Military strikes on Syria - Yes or No ?

[Sonya610]

I am a US citizen (by birth) and I am 100% against any sort of US military action in Syria.

Top reasons:

1) It is Syria's civil war, the populace KNEW when they started this things would get really really bad (yes as in chemical weapons bad, they aren't dumb). Assad Sr. made an entire city disappear when they tried to overthrow his Presidency (by city I mean all folks dead, buildings gone, disappeared).

2) If the US does get involved with air strikes or whatever, then a bunch of Americans are going to be crying about not being "appreciated" when the country turns radically Islamic and hates us. It will almost certainly be taken over by Islamic Extremists and it won't serve the US agenda when they start voting "democratically".

3) We have already bitten off more than we can chew with Afghanistan and Iraq -- it will lead to no good.

Syria is for the Syrians, it is their land and their history and their government, we need to respect that.

FYI I really wanted to visit Syria as a tourist several years ago, they have amazing relics and ruins, lots of abandoned Roman ruins, Crusader ruins, really amazing stuff with hardly any tourists. Plus it is one of the very few secular Middle Eastern countries and they have bars too. I couldn't afford to go due to an accident and no health insurance, gave my oh so rare vacation money to the ER, and will always regret it.

 

[STEADFAST]

. . .

We have brains capable of sending people into space for months, and exploring Mars. I cannot believe that we have no brains capable of developing a non-violent solution to what is going on in Syria. :sigh:

Trouble is, it's not going to be rocket scientists figuring out what to do about Syria; it's going to be politicians.

(Anyway, some problems don't have a perfect solution.)

 

[Sonya610]

Dumb question, I haven't followed the whole Syria thing that closely because it is just sad to me, but who is providing weapons and ammo to the rebels now????? That stuff is expensive!

Someone is, who is it? Was it the US that provided those weapon to the masses? Iran has been a close partner to Syria so they aren't likely supplying arms to the rebels, WHO IS? Al Queda? Iran is primarily Shi'ite so I guess maybe a radicalist (non-Shi'ite) movement could be funding the situation and not a world superpower but....errrm....seems odd. Like I said dumb question, but someone here must know.

 

[Herding Cats]

I think that someone needs to do something about the use of chemical weapons.

Does that need to be the US?

Or should the UN finally grow a pair and do something??

I don't want to get involved...but as MsF and EllieMae said above, how many times have we looked back in history and said "someone should've done something..."

Boots on the ground - NO. Supporting the revolutionary forces? Not if it involves Al Quaida (didn't we already do that back in the 80s-90s?? Look what happened...).

Chemical weapons use HAS to be met with some sort of response. Otherwise, chem weapons will be used all the time in every war (and some say they are, just not on western troops).

But boots on the ground? nope.

Best-
Herding Cats

 

[Cappuccino]

Dumb question, I haven't followed the whole Syria thing that closely because it is just sad to me, but who is providing weapons and ammo to the rebels now????? That stuff is expensive!

Someone is, who is it? Was it the US that provided those weapon to the masses? Iran has been a close partner to Syria so they aren't likely supplying arms to the rebels, WHO IS? Al Queda? Iran is primarily Shi'ite so I guess maybe a radicalist (non-Shi'ite) movement could be funding the situation and not a world superpower but....errrm....seems odd. Like I said dumb question, but someone here must know.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, most likely. I wouldn't put it past Pakistan either, but they might not be motivated to meddle with the Gulf states as much as they did with Afghanistan.

 

[nao]

i think the usa has already rattled their sabres, wish they had kept quiet, "speak softly and carry a big stick" now they are are kinda damned if they do and damned if they don't . Some wars go on for centuries, its just like a bad marriage, domestic violence, ain't no fixing it. -unless you have a place for those in need to go. jmo

 

[Sonya610]

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, most likely. I wouldn't put it past Pakistan either, but they might not be motivated to meddle with the Gulf states as much as they did with Afghanistan.

Ahhhh...the Saudis. Yeah they don't want to see another government in the middle east fall else they might be next.

Right after 9/11 I read an article that said Osama Bin Laden's ultimate goal when bombing the twin towers was to start a war with the US. He fought in Afghanistan with the rebels and they defeated Russia. He was sick of corrupt Middle Eastern dictatorships (particularly the Saudis) and thought if he proves to the middle east they can survive against an American strike then well.....

The people will rise up and overthrow their own corrupt governments and create the ultimate Islamic utopia. It appears to be working. Egypt, Libya, now Syria, not to mention Afghanistan.

You are probably right, the Saudi's have a stake in this.

 

[nao]

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/s...ranian-influence/story-fndir2ev-1226710212595

best info i can understand jmo

 

[Gardenlady]

I think that someone needs to do something about the use of chemical weapons.

Does that need to be the US?

Or should the UN finally grow a pair and do something??

I don't want to get involved...but as MsF and EllieMae said above, how many times have we looked back in history and said "someone should've done something..."

Boots on the ground - NO. Supporting the revolutionary forces? Not if it involves Al Quaida (didn't we already do that back in the 80s-90s?? Look what happened...).

Chemical weapons use HAS to be met with some sort of response. Otherwise, chem weapons will be used all the time in every war (and some say they are, just not on western troops).

But boots on the ground? nope.

Best-
Herding Cats

BBM - excellent point. We called the mujahideen friends, gave them help, in the 80s because it served our purpose in Aghanistan. We all know who and what grew out of that when that fight ended.

Same with Saddam in the 80s. An ally against Iran. Then when he was done serving our purposes.... (No one here needs a history lesson, lol).

Our hands - and the hands of other western nations - are so dirty in the Middle East because of our meddling and colonialism. And when it comes back to bite us ... Well... We (the public anyway - the govt knows all too well) never seem to be able to connect the dots.

 

[Sonya610]

Something should be done about the use of chemical weapons. idk what

Ask yourself this Elley Mae....why are "chemical weapons" so bad when airstrikes that kill thousands of civilians are okay? Because the term "chemical weapons" sounds so ugly. That's why. Now biological weapons could get out of hand real quick but chemical weapons are not that rare, not even 100 years ago.

It is war. Folks do what they have to in order to win and survive.

 

[Cappuccino]

Yeah they don't want to see another government in the middle east fall else they might be next.

They do want to see Assad's government fall, as do Qatar. You only have to watch Al Jazeera to see that, and that's never mind what's being said behind the scenes.

 

[Kensie]

No no no no

 

[squish]

Absolutely "NO" to involvement in Syria.

Atrocities are happening all over the world. Many African countries are a complete mess, like Zimbabwe. The country is so poor that the West could easily (relatively easily - compared to other nations) temporarily take over and clean it up. One million Tibetans have died and been killed since China invaded, and torture is an every day occurrence. Yet America isn't attempting to do anything about it. The media does nothing but cover it up. Why does the US want to meddle in Islamic countries, and almost ONLY in Islamic countries? It doesn't make sense and it's incredibly suspicious. I think that they are trying to destabilise the region in order to strengthen the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

The evidence actually suggests that it was the "rebels", NOT Assad, who committed the chemical attack. Firstly, phone calls intercepted by Israel should not count as evidence, as they are enemies with Syria and have enormous motives for wanting war. Secondly, the calls actually demonstrated concerned Syrian government officials demanding answers for the chemical attacks, in a way that showed they were completely unaware any such attacks were going to happen. If there was ANY doubt at all, that should to stop the West jumping to conclusions and getting involved - let alone there being no real proof of their claims, and the only proof that DOES exist is showing the very opposite of what they are saying. Besides, many of these so called "rebels" are paid North African al-Qaeda fighters - "Islamic" fundamentalists - themselves meddling in Syria (a secular country), which has a right to defend itself. Why would Syria submit their own people to chemical weapons? It would make them unpopular with the public, therefore weakening politically among their own people, and there are unknown risks with such attacks.

Beware of biased media reporting and propaganda. Always do your own research, away from the mainstream media, who are not impartial. Always try to fully understand all sides of the story. No matter how it's portrayed by the West, these situations are NEVER as simple as being divided into the "goodies" and the "baddies".

Finally, why are Russia willing to allow themselves to be portrayed as evil, and risking war with the West?

One last thing: all war is a war against women and children. War should be an absolute last resort. Remember the Iraq war, and their non-existent Weapons Of Mass Destruction? At least 114,000 people and counting have died for that mess. Remember Libya, when we were told we were helping freedom fighters topple an evil dictator? Look how that turned out. Libyans hate us. The real reason for that war was because Gaddafi was trying to change to a different currency that would have strengthened Africa economically - therefore making it harder to rape the continent for its resources.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO to Barack Obomber and his pals.

 

[Sonya610]

Our hands - and the hands of other western nations - are so dirty in the Middle East because of our meddling and colonialism. And when it comes back to bite us ... Well... We (the public anyway - the govt knows all too well) never seem to be able to connect the dots.

Very very true! The thanks button was not enough!

Weird how we agree so much on foreign politics but rarely on domestic politics when the two aren't that different in many ways.

 

[squish]

Ask yourself this Elley Mae....why are "chemical weapons" so bad when airstrikes that kill thousands of civilians are okay? Because the term "chemical weapons" sounds so ugly. That's why. Now biological weapons could get out of hand real quick but chemical weapons are not that rare, not even 100 years ago.

It is war. Folks do what they have to in order to win and survive.

I'd like to know why the US government are nonplussed about Israel using white phosphorus on the Palestinians. In fact, Israel remains a welfare state of the US and receives billions and billions of dollars annually in aid (courtesy of the US taxpayer). I'd also like to know why the US is suddenly so bothered about chemical warfare when they used bullets tipped in toxic deplete uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Chemical weapons" is just being used as propaganda because it sounds scary and people don't understand what it means.

 

[nao]

yea wars are ugly, north america and other countries, are involved at a distance- so we are not actually at war- the boston bombing - oh my gosh- the hysteria , i don't know how the usa would handle a war on their own turf- if the country gets hysterical about one bombing, how do they find themselves war worldly enough to put their might into other countries.

i live in canada they are still working on trials for peoples from some riot, i'm a euro -as far as i'm concerned the riot sounds like a wild weekend-they have piss poor riots here. this is a new country north america- should pay more attention to their own turf.
i lived in a canadian city that had issues but no gangs- hell they got gangs now, people die on a regular basis, is that not war, wars don't start with missiles, they start with gangs- gotta love the internet, has made it so much easier.
If you can't handle your own countries problems- just don't- cause if you can't see the power being gained by gangs-in a few years some will glom together, our own wars are coming

as a new comer to the country i went to protection aka gangs, they were not gangs then just disorginized groups, but when they said they would kill to protect you, it was meant in the literal sense, and if another group was pissed at you -you were close to dead literaly. i stuck my thumb out left town. you have a powder keg in north america, should pay more attention to your own.
jmo

 

[Sonya610]

I'd like to know why the US government are nonplussed about Israel using white phosphorus on the Palestinians. In fact, Israel remains a welfare state of the US and receives billions and billions of dollars annually in aid (courtesy of the US taxpayer). I'd also like to know why the US is suddenly so bothered about chemical warfare when they used bullets tipped in toxic deplete uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Chemical weapons" is just being used as propaganda because it sounds scary and people don't understand what it means.

The U.S. was also not bothered when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iraq/Iran 8 year war. No U.N. involvement, not a whisper from the US! Nothing to see there! Move along folks! The U.S. was still giving Iraq and Saddam money and if he wants to spend it on chemical weapons that is his business!

Then many years later when he used them again against the Kurds it was justification for WAR!!! A human rights violation etc....!!!!

 

[Cappuccino]

The U.S. was also not bothered when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iraq/Iran 8 year war. No U.N. involvement, not a whisper from the US! Nothing to see there! Move along folks! The U.S. was still giving Iraq and Saddam money and if he wants to spend it on chemical weapons that is his business!

Then many years later when he used them again against the Kurds it was justification for WAR!!! A human rights violation etc....!!!!

Excuse me, but nobody stepped in to protect the people of Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq after Saddam slaughtered them with chemical weapons. Nobody. Even though the images were all over the international news.

The US went to war with Iraq because they invaded Kuwait, nobody gave two hoots when they dropped chemical weapons on their own people or their neighbours.

 

[Sonya610]

oh my gosh- i don't know how the usa would handle a war on their own turf- if the country gets hysterical about one bombing, how do they find themselves war worldly enough to put their might into other countries. jmo

Not sure what country you are in nao but the U.S. Civil War (i.e. War of Northern Aggression) was fought on U.S. soil and it was very very bad with very high death counts and much brutality.

The folks in the South REMEMBER what it was like to see most of their men die, to see their cities burned to the ground, to have their old men and boy children go off to fight off the army knowing they couldn't win, but doing it because they also knew if they didn't try their homes would be burned and their families would likely starve. To be occupied by a government that laughed and wanted to see them turned into dust (no real law, no real judges, etc....in the years following the end of the war).

So I don't know where you are from, but some in the U.S. DO know what real war is like.

 

[Sonya610]

Excuse me, but nobody stepped in to protect the people of Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq after Saddam slaughtered them with chemical weapons. Nobody. Even though the images were all over the international news.

The US went to war with Iraq because they invaded Kuwait, nobody gave two hoots when they dropped chemical weapons on their own people or their neighbours.

That was my point, but when it became convenient to try to take Iraq then the chemical weapons were a HUGE big deal.

I remember the footage during Gulf War I, the Kurds fleeing the Iraqi helicopters that were gunning them down, one Kurdish woman was on the news saying in English "We are human too, why are you watching but not helping us?". As the U.S. forces officially "controlled Iraq airspace" but allowed the slaughter to go on. And the fate of the poor Shi'ites, that were tortured with acid and other things after trying to help.....because the U.S. was dropping flyers saying "rise up and take Saddam down". Those people sadly believed they had a good force behind them, but they ended up betrayed and tortured in the most unimaginable ways.

It isn't a party thing though, I considered myself a Democrat then and I hated the GOP. It isn't about U.S. political parties it is about the government corruption.