Syria

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
Post Reply
Pasquar
Fearless
Posts: 517
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 08:02
Location: Columbus, OH/ Philadelphia, PA

Syria

Post by Pasquar » 04 Sep 2013 09:37

U.S. is probably going to invade Syria after the use of chemical weapons by.. well, we don't know yet because the U.N. investigation hasn't been completed. U.S. feels that there is enough evidence (investigation withstanding) that intervention is warranted.

What do we think?
Nick Pasquarello


Shred on

fatbagger
Multidex Master
Posts: 308
Joined: 11 Jul 2003 16:07
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Syria

Post by fatbagger » 08 Sep 2013 08:09

Hot topic. If Assad was dumb enough to invite the US and friends to strike Syria by using chemical weapons while UN inspectors were in Syria, I don't see him being deterred by the US limited response. When asked if Assad could strike back if attacked, Obama said he could but it wouldn't be smart. If Assad did this, I think we have already established his level of intelligence and could expect a response.
The Chairman of Homeland Security, during senate ratification, said his intelligence suggests 50% of the rebel army is made up of foreign Jihadists. This is a power grab by extremists who see secularism as an evil.

Honestly, their is just too much to cover on this one. 100 reasons why it is wrong to get involved at this point and zero reasons for it being right. The idea that a limited strike is going to change anything for the better, the idea America has to be the country that decides the course of action regarding an agreement signed by 184 countries, the idea that American troops won't be put in harms way, the idea that Russia's open threats against our action are empty threats, the idea that this will not escalate within the region. It's all preposterous! If 184 countries signed the ban on chemical weapons and only 34 think action in this case is warranted, how can we justify taking it upon ourselves to defend, in the words of Obama, "the worlds red line" before the world(UN) has finished it's investigation. Not to mention the blatant lies, every country that has actually investigated things IN SYRIA has a death toll between 350 and 500. America, who has not investigated in Syria, makes up the number 1,4**. Why lie to make it seem worse? Isn't 350-500 bad enough, apparently not when you need to convince Americans to keep supporting murder.
I'm fully against it, obviously, but it's going to happen. Why? I'm not sure, save the economy for a few more decades, something to do with Israel(I don't really understand the US/Israel dynamic, but everyone seems to think Israel plays a role in a lot of this), something to do with Iran. All I know is this is not for peace, love and democracy, it has to do with special interest and I am not privy to that info.
It's really hard to have an informed opinion on these matters because evidence is classified and we are expected to just trust our Government, even though they have a track record of outright lying to do what they want. So for all I know Obama and friends really do have good reason for what they are planning with evidence to back it up. We just aren't allowed to know things in America, it's none of our business!
Sorry if this response is jumbled and incoherent, but it would take a book to explain this situation fully by citing sources on past events to highlight the lies and hypocrisy of this situation. But that is my opinion on the matter more or less, I don't have all the info for reasons I mentioned previously, so I reserve the right to change it as more evidence surfaces.
I like to play.
I want to play good.
Dan Reed

J.Spano
Hack Fiend
Posts: 34
Joined: 07 Sep 2013 19:14
Location: New Jersey

Re: Syria

Post by J.Spano » 08 Sep 2013 17:36

IMO, I'm more concerned with Iran and their nuclear capability than Syria at this point. I think we SHOULD stay the hell out of Syria. Firstly, how does one boldly make a redline statement? It's immature and puts our asses out there. President Obama did this without any real congressional backing, which was our first mistake. Our second being a "limited strike", my prediction is that it will not be effective at all..it will be a symbolic gesture which generates publicity. That strike may lead to boots on the ground eventually. Lets hypothetically say that we take out Al-Assad..then what? The Muslim Brotherhood will be running the show..possibly even Al-Quaeda. That kind of change in leadership will render all of our efforts to take down Al-Assad useless because the same problem will re-perpetuate. I feel it's a giant shot show. Atleast in Iraq we had Oil interests and Saddam was threatening our allies with SKUD missiles.
America is out of Iraq and in the process of getting out of Afghanistan..we do not need another war.
All being said, it's an absolute travesty that over 100,000 are dead, and about 2 million are refugees..I feel for these people and it's very disheartening
| Joseph Spano |

Pasquar
Fearless
Posts: 517
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 08:02
Location: Columbus, OH/ Philadelphia, PA

Re: Syria

Post by Pasquar » 09 Sep 2013 10:04

Dan, with the whole U.S./Israel thing, that's a longwinded question which basically stems from what emerged at the end of WW2 and the promise to give the promised land of Israel to the Jews as part of reparations after the Holocaust. Problem is that there was a lonstanding indigenous group (Palestinians) who then began to be pushed out of their own land, but I digress. Basically, Israel is the U.S.'s stronghold in the Middle East, along with Saudi Arabia and Egypt (notice how the Egyptian gov't has been killing non-violent protesters and we remain silent about that and continue to fund THEIR military, but I digress). We fund an enormous part of their military and any action that we would take would involve help/support from Israel. It's an imperialism thing.

Anyway, that leads to the whole situation in Syria in that Syria (along with Iran, Lebanon, etc) is a non-secular gov't that had always been outspoken against the U.S. in general. Yes there has been a civil uprising and massive crackdown resulting in 100,000 killed and 2 million refugees and this has been going on for 2 years. U.S. along with other members of the U.N. have been trying to do what they can to stop it (sanctions, funding and giving arms to the rebels) but it looks to have not done much. Now there was use of chemical weapons, which Obama has called the "red line" that Syria crossed and is trying to use to justify action even though the U.N. investigation is incomplete and the Security Council has voted again and again in opposition of military action. Obama proposes a 'limited attack' and is not throwing that down to Congress to decide. What is sad is that the majority support seems to be from Democrats, which IMO shows just how spineless and partisan they are. I'm vehemently anti-war and it angers me that elected officials' stances for/against a war can change regarding whether a member of their own party or the other party is proposing something.

Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now, but the main thing is: I feel the U.S. will justify anything as long as it's along the lines of who our 'allies' and who our 'enemies' are. We fund Israel and support apartheid there, literally pushing Palestinians into the sea and killing them every day, we fund Egypt killing its own civilians, we have a 'don't ask, don't tell' kind of relationship with Saudi Arabia clearly based around oil. But when is comes to gov'ts that don't fall into our mold of imperialism, then we have problems. Shortly after the chemical weapon attack happened in Syria, U.S. gov'y documents were declassified showing that we helped set up a massive chemical weapons attack on Iran through Iraq (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... tacks.html). We also used white phosphorus against Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phos ... se_in_Iraq_).

So basically people/gov'ts are wrong when and because we say they are. The word is hypocrisy. 1/3 of every federal tax dollar goes towards our bloated military, meanwhile we have people in debt for trying to stay alive because we have privatized health care. We invest more into keeping prisons around than schools, and we have massive inequality and social unrest in our own country. The fact that we parade around the Middle East to 'spread democracy' is a sham and is further kicking the can when we should be looking ourselves deep in the mirror, because we fall way short of the 'democracy' we're trying to spread. Case-in-point: the majority of Americans are opposed to intervening with Syria (and get this, were against Iraq too!)

And Spano, Iran is using that nuclear program for energy, they have been complicit when being audited for U.N. inspectors time and time again and there is 0 evidence of creating weapons. the U.S., on the other hand, has countless nuclear weapons and does not report this to the U.N. Maybe this is another conversation altogether but (as you may have guessed) I see this all as being connected.
Nick Pasquarello


Shred on

J.Spano
Hack Fiend
Posts: 34
Joined: 07 Sep 2013 19:14
Location: New Jersey

Re: Syria

Post by J.Spano » 09 Sep 2013 11:37

Pasquar, I respect your opinion and thank you for bringing that to my attention. I understand our government is far from sainthood. I agree with you one-hundred percent about not waging war. I feel ever since T.Roosevelt we've had this imperialist itch we've been trying to scratch for decades and that we are viewed as over-militarized by a large collection of other countries. I am rambling but I think this is a tough issue to text about because we cannot just talk about Syria..If you want to mention one you will need to mention many of the other big players involved.
| Joseph Spano |

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Re: Syria

Post by Jeremy » 09 Sep 2013 17:09

The situation is obviously complex, and I think difficult to respond to with strong opinions. I think the issues around US politics are largely confounding, especially in relation to Iran, Israel and general Middle East policy. As I heard a journalist say the other day; "Is the problem that the Syrian conflict is 'baddies' vs 'baddies'?"

Older members of this forum will recall how much my opinion on these issues has changed over the decade I've been on this forum, and that really comes down to the question of; "should we take action against governments that commit massive human rights abuses." My answer now is strongly "yes." But of course we have to look at the consequences of our actions. In this instance, it's far from clear that removing Assad from power, or any kind of punitive action against him will lead to a better outcome.

Once such a conclusion can be made, the world should agree to take action (if that is the conclusion). If the conclusion is that military action can improve the situation, and then only the US has the courage to take action, that's a poor reflection on the rest of the world (especially Europe).

I reject conspiracy theories that the reasons for action would be boosting the US economy or any motivation other than trying to enforce international law regarding weapons of mass destruction.

I also think being dogmatically opposed to war or conflict is not a meaningful position to take in this circumstances. The reality is that large numbers of people will die if there is no international action, and large numbers will die if there is international action. People inevitably feel better about situations where people suffer and die due to their lack of intervention than when they suffer and die because of intervention, but that's not a good basis for conducting international policy. What's needed is careful analysis and estimation of the outcomes of different approaches, and a decision made based on what has the best outcome. It's reasonably to think that there are times when violent interventions have led to less bloodshed than would have otherwise occurred (of course we can only speculate).

Pasquar
Fearless
Posts: 517
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 08:02
Location: Columbus, OH/ Philadelphia, PA

Re: Syria

Post by Pasquar » 14 Sep 2013 10:22

First, a general question to Jeremy: What does foreign policy look like in Australia? I'm curious because as a 'developed' nation (however you define that), I certainly never hear of Australia taking sides/positions/actions against anyone. How big is the military and what % of taxes go towards it? From what I've heard, a great minimum wage and other social security measures seem to take more precedent in Australia which is, IMO, what the U.S. should be more focused on.
Jeremy wrote:"Is the problem that the Syrian conflict is 'baddies' vs 'baddies'?"
For sure, this conflict has been headstrong for >2 years now and it definitely isn't a conflict with a protagonist/antagonist. Situation gets murky when the rebel army is funded primarily through Saudi Arabia which has very close ties with the U.S. It invariably becomes about what is in the U.S.'s best interests, and by that I mean what the imperial forces of the U.S. think, not the American people who, by and large, do oppose military action and subsequent war, and certainly not for the Syrian people who are being killed from both gov't and rebel forces everywhere.
Jeremy wrote: Once such a conclusion can be made, the world should agree to take action (if that is the conclusion). If the conclusion is that military action can improve the situation, and then only the US has the courage to take action, that's a poor reflection on the rest of the world (especially Europe).
It has only been the U.S. who has been advocating for intervention. The Security Council vetoed any military action and therefore, if the U.S. were to intervene, we would be breaking International Law, which we don't really give 2 fucks about because, you know, we're America.

I would love to hear thoughts given recent developments: Secretary of State John Kerry (off-handedly) stated that an alternative to force would be if Assad gave his arsenal of chemical weapons to the international community and therein join the Chemical Weapons Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_W ... Convention). Kerry said there would be no way this would happen, and now seems to have egg on his face because that's what Syria has begun to agree to do through working with Russia.

So, potential war may have been averted, but if there are hiccups along the way, we could definitely still be dropping bombs in the near future.
Nick Pasquarello


Shred on

Post Reply