Should Anything Be Done About Syria?

[Moishe3rd]

LOL - Arabists?

And for crying out loud, Iran is not going to start firing nukes, just relax.

Arabists - Those who are not necessarily religious Muslims but believe that their clan; faction; tribe; or political group should rule the Muslim/Arab world - at any cost.

Why wouldn't Iran nuke a hated enemy such as Saudi Arabia? Our of fear of retaliation from.... who?

 

[Aquitaine]

Arabists - Those who are not necessarily religious Muslims but believe that their clan; faction; tribe; or political group should rule the Muslim/Arab world - at any cost.

Why wouldn't Iran nuke a hated enemy such as Saudi Arabia? Our of fear of retaliation from.... who?

I have a habit of derailing threads, and since this one is about Syria, I am going to leave with just the following:

I disagree with your idea of what should be done with Syria.

 

[Moishe3rd]

The problem with that being we have every indication that left to their own devices the rebels will slaughter everyone else (including those not involved in Assad's regime).

The Syrian civil turmoil IS our business, it is our responsibility even, however there is a finite number of ways that we can legitimately influence the situation.

War is not one of them as under the current circumstances it appears that such a move would be illegitimate under international laws to which we are supposedly subject and are supposedly looking to enforce upon Syria. There are however numerous other ways we could look to influence the situation including diplomacy, contractual agreements, aid, sanctions, public relations, appeals to a trusted third party (such as Russia, China and to a lesser extent (given Syria's recent history with them) the Arab League or MENA) and more.

The question is what do we do if every legitimate course of action open to us is unable to bring about the change we desire; would we then have the right to pursue illegitimate courses of action? I would argue no as that sort of action would directly undermine the system of norms that we are attempting to enforce of Syria, instead perhaps we might look to legitimize one of those courses of action currently deemed illegitimate, but therein lies a far from black-and-white dilemma, in that pursuing such an approach underscores the transience of those norms, the fragility and subjectivity with which they have been framed and adopted - not to mention being a slippery slope.

Based on real history - have any of your above "influences" ever stopped a country or people from slaughtering another country or people?
Ever?
In all of history?

If not, then what makes you believe that corrupt KGB Mafia Czar of all Rus; the rapacious, amoral, Communist Chinese; or the fractious, fratricidal, self immolating Arab League, would ever resemble a reliable "trusted" third party that would actually solve the problem of Syrian self slaughter?
Because you wish it?
I really don't understand why you, or anyone, believes in such pie-in-the-sky notions.

 

[The Boogeyman]

I voted <None>....no bombs, no soldiers, no financial aid.

I concur.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Based on real history - have any of your above "influences" ever stopped a country or people from slaughtering another country or people?
Ever?
In all of history?

If not, then what makes you believe that corrupt KGB Mafia Czar of all Rus; the rapacious, amoral, Communist Chinese; or the fractious, fratricidal, self immolating Arab League, would ever resemble a reliable "trusted" third party that would actually solve the problem of Syrian self slaughter?
Because you wish it?
I really don't understand why you, or anyone, believes in such pie-in-the-sky notions.

Yes actually they have and I will give an example of each (in order that I mentioned them):

Diplomacy - Engagement with sectarian forces in northern ireland helped to bring an end to the Troubles
Contractual Agreements - (this is actually the poorest example since it was thoroughly abused) oil for food program
Aid - the marshall plan used by the US within Europe to encourage capitalism (yes, this stopped people killing each-other by preventing the capitalist/communist polarization of europe)
Sanctions - The trade embargo on South Africa helped end Apartheid (along with sport lol)
Public relations - The civil rights movement and its effects on racial minorities world wide
Appeals to third party - Essequibo and Guayana Esequiba were the subject of competing sovereignty claims between Venezuela and the UK, under the Monroe Doctrine the US intervened after their right to do so was recognised (possibly excessively) by both parties and their ruling was accepted, ending a rather unpleasant situation.

As to why Russia, China or the Arab League might be considered? because there is almost no other party that Assad might even think about trusting that the rebels might as well. Certainly not Iran, who else? America? hahahaha no. The number of potential trusted third parties are relatively small, and of those China seems the most likely since Russia is probably considered too partisan in favour of the regime and the Arab League is going out of their way to avoid the issue altogether (as usual).

 

[Moishe3rd]

Yes actually they have and I will give an example of each (in order that I mentioned them):

Diplomacy - Engagement with sectarian forces in northern ireland helped to bring an end to the Troubles

Indeed.
After a few hundred years of savage warfare and terrorism, the Catholic Northern Irish apparently finally acceded to British control... for the last 15 years... Yep. This is true.

Contractual Agreements - (this is actually the poorest example since it was thoroughly abused) oil for food program

Which was supposed to; or actually did, accomplish what? An end to Saddam's... weapons? regime? murders? what?

Aid - the marshall plan used by the US within Europe to encourage capitalism (yes, this stopped people killing each-other by preventing the capitalist/communist polarization of europe)

Okay. Thank you. I'll stop now.
Because of course the Marshall Plan, administered by the United Sates of America, to the part of Europe that it controlled, lock, stock and barrel; after having totally conquered and subjugated all of Western Europe - is certainly comparable to having the Russian Mafia Czar; Communist China; and an Arab League that are currently murdering each other, to oversee the disarmament of a lawless country in the midst of a savage civil war.
Sure...
I understand....

Thank you for playing....

 

[InformedIgnorance]

"administered by the United Sates of America, to the part of Europe that it controlled, lock, stock and barrel"

You... have no comprehension of world history do you?

 

[Moishe3rd]

"administered by the United Sates of America, to the part of Europe that it controlled, lock, stock and barrel"

You... have no comprehension of world history do you?

Hmmm...
Either you object to the Marshall plan being administered by America or, you object to that part of Europe being controlled by America.
Okay.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Do you know when the Marshall plan occurred and the geopolitical position of the US with relation to Europe at that time?

It is just after the second world war, America has finally shown Europe that they are not quite the back-country hicks that most of europe has long considered them up to be, up until now. The US was being cheered by the average european citizen for their dramatic sudden appearance part way through WWII which helped bring it to a close, and in doing so America has finally been recognised as an emerging power. However at this time they are still considered by much of Europe to be hicks, strong sure, but in the end, little more than uncouth country folk who managed to import some rather clever scientists out of Europe to build them a bomb. Clever hicks, a little lucky too, mayhap with some gumption. But certainly no culture, no statesmanship.

The Marshall plan arguably went a very long way to challenge this perception: the great depression, a time when most european nations were experiencing immense economic hardship (more so that America at the time - though they were also heavily effected), the US takes an immense gamble to give aid to european nations while their own domestic situation has yet to fully recover (it was on the road to recovery at the time), it was a move that made the US seem to take on an entirely new light: statesmanship, economic strength, international solidarity - it immensely boosted public perception in Europe of US.

In many ways, the Marshall Plan was instrumental in securing US geopolitical strength throughout the late 20th century.

So at the time (before the marshall plan) the idea that they 'controlled' western europe lock stock and barrel, is rather ludicrous when you examine how Europeans considered America. There was a lot of public support in terms of people on the street being grateful for america's role in helping bring the war to an end, but in terms of politics, the establishment and institutions they were considered back country hicks and the Marshall plan, was instrumental in challenging those perceptions (and the realities). For the average citizen, it was an act of benevolence, for those institutions, it was a clear signal that America was contesting against the soviets, indirectly through geo-politically generated economic initiatives, that the US was capable of playing at a much higher level than the European establishment had believed, it forced them to recognise that America's position was not as they had envisaged).

 

[Debater Slayer]

I voted "Other".

So long as we don't fan the flames, then we don't have to get involved and "assist". So basically, no aid, but also no weapons or any military intervention etc.

No money or weapons for Team 1 or Team 2. This is their civil war, let them sort it out.

To be clear, I was neither talking about "Team 1" nor "Team 2"; the poll is about non-combatant Syrian civilians. They could be supporters of either side or even neutral to both sides.

Should non-military humanitarian aid be provided to civilians who are in the middle of violence and mass-killing?

 

[LuisDantas]

A lot should be done. But it does involve real commitment and sacrifice.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Do you know when the Marshall plan occurred and the geopolitical position of the US with relation to Europe at that time?

It is just after the second world war, America has finally shown Europe that they are not quite the back-country hicks that most of europe has long considered them up to be, up until now. The US was being cheered by the average european citizen for their dramatic sudden appearance part way through WWII which helped bring it to a close, and in doing so America has finally been recognised as an emerging power. However at this time they are still considered by much of Europe to be hicks, strong sure, but in the end, little more than uncouth country folk who managed to import some rather clever scientists out of Europe to build them a bomb. Clever hicks, a little lucky too, mayhap with some gumption. But certainly no culture, no statesmanship.

The Marshall plan arguably went a very long way to challenge this perception: the great depression, a time when most european nations were experiencing immense economic hardship (more so that America at the time - though they were also heavily effected), the US takes an immense gamble to give aid to european nations while their own domestic situation has yet to fully recover (it was on the road to recovery at the time), it was a move that made the US seem to take on an entirely new light: statesmanship, economic strength, international solidarity - it immensely boosted public perception in Europe of US.

In many ways, the Marshall Plan was instrumental in securing US geopolitical strength throughout the late 20th century.

So at the time (before the marshall plan) the idea that they 'controlled' western europe lock stock and barrel, is rather ludicrous when you examine how Europeans considered America. There was a lot of public support in terms of people on the street being grateful for america's role in helping bring the war to an end, but in terms of politics, the establishment and institutions they were considered back country hicks and the Marshall plan, was instrumental in challenging those perceptions (and the realities). For the average citizen, it was an act of benevolence, for those institutions, it was a clear signal that America was contesting against the soviets, indirectly through geo-politically generated economic initiatives, that the US was capable of playing at a much higher level than the European establishment had believed, it forced them to recognise that America's position was not as they had envisaged).

Thank you for that cogent assessment.
I am still unclear on how the US did NOT control Europe at the time.
As that seems to be the point of contention with you, perhaps you could discuss why you disagree.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

They had a lot of public support but very little support from governing bodies and the establishment, they in no way controlled western europe.

It is hard for people now to recognise that there was a time not so very long ago, when America was not the king of the hill, far too many seem to assume that somehow since the american civil war, america was preeminent in international affairs... it ignores the extremely important role that WWI and WWII played, in particular the role of the economic situation at the time and the emergence of the soviet union.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Should non-military humanitarian aid be provided to civilians who are in the middle of violence and mass-killing?

NO!...not in my opinion. I believe we could provide humanitarian aid to the displaced Syrian population (those that have fled Syria - women, children and families). To the rebels and the Asad govt. well, let them duke it out.

 

[Moishe3rd]

They had a lot of public support but very little support from governing bodies and the establishment, they in no way controlled western europe.

It is hard for people now to recognise that there was a time not so very long ago, when America was not the king of the hill, far too many seem to assume that somehow since the american civil war, america was preeminent in international affairs... it ignores the extremely important role that WWI and WWII played, in particular the role of the economic situation at the time and the emergence of the soviet union.

Really?
What was the economic situation after WWII?
Based on your assessment, American "preeminence" would not have had much influence on Western Europe after WWII. No?
You appear to believe that America did not control the military might; the economic might; the infrastructure; and, indeed, whether a Western European government fell to or allied with the Soviet Union.
But - they in no way controlled Western Europe.
As I wrote before - okay. You should live and be well.

 

[DallasApple]

Let's be clear here. The poll was about NON-military measures. As a U.S. citizen I want to send food, clothing, and medicine to the four corners of the planet.

I agree...but I have little faith much of it would actually reach those in need.

 

[Aquitaine]

To be clear, I was neither talking about "Team 1" nor "Team 2"; the poll is about non-combatant Syrian civilians. They could be supporters of either side or even neutral to both sides.

Should non-military humanitarian aid be provided to civilians who are in the middle of violence and mass-killing?

Possibly, but it should be done via international charities and not Governments via taxpayers. As harsh as it sounds, if we really wanted to help all the displaced people in the world, then we'd probably go bankrupt overnight.

No-one in Government cared when it was East Timor or Rwanda, so I wonder why rich politicians suddenly "care" about the welfare of poor people in an Oil-rich and significantly under-developed region of the world? :sarcastic

These same politicians who wouldn't think twice about cutting welfare programs to poor people in their own countries, suddenly they care about poor Syrians, just like they apparently cared about poor Libyans? Don't buy it. :no:

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Really?
What was the economic situation after WWII?
Based on your assessment, American "preeminence" would not have had much influence on Western Europe after WWII. No?
You appear to believe that America did not control the military might; the economic might; the infrastructure; and, indeed, whether a Western European government fell to or allied with the Soviet Union.
But - they in no way controlled Western Europe.
As I wrote before - okay. You should live and be well.

This is where the Marshall plan itself comes in. They didn't have institutional level support (or even much recognition) of basically any kind, the marshall plan helped change that; the marshall plan itself was an effort to give aid to nations bordering on catastrophic economic failure to ensure that their citizens didnt just say, 'you know something, the communitsts seem to have the right idea'. America did not control anything, what they did have was enough resources to send aid (one of the non violent influence approaches I mentioned) which helped to ensure the stability of those capitalist economies sufficiently that the citizenry didnt revolt (as could well have occurred during the great depression).

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I voted "other". At this point, nothing about Syria is worthy of discussion. Obama shot off his mouth about "red lines", then found he couldn't back up his words. The Russians left him red-faced, and let him have "controls" to spin his way out (in return for who-knows-what concessions to the Russians).

The bottom line: Obama's word is worth less than the air it moves when he speaks it. Get ready for the real news, the sequester hearings in the US Congress. The US budget deficit and our stinking economy are, after all, the real reasons America has no taste for getting involved anywhere overseas. Put simply, we're worse than broke. Syria? That's Syria's business -- not to be misconstrued with serious business.