supposed to stay out of it and stop being the world's police, or are they the bad guys if they do nothing?

I'm confused by the posters I'm seeing in this thread and the sides of the issue they seem to be supporting...
 
I think the prevailing sentiment in this thread is 'no, please don't, USA, you did not think this through very well.'
 
And, of course, everyone else has.

No, wait, they haven't, because they have no responsibilities here whatsoever. But reserve the right to complain and point fingers after the fact.

I have no policy position to advocate. I genuinely don't know what to do. No one was a bigger critic in FYM than I when it came to GWB and the Iraq War. I don't see this as an analogous situation.

I can't see the enforcement of punishment for using chemical weapons against one's own people as a bad thing. It may defer future use by other countries. However, the elevation if Assad as some sort of victim of American firepower is also a bad thing.
 
bigjohn2441 said:
Syria did 9-11? Might want to check your history a bit.

Speaking of that, why would the terrorists have done 9-11 in the first place?

Oh yeah, maybe because the USA has been fucking around in the Middle East meddling in their affairs since the 50's.

Or it could just be because they hate our freedom, just like Bush said.
Click to expand...

I was generalising the area.

But I agree with your other point, that the USA has been meddling in the middle east for far too long already. It's not helping, most likely doing more worse than good. So perhaps it's time to quit already. Let their Middle eastern brothers help them out for a change.
 
Galeongirl said:
I was generalising the area.

But I agree with your other point, that the USA has been meddling in the middle east for far too long already. It's not helping, most likely doing more worse than good. So perhaps it's time to quit already. Let their Middle eastern brothers help them out for a change.
Click to expand...



Middle Eastern countries are well known for their compassion towards their neighbors.
 
Irvine511 said:
And, of course, everyone else has.

No, wait, they haven't, because they have no responsibilities here whatsoever. But reserve the right to complain and point fingers after the fact.

I have no policy position to advocate. I genuinely don't know what to do. No one was a bigger critic in FYM than I when it came to GWB and the Iraq War. I don't see this as an analogous situation.

I can't see the enforcement of punishment for using chemical weapons against one's own people as a bad thing. It may defer future use by other countries. However, the elevation if Assad as some sort of victim of American firepower is also a bad thing.
Click to expand...

These are, for the most part, my feelings. I think I'm leaning somewhat pro-strike at the moment, but that's not because of any deep ideological feeling, but because it seems like a terrible option that's less bad than the other options. So I'll say bad things about the idea of a strike while still, in some sense, supporting it. I very well may be wrong in leaning pro-strike. This isn't a strongly held opinion.
 
Irvine511 said:
And, of course, everyone else has.

No, wait, they haven't, because they have no responsibilities here whatsoever. But reserve the right to complain and point fingers after the fact.

I have no policy position to advocate. I genuinely don't know what to do. No one was a bigger critic in FYM than I when it came to GWB and the Iraq War. I don't see this as an analogous situation.

I can't see the enforcement of punishment for using chemical weapons against one's own people as a bad thing. It may defer future use by other countries. However, the elevation if Assad as some sort of victim of American firepower is also a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Especially this...

because they have no responsibilities here whatsoever. But reserve the right to complain and point fingers after the fact.
Click to expand...

The ever-present peanut gallery. Tiresome. I don't know what we should do either. It's a clusterfuck. But I do know I'm sick of hearing from the people that have the luxury of not having to make those tough decisions. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. You'd think any reasonably thoughtful person would understand that.
 
I do not like the fact that Assad gets labeled as a cruel oppressive dictator and that alone. A good half or more of his country supports him and lived happy lives before the civil war began.
 
I find it hard to determine how much support he has from his own populace. It is a small group of Alawites that dominate the Ba'athist party in Syria. By any measure he is a cruel oppressive dictator, a man who was never meant to rule, if not for his brother dying in a car crash, there is little to find redeeming about him, he might have made a good doctor at one stage, who knows. About 60% of the country is made up of Sunni's, while 12% is made up of the Alawites. I find it hard to imagine that this situation ever led there be a large body of support for Assad.
 
LJT said:
I find it hard to determine how much support he has from his own populace. It is a small group of Alawites that dominate the Ba'athist party in Syria. By any measure he is a cruel oppressive dictator, a man who was never meant to rule, if not for his brother dying in a car crash, there is little to find redeeming about him, he might have made a good doctor at one stage, who knows. About 60% of the country is made up of Sunni's, while 12% is made up of the Alawites. I find it hard to imagine that this situation ever led there be a large body of support for Assad.
Click to expand...

That's a gross oversimplification to simply break down religious demographics.

One must keep in mind all complex issues surrounding support. I don't want to get too bogged up in trying to define a real "percentage" of support, but it isn't a mere 12% of the nation supporting Assad. Remember, the working class people who enjoy the social society of life, the women who enjoy not having to wear a hijab under Islamic law, etc. etc.

Also, there's the collective group of minority Muslims and Christians in Syria who for the most part support the government. Perhaps not all of them, but there's a base.

Lastly, even though one might not support the actual Assad regime, there are several opposed to civil war and opposed to the rebels. That much is still true, even among the Sunni base. These include the peaceful protesters who paved the way for the militant opposition. Much like in Egypt, you have a strong collective nation who demanded Mubarak be removed from power, but the same people who had Mubarak removed from power were wishing that never happened and strongly opposed the Brotherhood and oppose militant action. There's a reason why 23 million took to the streets in peaceful protests in Egypt to remove Morsi, yet only a tiny fraction of that number shows up in arms to support Morsi.

It's complex, it's not black and white. Those who don't support Assad can be seen in several different aspects, many of whom "support" Assad NOW.
 
I agree its not so black and white straight down the lines of the religious divide, but I would still contend that he probably doesn't have or ever had half the support of the country your previous post stated. What I think is more pertinent is that Assad simply had the support of his religious sect who held most of the power in the country, most people I imagine were never happy with that situation even if they were relatively passive about it.

I'm not trying to oversimplify the dynamics of support just responding to your initial oversimplification, that I find it unlikely he ever had a majority of support given the demographics of the country.

The rebels themselves are made up of secularists and islamists. Hence why this is a civil war more than anything else. We help the rebels win, I'd worry for the Alawites and the Christians in the region, if Assad wins, well things are not going to be very good for the Sunni majority and anyone who opposed him. Doesn't change the fact he is an awful human being and dictator no matter how stable he kept the country previously.

Plus that 23 millions Egyptians against Morsi I find very hard to believe to be true.
 
I guess that was poorly worded on my part with "to the streets." Physical protesters is not what I meant, but rather voiced protesters.
 
The 23 million number comes from what Tamarod claim they collected in signatures does it not? No one has ever verified that independently have they? As far as I am aware Tamarod have also declared their support for Assad, even after the chemical weapon use.

This is why I am wary of any intentions of the military government in Egypt, even as much as I am wary of the Mulim Brotherhood or the rebels in Syria.

Apologies to the mods, for bringing the Egyptian discussion into the Syrian thread, I do find there is a lot of cross over between both situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
11 12 13
Replies
384
Views
11K
Hewson
Hewson
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 1 Listening Thread
7 8 9
Replies
244
Views
7K
LemonMelon
LemonMelon
DaveC
Pious plonker or just misunderstood: why we should all lay off Bono
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
dazzledbylight
dazzledbylight
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 3 Listening Thread
3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
5K
iron yuppie
iron yuppie

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom