Syria uses WMD agaisnt rebels

[esmith]

Weill it appears that Assad has used WMD (saran) against the rebels. Syrian officials deny use of chemical weapons | Fox News So what happens now. President Obama said that there was a red line that Assad could not cross and it appears that he has. President Obama is now in a very tough spot. He makes a statement and if the US gets more involved it will become a quagmire that could lead to disastrous results. Then on the other hand if he does nothing, it says that the US and President Obama is a "Paper Tiger". What kind of signal does this send to other countries that have a "Red Line"?

 

[WyattDerp]

What signal would it send if the US intervened? "If you're our buddy, gas away, if you're not in compliance, you're Hitler"? It's morally bankrupt and a joke either way.

 

[Vouthon]

I pray to God that Obama has the sense to keep the US from getting sucked into this terrible civil war. There really would be no good outcome.

I feel very deeply for innocent civilians living in Syria, however US fighter jets, ground troops and bombs aren't going to make their lives much better.

Assad is a brutal dictator. The use of chemical weapons, coupled with his frequent massacring of his own civilians, is of course worthy of every calumny and his regime should be increasingly isolated by the rest of the civilised world.

However that doesn't mean we should invade Syria and side-by-side with the rebels - rebels I might add which include within their ranks many Islamist military cells, even Al-Qaeda backed ones, who would simply establish a militant Sunni theocracy if they overthrew the Alawite government currently in power (that is the Ba'ath Party).

Syria is not America or Britain's civil war. I understand the obligation our leaders feel when human rights are infringed in the grave manner done so by Basher-al-Assad nonetheless getting involved might only flare up more conflict. Iran could use a Western allied invasion of Syria and toppling of the regime as an excuse to ramp up its aggression towards the USA and Israel given that Iran is presently helping to keep Assad in power.

We don't need Syria turning into a regional middle-east wide war. Who on earth knows where that could end up?

 

[Assad91]

No to US intervention.

Its already bad enough the UN wants to intervene if Bashar falls

 

[ron4711]

This seems like a no win situation for the US. If Bashar falls, the country is likely to be taken over by extremists. Still, from a humanitarian perspective, something needs to be done.

The US should encourage China and Russia to denounce the regime, to start.

 

[fallingblood]

Still, from a humanitarian perspective, something needs to be done.

I agree with this part. Something does need to be done. Personally, I am against using force though.

We live in a global society. What effects one group effects us all (or has the potential to do such). Ethically, I don't think we can sit by and watch others suffer. Which also means that we can not act in violence, as doing so will only breed more violence.

 

[Godobeyer]

and Iraq had nuclear weaapon , i believe its just fake info "lie" , had no real evidence

 

[Alceste]

I only clicked this link to find out how you were going to make the subject matter into another Obama bashing thread.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Wirey]

I pray to God that Obama has the sense to keep the US from getting sucked into this terrible civil war. There really would be no good outcome.

I feel very deeply for innocent civilians living in Syria, however US fighter jets, ground troops and bombs aren't going to make their lives much better.

Assad is a brutal dictator. The use of chemical weapons, coupled with his frequent massacring of his own civilians, is of course worthy of every calumny and his regime should be increasingly isolated by the rest of the civilised world.

However that doesn't mean we should invade Syria and side-by-side with the rebels - rebels I might add which include within their ranks many Islamist military cells, even Al-Qaeda backed ones, who would simply establish a militant Sunni theocracy if they overthrew the Alawite government currently in power (that is the Ba'ath Party).

Syria is not America or Britain's civil war. I understand the obligation our leaders feel when human rights are infringed in the grave manner done so by Basher-al-Assad nonetheless getting involved might only flare up more conflict. Iran could use a Western allied invasion of Syria and toppling of the regime as an excuse to ramp up its aggression towards the USA and Israel given that Iran is presently helping to keep Assad in power.

We don't need Syria turning into a regional middle-east wide war. Who on earth knows where that could end up?

Post of the month, right here. Fruballed.

 

[Caladan]

Assad might handle Syria with an iron fist like his father, but what alternative are European powers and the US aiming for?
The Arab spring might have seen the fall of several dictators, but it also saw the rise of lawlessness and free movement of terrorists in various regions. For every brutal dictator that falls, several radical groups move into the power vacuum.
Supporting and supplying arms to the Syrian rebels is a shady business, what do we know about these rebels? in addition does America understand the tensions of the Sunni-Shiite rift? There is certainly a radical and destabilizing rise of Shiite powers, but the Baath party in Syria, itself an unorthodox form of Shia is also secular in nature and has tamed the sectarian tensions.

This civil war erodes several parties, parties which are not on good terms with western powers, perhaps a smart plan is to let these parties turn on each other until burn out. This war has turned Hamas away from Syria, is distracting Iran from other major issues, is weakening Hezballah's stand, and also brings other important issues to the surface such as the future of the Kurds in the region, we can already see the dramatic news of the PKK withdrawing from Turkey which very well be connected to a concentration on Kurdish efforts in Syria and the recognition of both Turks and Kurds of a bigger picture.

 

[esmith]

I o nly clicked this link to find out how you were going to make the subject matter into another Obama bashing thread.

Mission accomplished.

And how did you come to the conclusion that I was turning this into another Obama bashing thread?

 

[Flankerl]

If neither of the parties involved are your allies you stay out and let them have fun.

Because you wont get a new ally by helping one side.

 

[Aquitaine]

The US and UK should stay out of this, it's not our war. No intervention, and also no supplying weapons to the rebels, please.
Sadly, I doubt that'll happen - too many people seem to think of war as just an investment opportunity.

 

[fallingblood]

So we should just allow people to suffer because it's not our own people?

Intervention does not mean that we have to go in with force. It can mean that we help facilitate peace negotiations.

 

[Aquitaine]

So we should just allow people to suffer because it's not our own people?

Intervention does not mean that we have to go in with force. It can mean that we help facilitate peace negotiations.

People are suffering globally on a daily basis. Intervention tends to end up involving force anyways. Unless you wanna bankrupt your own nation by trying to police the world, non-intervention seems preferable to me.

 

[fallingblood]

People are suffering globally on a daily basis. Intervention tends to end up involving force anyways. Unless you wanna bankrupt your own nation by trying to police the world, non-intervention seems preferable to me.

Does intervention need to involve force? Whether or not it tends to end up involving force is not relevant.

Nor does intervention need to bankrupt a nation, or be seen as policing the world. That is only applicable if we use armed forces in order to provide some sort of intervention. Non-violent manners of intervention are relatively cheap, do not appear as policing, and shows goodwill to other nations.

Also, the fact that there are people suffering everywhere on a daily basis is a cop out. It is like saying that crime happens every day, so we shouldn't do anything about it. Simply not logical.

There are non-violent means of intervention. A great example of this was the Oslo Peace Accords (even though it later failed; however, the method that was used was great). Setting up humanitarian aid is also something that we can do which will not bankrupt the nation (especially since we can count on others to help out).

Simply abandoning other nations, and watching why they suffer from atrocities is not a viable answer though. It is a sign that there is something wrong with the world.

 

[Flankerl]

It can mean that we help facilitate peace negotiations.

Sorry but thats just funny. There is only one peace option between Islamists and Baathists. And thats the destruction of one side.


The Islamists know that this is their last shot at destroying the Baathists and the Baathists know that the Islamists will come again.

 

[fallingblood]

Sorry but thats just funny. There is only one peace option between Islamists and Baathists. And thats the destruction of one side.

The Islamists know that this is their last shot at destroying the Baathists and the Baathists know that the Islamists will come again.

There is never just one option. There are just people who aren't willing to try.

 

[Alceste]

And how did you come to the conclusion that I was turning this into another Obama bashing thread?

What does Syria have to do with Obama? In your op you mention Obama three times and Assad only once.

 

[Revoltingest]

And how did you come to the conclusion that I was turning this into another Obama bashing thread?

All I see is that you're noting Obama's difficult position.
I don't envy him. But I hope he continues to stay out.
As others have said, suffering will happen whether we waste our resources there or not.