-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Syria uses WMD agaisnt rebels
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
esmith
Veteran Member
It is very simple. One only has to keep abreast of the news. President Obama has said that if Assad used chemical weapons it would be crossing a "red line". From Senators Say Chemical Weapons in Syria Cross Obama's 'Red Line' - NationalJournal.com
Now from: Obama's First Priority: Making Sure Iran Doesn't Cross Nuclear "Red Line" - All News Is Global |
Now it appears that Assad has used chemical weapons and in my original post I said
Now I mentioned Assad only once because he, supposedly, used chemical weapons. The reason I mentioned Obama more times is that the thread is about what Obama has said about "crossing a red line". His, Obama's statements basically put him between a rock and a hard place because no matter what he does he will be wrong depending on ones beliefs. What he, Obama, has done is put himself and possibly the country in a lose lose situation
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Why should the US worry about a war so far away? Don't they have their fingers in enough pointless pies?
Their's enough suicidal jihadists without creating more with another waste of lives and bombs.
Their's enough suicidal jihadists without creating more with another waste of lives and bombs.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Why does intervention necessarily mean using bombs?
I do not see why everyone is ignoring that there is something called non-violence. It seems as if the natural assumption is that any and all intervention has to be violent, that it has to waste countless resources, and that it means that we basically have to wage war. However, that is not the case.
And why should the U.S. worry? Are the people in Syria not humans? Do they somehow deserve less than us because they happened to be born elsewhere? Are their lives some how less important than ours? We live in a global society, one that is becoming ever more interconnected. What happens else where either effects us, or has the potential to effect us.
Also, I would like to mention that many also said the same thing during the Holocaust; why should we worry about a war so far away. It was wrong then, and wrong now.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Well Baathists and Islamists can both be considered "extreme" so yeah extremists arent that big on compromises.
That there has to be a peaceful solution for all parties involved in any conflict ever is rather utopian.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
It's the USA.
The way the USA has been talking it doesn't seem like diplomacy is on the table.
The US shouldn't worry about military intervention. Another guerrilla with hostile civilians and anti-western racists is the last thing anyone needs.
Once again, over commitment from the USA to support generally ungrateful populations giving muslims worldwide more ammunition to whinge about the west.
Where is the news of rich middle eastern countries doing anything to help?
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Well to use your example, crime happens every day... in other countries. Should our Police be sent over there to respond to their crimes?
Also, this is the USA we're talking about - intervention will involve force. It's not our business, just like the countless other war crimes being committed on a daily basis globally. America doesn't need another Iraq/Vietnam.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
And the U.S. is incapable of not dropping bombs? We have helped facilitate peace talks in Israel, and were not dropping bombs. Yes, there are problems with our intervention in Israel; however, it is a clear example of how the U.S. can enter into peace talks, and help without dropping bombs.
You mean how some people in the U.S. are talking. There are others in positions of power who are talking about non-violence. More so, ideas can change. The country can push for non-violent intervention. There are options.
Why must it be military intervention? You're whole argument rests on the idea that intervention must be done with military and/or be violent. It does not have to be that way.
Because Muslims are just all bent on destruction of the U.S.? Or Muslims are just violent in nature?
And how do you know that those countries are generally ungrateful? A recent study in Iran showed that the average individual had no problem with Americans. There were problems with our government, but that is different. In Iraq and Afghanistan as well, many of the individuals there are happy that we did intervene. Especially women, who really had the worse of it. More so, places like the Ivory Coast, and other African nations are very happy to have western intervention there, especially the women. This isn't a military intervention, but other organizations that go there to try to help with the aftermath.
Finally, such because someone else isn't helping, doesn't mean we shouldn't. That idea is simply ridiculous.
It depends on the crime. If we look at places like the Ivory Coast, where the majority of women are raped and abused, yes, we should send people (not necessarily police) to help. The reason being that they simply are not able to take care of the problem themselves for a variety of reasons.
The idea that the USA can only act with force is ridiculous. What force did we use in Israel? What about the various organizations in the USA who have sent people to Africa, or the Middle East in order to do humanitarian work?
You may want to focus on just the interventions that the USA has done that did involve force, but by doing so you are also ignoring a lot of history. You are ignoring, for instance, the various peace talks in which the United States does enter into in order to try to help bring peace elsewhere. Or the various humanitarian endeavors that have been set up by the USA to help refugees.
Both can be considered extreme, but labeling the entire groups as extremists is one done by prejudice. Mainly a prejudice against Islam and/or Arabs in general.Flankerl said:
It is not utopian at all. Peaceful solutions have been seen in many different areas, in which both groups have to give up some (especially the side in power). Jews are well known for doing this in the first century, where non-violent protests were used.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Sign up for an international charity and get over to Syria then. Good luck!
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That is just an ignorant statement. One does not have to even go to Syria to help them. There are other options. And I can tell you from experience that many countries (or peoples of those countries who are being oppressed) don't want Americans dropping out of school and going there. Instead, they would rather have Americans use their privilege to help them through other means (such as political means).
You're remark does state a lot about you though and your ability to carry on this conversation.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Not really, it just means I am a non-interventionist, and you are an interventionist. All I'm saying is put your money where your mouth is, don't just be another one of these "we should intervene" guys who really means "other people should intervene on my behalf". Simple as.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
I don't like your chances. Talking will not stop them using chemical weapons. When they started they knew full well the US would know they're using them, they obviously don't care.
Some. Lets see them come up with a solution that will stop people dying and chemical weapons being used. I'm not holding my breathe.
What are they going to do? Sit around a table and be nice to each other?
Why would they start using these weapons and then stop? They knew the consequences and they don't care. Sending unarmed people in to "monitor" will do what exactly?
This forum is an example of a lot of racist hatred towards western culture and it's people. I don't for a minute think they would be welcoming on westerners stepping foot on the ground in Syria even if they're unarmed. Any sort of medalling it met with anger.
If they were grateful there wouldn't be so much animosity. Look how much racist hatred is spread around these forums even regarding America's presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not hard to find.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
No it isnt. Islamists are extremists. Its just the way it is.
Same way the Syrian Baathists are extremists.
Come again? 1st century? So basically jews under occupation or in exile under the rule of various rulers who could kill them any time.
And of course its utopian.
The islamists want an Islamic state. The Baathists dont.
The Baathists want their single party secular state. The Islamists dont.
One has to win because there can be no compromise. Or better: How would you envision such a compromise?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Not that simple. I am not an interventionist in the sense that we should meddle in everyone's business. Instead, I see a need for those who can to help those who are suffering, who need the help. This can be done in many different ways, and I look for non-violent means.
The idea of put up or shut up though is ridiculous. The reason being that no one person can actually intervene on every situation. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still advocate to help. Just because they may not be able to do something themselves does not mean they should just throw their hands in the air and ignore it all. That gets everyone no where.
Talking has stopped genocide before. In the United States, talking has stopped many attacks on Native Americans, including what could amount to chemical warfare in the aspect of polluting rivers and water sources for various tribes. In addition, talking did help keep us from a nuclear warfare during the Cold War. Sure, there may not be many examples of this; however that is primarily because non-violent means are not often used. When they are, they are often much more successful than violent means, which tend to end up with some other violent force in power.
More so, people do change their minds. Just because they started something knowing what could happen, doesn't mean they don't care. It also doesn't mean they won't listen if non-violent means are pursued.
Will doing nothing help stop people dying? Not doing anything will end up with even more people dying, and suffering. While non-violent intervention may not solve everything automatically, it can still change things. And it will do a much better job than just ignoring the issue.
Why would the United States adopt an idea of extermination for Native Americans, and then stop that? Because ideas can and do change. You're acting as if people are static characters, incapable of changing. That is not the case though.
What will unarmed people be able to do? One, it can help provide necessary aid to people who need it. Such as education, medical help, and encouragement. Ann Jones has done some great work on this subject; on how unarmed individuals can do a lot of good in countries that are feeling the effects of war. And it isn't just about monitoring the situation.
There have been a number of countries that have seen the victory of non-violence. India comes to mind.
Is a forum a good judge of public opinions? Not at all. If you are basing your judgement on a forum, then you simply are only doing so in order to support your preconceived idea.
Yes, on a forum, it is not hard to find. However, do the opinions of one or two people really speak for an entire nation (especially when many of the people speaking out against this presence aren't even in the area to begin with)?
Also, we are talking about a violent intervention in this case. And if one looks at the immediate results, a majority (at least in the case of Iraq) supported the endeavor. A non-violent intervention would not have the same problems as a violent intervention though, and much of the complaints are in regards to violence or force that is being used.
That isn't just the way it is. It is just the way you believe that it is. Not all Islamists are extremists. Not all Syrian Baathists are extremists. To paint groups with such a broad generalization only leads to problems. Also, being an extremist does not mean that they can't be reasoned with. Really, calling them extremists is just a cop out.
I think it is a great example. It doesn't matter if they could be killed, as history has shown us, Jews did rise up against Rome in violence. However, violence was not necessary as seen in the various nonviolent movements they also had.
Also, nonviolent actions are often done by people who are oppressed. That doesn't mean that they are any less effective. In fact, the effectiveness of them is not dependent on whether or not the oppressors could kill them at any time.
Why can't there be any compromise?
They are not idiots. It is pretty clear that neither side can really expect a victory. There are those who are trying to make negotiations (as in nonviolence). One such group, the National Coordination Committee seem to be making headway now. Exactly what should be done? I can't say as that is not my area of expertise. Also, I don't know all of the details. So to make a judgment on exactly what they should do is ignorant. However, that doesn't mean that compromise isn't possible, especially considering that no outright victory is foreseeable, and if fighting doesn't quit, there will be nothing to win. Those in power, or looking for power, wouldn't want that.
To all, intervention does not only mean that we try to get into the middle of the way. Intervention can also mean that we focus on those being displaced, those people who are suffering most, and try to help them. That does not require violence. It requires care. To just rule off all Syrians as undeserving of help is ridiculous. It is also the same idea that leads to such atrocities as the Holocaust. Once we devalue the life of others, it becomes all too easy to justify the harsh treatment of them.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
As I said, if individuals want to get involved then fine, but I don't believe it should involve governments and nations meddling. No single nation should try to act like the world's policeman - I say that because this won't just end with Syria but with every troubled nation being meddled with.
However, if individuals and charities want to get involved, then so be it.
Sirius Star
Member
Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?
Tuesday - May 7, 2013 at 2:16 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Last week, several polls came out assessing U.S. public opinion on intervention in Syria.
According to the Huffington Post poll, Americans oppose U.S. air strikes on Syria by 3-to-1. They oppose sending arms to the rebels by 4-to-1. They oppose putting U.S. ground troops into Syria by 14-to-1. Democrats, Republicans and independents are all against getting involved in that civil war that has produced 1.2 million refugees and 70,000 dead.
{...}
“Syrian Rebels May Have Used Sarin Gas,” ran the headline in Monday’s New York Times. Datelined Geneva, the story began:
“United Nations human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical workers indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said Sunday.”
The U.N. commission has found no evidence that the Syrian army used chemical weapons. But Carla Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney general and a commission member, stated:
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and according to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.
“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels.”
If Assad’s use of sarin should call forth U.S. air strikes, ought not the use of sarin by the rebels, if confirmed, cause this country to wash its hands of those war criminals?
Source: "Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?" by Patrick J. Buchanan
From Patrick J. Buchanan - Offical Web Site
Tuesday - May 7, 2013 at 2:16 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Last week, several polls came out assessing U.S. public opinion on intervention in Syria.
According to the Huffington Post poll, Americans oppose U.S. air strikes on Syria by 3-to-1. They oppose sending arms to the rebels by 4-to-1. They oppose putting U.S. ground troops into Syria by 14-to-1. Democrats, Republicans and independents are all against getting involved in that civil war that has produced 1.2 million refugees and 70,000 dead.
{...}
“Syrian Rebels May Have Used Sarin Gas,” ran the headline in Monday’s New York Times. Datelined Geneva, the story began:
“United Nations human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical workers indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said Sunday.”
The U.N. commission has found no evidence that the Syrian army used chemical weapons. But Carla Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney general and a commission member, stated:
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and according to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.
“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels.”
If Assad’s use of sarin should call forth U.S. air strikes, ought not the use of sarin by the rebels, if confirmed, cause this country to wash its hands of those war criminals?
Source: "Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?" by Patrick J. Buchanan
From Patrick J. Buchanan - Offical Web Site
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I notice that some of my fellow Americans tend to blow this concern about being seen as a "paper tiger" completely out of proportion. Even if we ignore the fact that US intervention could cost countless American and Syrian lives, and that it could make the situation even worse for Syrians and the world .... isn't it better to preserve the strength of the military and the country and be thought a "paper tiger", than to waste that strength, and actually become one?
Nothing demonstrates the incompetence of the American Right better than its inability to apply the basic concept captured in that old adage: "'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".
Nothing demonstrates the incompetence of the American Right better than its inability to apply the basic concept captured in that old adage: "'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".
Sirius Star
Member
Could you reiterate your statement(s). It is unclear of what you exactly mean. Patrick J. Buchanan is well-respected in his capacity as a speech writer, a columnist and as a defender of Western civilization. Your comments are demeaning.
Last edited:
