• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The Syria Issue: Your Personal Stance Is Much Appreciated

Dima said:
I understand where you're coming from, and I deeply oppose wars and bloodshed. But whether we like it or not, the US is already involved in the conflict and the entire area in general, there are strategic interests that should be taken into consideration. Fearing what might come next does not justify inaction.
Click to expand...

With all due respect military intervention will make things far worse than they are now especially when there are individuals on the rebel side like Abu Sakkar.
 
sparkchaser said:
Dima, first it's good to see you posting. I was actually thinking about you last night and wondering how you were and hoping you were ok.


My opinion: I think that if the U.S. iss going to intervene militarily in Syria then it should have done so months ago. I have a bad feeling that anything the U.S. does now will explode into a shitstorm of epic proportions.

Overall I think "Arab Spring" was a good thing. The government needs to pay attention to its people. I feel that the big problem with "Arab Spring" was that the people wanted change but they couldn't agree on what form the change should take.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sparkcahser. It's good to be back :) I'm doing quiet good, hope you're fine as well.
I agree, the U.S should have intervened much earlier, things wouldn't have escalated and turned into a turmoil if someone had stepped in. The question now is,following such horrific massacre, what would be wisest? to stay out and let the regime commit yet another large-scale atrocity?
As per the Arab Spring, I would like to honestly say that it has been a huge disappointment. To have Islamists emerge victorious is one thing,but to go back to a military rule with an uncalled-fore coup is beyond me, in reference to Egypt that is.
 
Conscious Bob said:
With all due respect military intervention will make things far worse than they are now especially when there are individuals on the rebel side like Abu Sakkar.
Click to expand...
Abu Sakkar is an individual case, you said ti yourself. I'm not trying to defend such actions, he's a beast but that does not mean he represents the opposition. The current regime is just as bad, there are many videos out there that display similar violations committed by pro-regime militias. To look at things with one eye is pure selective humanitarianism. We have facts, a fascist government killing its own people. Just because we're not certain what kind of entity would be in charge following the regime's downfall, does not mean the international community stands idly while the government continues to slaughter innocent people and level entire cities.
 
Some food for thought:

Iran warns western intervention will spark a wider conflict:

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-iran-syria-strikes-warning-20130829,0,5168189.story

A convincing argument that it was not Assad that used the chemical weapons:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons

Further questions about who did what, who encouraged what, and what the consequences might be:

http://news.sky.com/story/1134206/syria-vote-will-not-permit-uk-military-action

Background on the conflict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

With questions like this hanging in the balance, what is to be lost by waiting and ascertaining the facts? Let the UN inspectors finish their inspection first. Bombs can't exactly be recalled once they have dropped. Talks and negotiation however can take place at any time, restarted, stopped, redirected etc.


Another reasoned view on why military action at this point is stupid:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/syria-more-courage-to-say-nothing-can-do
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying Abu Sakkar represents the opposition but I think it's disingenuous to apply black/white values to both sides.
 
Dima said:
Abu Sakkar is an individual case, you said ti yourself. I'm not trying to defend such actions, he's a beast but that does not mean he represents the opposition. The current regime is just as bad, there are many videos out there that display similar violations committed by pro-regime militias. To look at things with one eye is pure selective humanitarianism. We have facts, a fascist government killing its own people. Just because we're not certain what kind of entity would be in charge following the regime's downfall, does not mean the international community stands idly while the government continues to slaughter innocent people and level entire cities.
Click to expand...

They have been doing that for the last ten years, and certainly more in the last 3 - 4 years. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' side in this. Both sides are guilty of atrocities. Argh no point in dscussing - the loonies on all sides will more than likely have their day AGAIN. We can only hope the world doesn't go to hell in a handbasket when they do.
 
As Elmer Fudd would say... Verrrweee Interwesting......

British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat that will almost guarantee that Britain plays no direct role in any U.S. attack on Bashar Assad's government.

A grim-faced Cameron conceded after the vote that "the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action."

The prime minister said that while he still believed in a "tough response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime, he would respect the will of Parliament.
Click to expand...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-17-43-07
 
I saw those reports this morning when I checked the news - thank goodness there is still some sanity in the world somewhere. Faintly restores my belief in politicians - faintly, very faintly - because this is far from over.
 
Dima said:
Not reacting punitively to the recent chemical weapons massacre would be a green light and an indicator for the government to commit more atrocities in the future.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this.

Ideally, instead of the U.S., your neighboring nations would come in and lay the smackdown on the government for gassing its own people but sadly none of your neighbors are really in a position to do anything.
 
That is assuming it IS the government doing it. As far as I can see the jury is still out on that one.
 
The opposition stands to benefit the most I guess but that raises a whole new set of questions.
 
And that would be one of the core issues with a knee-jerk reaction, but just in case any one is deluded into thinking the USA's interest in intervening is humanitarian:

In a statement on Thursday, the White House said President Barack Obama's decision-making "will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States". It stressed that the president "believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States".
Click to expand...

So just rule out any consideration for what is best for the people of Syria.
 
Sigh clearly I am far too idealistic. I think that things like what's right should take precedence over self-interest.
 
100k had already been killed over 2 1/2 years. We aren't running into Syria because they don't really have anything we need. We don't actually care about human rights issues over there as a Government.
 
We don't actually care about human rights issues over there as a Government.
Click to expand...

Brent, that is cynical and pessimistic.... and completely true.
I talked to a guy today from the U.S. who works as a security advisor directly with Israeli police in Tel Aviv. He said that the time for the U.S. to intervene would have been two years ago when the opposition forces weren't saturated with Al Qaeda elements. Now? Who knows what will happen after an intervention.
 
Prediction:

U.S. ships launch tomahawk cruise missiles into key military sites. If one gets shot down, it's not like losing a pilot and risking a larger conflict. Obama will then declare that "something" has been done and that freedom has "won."

Why do I think I'm "on" on this? Obama doesn't have the stomach for a land war and if he did, the House would impeach him as more than a few people are looking for a reason....any reason to destroy the man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top