Poll: syria is in chaos

[Evilpigeon]

I think the situation fulfils all the moral requirements for an armed intervention in Syria, with there being a dictator who's killing his own people to stay in power. I do think there should be an intervention of sorts- if that should include traditional thin-blue line peacekeeping or Post-Cold War peacemaking is debatable.

However there is a serious question as to if the international community can intervene. There won't be authorisation from the UN due to a Chinese and Russian veto, and Western powers have been fighting wars of considerable intensity for the past 10 years, still have serious commitments to Afghanistan, whilst also dealing with a massive financial crisis. So i doubt the West actually has the capacity to intervene here without causing severe military over-stretch.

The thing is, Assad's probably calculated this and so he's going to continue killing Syrians to stay in power, which makes me feel sick in the stomach thinking about.

You mean the US not the west not trying to stop on your points or anything.

US =/= entire western hemisphere

Quite a lot of other countries have been involved, nowhere near as heavily as the US but then America spends astronomical amounts on their military in comparison to everyone else.

 

[natster43]

Well I think the US should stay out of it, we have caused enough shit in the Middle East acting like a world police force. We really don't need to try and do the same thing when we are apparently trying to get out of the Middle East.
Besides that, cut off support for the country/give support to rebels and if someone was going to intervene, send in a large enough military force or coalition force between multiple countries and try to stop the bastard. That is the best I got right now.

 

[Supertegwyn]

The west won't interfere in Syria because it has no oil, its in with the Russians and its a bit too close to Iran for comfort.

I expect a drawn out civil war with a lot of big words and mud slinging.

Oil has nothing to do with Syrian intervention.

At all.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I'm not going to condone murder and I've never been one to cry for someone's blood, but if the rebels manage to kill him I'm certainly not going to condemn them.

I don't think the West should intervene. The Syrians already have their own government fucking them over. They don't need ours doing it too.

I don't think The U.S. should do anything, because no matter what we do good or bad people just hate us more for it, so let them work out their own problems.

That's probably because the US "helps" people with absolutely no concern for the collateral damage done to civilians.

I didn't really need an example for my comment, but thanks anyway.

 

[somonels]

You are right, they should stop making a big deal of it and find some domestic problem, like a celeb's addiction.

Can't do much, since it will piss off russia, china and some other big country.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Russia and China should sit Assad down and give him a good talking to.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen, so there's nothing for the UN to do but condemn the violence and continue doing nothing.

 

[Strazdas]

Let them handle their own problems. Enough of this "world police" stuff.

 

[CellShaded]

You missed the option where everyone apart from Russia supports the rebels financially, and more secretly with special forces training them. This is almost definitely what is happening right now.

Give this man a prize!

Not only is the West actually funding the Rebels, but they're also doing their best to make the Civil War seem as black-and-white as possible with their selective media coverage. I remember one case specifically where they had "Exclusive cellphone footage from inside Syria" and it turned out to be footage out of Iraq.

In short, be a bit more critical about what the Media reports on the Civil War.

Aaand, as to what "we" should do: We should infact support and encourage communication between the warring Parties.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

The "West" shouldn't do a damned thing. For starters, the US has its proverbial dick in so many other countries pudding that it should consider keeping itself to home. Quite permanently at that. It won't happen, not as long as money dictates it...but it's a start.

The other thing, and perhaps few realize this, is that the US actually supports most dictators, until the situation makes it so that they're completely unsupportable. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example, so is Saddam Hussein.

And some warlords are hired by the CIA and US intelligence agencies. Don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberian_politician)

Might wanna check this out then.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Assad's killed over 1,500 of his own people. He'll probably try to find a way to blame Israel for it but in the meantime no one gets involved, they send back a few diplomats and he gets to carry on murdering his own citizenry. If the UN or NATO aren't interested, then in honesty I'm not either. Probably best right now to leave Syria to it...some issues have to be handled internally. It does make you wonder tho, why NATO were so keen to get involved in the Libyan uprising.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

And so another country shall fall from the Russian Sphere and into the American/NATO Sphere. Well the world has to unite one way or another, whichever evil does it it doesn't matter I just hope it happens quicker so we can get to fighting aliens already >:/

 

[Nickolai77]

I think the situation fulfils all the moral requirements for an armed intervention in Syria, with there being a dictator who's killing his own people to stay in power. I do think there should be an intervention of sorts- if that should include traditional thin-blue line peacekeeping or Post-Cold War peacemaking is debatable.

However there is a serious question as to if the international community can intervene. There won't be authorisation from the UN due to a Chinese and Russian veto, and Western powers have been fighting wars of considerable intensity for the past 10 years, still have serious commitments to Afghanistan, whilst also dealing with a massive financial crisis. So i doubt the West actually has the capacity to intervene here without causing severe military over-stretch.

The thing is, Assad's probably calculated this and so he's going to continue killing Syrians to stay in power, which makes me feel sick in the stomach thinking about.

You mean the US not the west not trying to stop on your points or anything.

US =/= entire western hemisphere

I think it's fair to say the West because European powers have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and both the US and Europe are struggling with the world financial crisis- Europe more so which rules out another European led intervention as in Libya. The US is in a better
position to intervene than Europe, but probably won't for obvious reasons.

 

[wooty]

The west won't interfere in Syria because it has no oil, its in with the Russians and its a bit too close to Iran for comfort.

I expect a drawn out civil war with a lot of big words and mud slinging.

Oil has nothing to do with Syrian intervention.

At all.

Which is why we're not in there already. Gaddafi did less and over a much smaller timescale in order to have carriers and jets attacking his forces, first priority for the coalition was to help secure the oil towns and ports.

I just don't get why nations we're chomping at the bit to intervene in Libya but are all just passing pieces of paper round and limply gesturing for this one, especially when its pretty evident that some serious shit is going on there. Even those "inspectors" that are in there monitoring the situation yet still can't seem to see that anythings going on, I would have thought that they might have picked up on something by now. Sometimes it seems like the UN is overseen by the Marx brothers.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I didn't really need an example for my comment, but thanks anyway.

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it more clearly so as not to confuse you. You said it doesn't matter whether the US does good or bad because people insist on hating them. This makes it sound as though the hate is irrational or unjustified. I was arguing that that's less because people are intent on hating the US regardless even when they are doing good, and more because even when they claim they are doing "good" they are really just shitting all over everything and calling themselves heroes. Hence, I was refuting the part of your claim where you suggested the US has ever done good.

Would you say you understand now?

 

[Yopaz]

The bigger things like these get the worse they get when it's over. Involve the military of other countries and his will turn out an even bigger tragedy. Egypt and Libya have recently gotten rid of their evil dictators and they're nowhere near becoming peaceful nations. Negotiations is the best thing that can be done, but I doubt that it will work.

 

[Zeckt]

I don't think the solution of throwing our money at them is doing anything other then making them feel entitled when they still hate us. Why do we give them money again?

 

[Ironside]

Unless you want to start World War 3 the West won't be intervening militarily. We have perhaps been funding the rebels and giving them weapons, but Russia has stated their intent to protect Syria if we try anything along the lines of full scale military intervention.

Besides i don't see why it's our problem - everytime we try to help we make things a lot worse and then just make ourselves targets for the blind hatred of the rest of the world.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

There is only one thing we could do by now....KILL ASSAD!!!

It is a damn disgrace that we are just sitting back and LETTING him kill off his people, and for what?! "Because we shouldnt interfer and be the world police." Screw THAT! We should be saying "surrender now, or you will have a .50 cal bullet for breakfast, complimentary of SEAL team 6."

And Screw the UN too. They are not going to get ANYTHING done as long as China and Russia are in it, so really, SCREW THEM AND GET ASSAD!

 

[Knusper]

"These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman" - Thomas Paine

Forget the patriotic message in it. The point is we should take the opportunity to defend the rights of the Syrians, through diplomacy or warfare, although the chance to carry out the former is slimming as more and more die each week. Oh yeah, I also recently read a news article on the BBC that the Rebel leaders are considering help from Taliban should the West remain unresponsive... so yeah.

 

[wooty]

I just don't get why nations we're chomping at the bit to intervene in Libya but are all just passing pieces of paper round and limply gesturing for this one, especially when its pretty evident that some serious shit is going on there.

Are you going to pay the bills for the campaign to destroy the Syrian military, and tell the family of the soldiers killed during that? No? Well, neither does anybody else especially not after a lot of money was spent on Libya in the middle of an economic crisis.

Hotly disputed topic on here ay?

Anyway, helping out the Syrians in some way would make more sense than half the things we're wasting money on. This slaughter, for lack of a better word, has been going on for over a year now and yet nothing has progressed forward. The UN inspectors seem to be doing nothing but going on a sightseeing tour, Kofi Annan's plan progress is being ignored even by nations that say they support it and Al-Assad is basically lying to the security council every day about events and upholding his end of the agreement.

If theres something worth losing a bit of money over its stopping, or at the very least, stemming this mess.