Syria is an absolute disaster *Update 5/17*

[dphantom]

Are you willing to raise your hand and go over there to die for them?

No, he would expect someone else to actually do that.

 

[soulcougher73]

Who wouldnt want to increase the US police state to include the world. I mean we should really play world police and go all out...

/sarcasm

 

[Kadarin]

There is no end-game here that is beneficial to the US. If the rebels win, then we get another Islamist state at best. At worst, we get another Somalia.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Until they have something to benefit their vote; why should they appease the US?

Russia is allied with Syria - Most powerful countries do not walk away for their proxies.

Appeasement? Who said anything about appeasement? This is about the ethics of ending a civil war and the slaughter of thousands of civilians. This has nothing to do with appeasement, there.is a crises going on, and Russia and China are morally and ethically in the absolute wrong.

You are looking at this from the other side of the fence.

Since when did any communist or dictatorship government worry about morals and ethics?

 

[2timer]

It does in fact mean the USA "wades in" along with other "stronger, mature, industrialized" societies. You are describing an interventionist policy far beyond what the USA has ever done before.

Actually I'm not doing what you're suggesting.

In order to have a meaningful influence in Syria, western nations wouldn't even have to set boots on the ground. Like it describes in the article, establishing no-fly zones, bombing air strips, surrounding Syrias waters with naval warships, would all be ways of sending a clear and forceful message to al-Assad: time to leave. Your government will never again be legitimate, the bloodshed and horror must end. Now.

But, like I've said, Russia and China have prevented legitimacy to a western military intervention by vetoing measures to condemn Assad's government in the Security Council. It's terribly sad, the human lives thrown away for political gains. The people responsible for that decision are vile Communist scum in my eyes.

 

[2timer]

You are looking at this from the other side of the fence.

Since when did any communist or dictatorship government worry about morals and ethics?

Well, if that's the case, it's awfully hypocritical when China spokespersons say they want to preserve peace and harmony and unity. Bull.

 

[2timer]

There is no end-game here that is beneficial to the US. If the rebels win, then we get another Islamist state at best. At worst, we get another Somalia.

Perhaps, however as some commentators have noted, at this stage Assad's regime will never be recognized as a legitimate government, ever, by the people of Syria. So doing nothing to stop him while people are dying is a moral and ethical failure.

 

[BoberFett]

How is restricting access of civilians to assault style rifles comparable to arming military rebels for fighting a tyrannical regime, considering also that your query is based on pure speculation?

Nice thread derail btw.

Because those rebels in that other country are civilians?

 

[BoberFett]

You have a lot of maturing to do apparently, thinking that home security and the threat of a tyranny in the United States is comparable to a repressive 3rd world regime that has already slaughtered thousands of innocents.

Grow up?

The US is often said to be heading toward third world status by your fellow limpwristed liberals, and our government has slaughtered plenty of people.

 

[BoberFett]

Let me guess, by bombing those people and providing them the means to kill each other? What an ethical standard you are setting.

All I can say is...

LOL, liberals!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No? Well unlike you, I believe stronger, mature, industrialized societies have an ethical imperative to stop brutal dictators from killing thousands of people, but hey, that's just me.

Really? We have an "ethical imperative" to send our own people to die fighting for those who won't fight for themselves? Interesting set of "ethics" you have there.

 

[Genx87]

Your logic fails and you didn't even address my point - you rehashed the same argument which I already stated was erroneous. Comparing the two situations indicates a lack of critical thinking on your part.

My logic is sound. It is the administrations logic that is fucked up beyond belief. And because you state something is erroneous doesn't make it so.

Your inability to see the unbelievable stance of an admin that people shouldn't carry military looking weapons in this country while shipping them abroad is pathetic.

 

[cirrrocco]

Actually I'm not doing what you're suggesting.

In order to have a meaningful influence in Syria, western nations wouldn't even have to set boots on the ground. Like it describes in the article, establishing no-fly zones, bombing air strips, surrounding Syrias waters with naval warships, would all be ways of sending a clear and forceful message to al-Assad: time to leave. Your government will never again be legitimate, the bloodshed and horror must end. Now.

But, like I've said, Russia and China have prevented legitimacy to a western military intervention by vetoing measures to condemn Assad's government in the Security Council. It's terribly sad, the human lives thrown away for political gains. The people responsible for that decision are vile Communist scum in my eyes.

do you have the same standard for saudi arabia, bahrain and Jordan. All monarchies and there has been festering rebellions going on with thousands dead. The difference is that they are US allies.

 

[Screech]

Actually I'm not doing what you're suggesting.

In order to have a meaningful influence in Syria, western nations wouldn't even have to set boots on the ground. Like it describes in the article, establishing no-fly zones, bombing air strips, surrounding Syrias waters with naval warships, would all be ways of sending a clear and forceful message to al-Assad: time to leave. Your government will never again be legitimate, the bloodshed and horror must end. Now.

But, like I've said, Russia and China have prevented legitimacy to a western military intervention by vetoing measures to condemn Assad's government in the Security Council. It's terribly sad, the human lives thrown away for political gains. The people responsible for that decision are vile Communist scum in my eyes.

If we did this, and the result was a rebel victory which then turns syria into a somalia where even more people are killed and slaughtered, do we call that a victory for human rights?

 

[Nintendesert]

2Timer never answered the question, so are you, 2timer, willing to go over there to Syria and kill others and risk yourself dying in order to appease your white man's burden? I mean... Industrialized nation's burden that you place upon yourself or are you just willing to beat the war drum to send others off to kill and die appease your sense of ethics?

 

[2timer]

My logic is sound. It is the administrations logic that is fucked up beyond belief. And because you state something is erroneous doesn't make it so.

Your inability to see the unbelievable stance of an admin that people shouldn't carry military looking weapons in this country while shipping them abroad is pathetic.

OK, keep trolling your boat? Once again, you've missed the reality of a couple of key points:

1) In regards to Syria, no weapons have been shipped from the administration, making your point purely moot.

2) There is a civil war going on in Syria, a WAR that is largely happening as a result of a dictator who refuses to relinquish his power and is killing civilians. This is the prerequisite for arming members of the Syrian rebels, the FSA.

 

[chucky2]

But a.) civilians can always trust their government, so they don't need those evil weapons of mass destruction, and, b.) those evil weapons of mass destruction are completely ineffective against tanks and planes and thus aren't needed at all by said civilians.

That is the argument for "assault weapons" being taken away from Americans, is it not?

 

[2timer]

If we did this, and the result was a rebel victory which then turns syria into a somalia where even more people are killed and slaughtered, do we call that a victory for human rights?

Seems like a moral dilemma, yes. But the point is that people are dying, right now, by the thousands. To say, Let's do nothing to stop the definite killing today because there's a chance of killing in the future is kind of inexcusable, no?

That's the first thing you have to understand. The 2nd thing is that,, as in Egypt, even if a conservative Muslim party were to come into power, for the sake of an immature democracy you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. You cannot say "Muslims are bad, and if there's a chance Muslims might come into power then a strong man regime is preferable." It doesn't work like that.

 

[BoberFett]

Should the US have been invaded to stop us from killing thousands of Iraqis?

 

[Screech]

Seems like a moral dilemma, yes. But the point is that people are dying, right now, by the thousands. To say, Let's do nothing to stop the definite killing today because there's a chance of killing in the future is kind of inexcusable, no?

That's the first thing you have to understand. The 2nd thing is that,, as in Egypt, even if a conservative Muslim party were to come into power, for the sake of an immature democracy you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. You cannot say "Muslims are bad, and if there's a chance Muslims might come into power then a strong man regime is preferable." It doesn't work like that.

What if we saved the lives of some syrians in exchange for american lives? Is this an acceptable loss?

Your argument essentially comes down to "something must be done!!!!!" but I don't see any easy solution here that doesn't actually hurt american interests.

 

[Doppel]

Dont worry 2Timer, Obama will send them the guns you want banned for american citizens.

Some truth to this. Whatever machine guns find themselves in hands of rebels, many of whom(most) were civilians before, that country will now be teaming with weaponry that is nigh impossible to get in the US.

 

[soulcougher73]

If the people of Syria care enough they will over thrown their own government. Its been done many times in the pass. Sure many will die, but in the end its not our fight.

 

[Darwin333]

How is restricting access of civilians to assault style rifles comparable to arming military rebels for fighting a tyrannical regime, considering also that your query is based on pure speculation?

Nice thread derail btw.

Because without said weapons there never would have been military rebels to begin with.....

 

[kage69]

Dont worry 2Timer, Obama will send them the guns you want banned for american citizens.

I thought they have all the small arms they need? Last I heard what they want is anti-armor and anti-air weapons.

Between seizing army depots, stuff brought in from Turkey, and imports from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, they probably have the small stuff covered. Tanks and aircraft are the problem.

I'm ok with some AT-4s being sent that way, but Stingers, not so much. Not with all those different groups showing up for the party. Wouldn't be long before one or two showed up at Ben Gurion or Sde Dov.

 

[nextJin]

2Timer never answered the question, so are you, 2timer, willing to go over there to Syria and kill others and risk yourself dying in order to appease your white man's burden? I mean... Industrialized nation's burden that you place upon yourself or are you just willing to beat the war drum to send others off to kill and die appease your sense of ethics?

He won't, most can't reasonably answer it. A law should be made that any able body whose father is in Congress has to serve in the military during active conflict.

I swear, you'd have the longest peace our country has ever known.