Syria (Page 2)

I was watching Fox News last night (yeah yeah, I know) and Karl Rove was on there spouting on and on about how we have to intervene because they have chemical weapons and "IF" those chemical weapons got into the terrorists hands they could use them in America.  I almost punched my TV.

Dude, seriously get a new argument because 2002 called and it wants it's excuse back.

The world has a "world police".  It's the UN.  And Syria is not only one of its founding countries, but a G-24 country as well. If the UN wants to get involved, go for it.  

Our military servicemen sign up to protect the United States.  It's not right to ask them to risk their lives fighting someone else's war.  UN peacekeepers are a voluntary force who sign up to generically right the wrongs of the world. That's their job.  

As a Military veteran and father of TWO active duty servicemembers I will say this without hesitation...This country's brave servicemen and women sign up and take an oath to follow the orders of their Commander-In-Chief.  They are expected to be placed in harm's way-and it's almost ALWAYS for "someone else's war".  Also, the UN does NOT have a standing Army of voluntary "Peacekeepers",  it uses the armed forces of other countries.   (see Wikipedia).

Don't misunderstand me, I have NO IDEA what path or action I would choose.  While I would hate to get dragged into another no-win, regional conflict.  I hate (more?), the US standing by with our head in the sand, wringing our hands while across the globe THOUSANDS of innocent people die at the hands of ruthless, heartless barbarians who wrap themselves up in Kings robes.   Where does the laize faire (sp) attitude end?  At our own country's borders? At our state lines? Our city halls? Our school districts?   We are a Security Council member of the United Nations.  (Whether you think that is a good or a bad thing-that is a WHOLE 'nother COJ thread). And, as a country, we WILL be required to take a stand. 

I wish that all parties show wisdom,  restraint, and compassion.

We are a member of a global community. We most certainly have an "opinion". Where does it say it is our RESPONSIBILITY to protect Syrians? Why do we not protect the child laborers in India? Why did we not protect those in Darfur? Why did we not protect those against the Khmer Rouge?

I will ask you the same question... where does it end? Is there no border we will not cross to "protect"? Why is a Syrian dying more important than a Darfurian? Just exactly how do you plan to "save them all"?

I      DON'T       KNOW!

OOOOO      KAAAAY

I was watching the news and one of the commentators mentioned that the Syrian rebels are essentially Al Qaeda and asked "Do you want the US government fighting alongside Al Qaeda?"  Hmmm

From the NYTimes:

Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquillity on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.

Both sides of this fight are our enemies.  If Japan and Germany started fighting each other in WWII, we would let them fight and would most certainly not intervene.

Insightful response.  Obviously we don't know what the ultimate response is going to be, but I hope and pray that we don't get into another Iraq/Afghanistan type situation.

If the UN and everyone else decides to punish the regime and we lob some missiles in, then so be it.

I did see this interesting twist last night:
Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?

Obviously we have no way of knowing and have to trust the government in the investigation.  However, I wouldn't put it past the Al Qaeda thugs to gas their own people to get the support of the world.

lol, well said

And that actually is a legitamate argument. HOWEVER, if indeed that is the system we as mankind put out, then there has to be rules. If you are a memeber of the UN, and you violate agreements... such as not using chemical weapons... and you do, then the UN will take action. And those actions can consist of asking member states to perform a military action withing your borders... and then the UN, asks the US, to perform said task, or Britan, or Russia.

In that respect, you could not ask neigbors to do it, cause that would cause conflict... but then you have the UN playing referee, and dictating what action... which does not include invasion and overthrow... and then it is on the UN, which all States are member. If say Iraq invades Kuwait, and the UN says no, we are taking Kuwait back... then that's cool... but the UN can't say, we are invading you... which is all what happened in GW 1, even if it wasn't actually like this.

But Syrians use chemical weapons... and everybody wants to know what WE, the US, is going to do about... maybe not every country in the world, but certainly we the citizens want to know what we are, or are not, going to do about it... WHY? Why is it our responsibility to play referee? What global authority do we have to do that? Who gave us the power to do that?

Okay. So we can just do what ever we want. Fine.

I fail to see where striking Syria has anything to do with the vital interests of this country. If this country feels worthy to protect citizens from tyranical government around the world... then it must protect EVERY citizen from ALL tyranical governments. If that is where you are heading, then my answer is no.

If countries become "terrorized", and they feel the need to strike the US, be it with a terrorist attack, or military one... then we have ample fire power to deal with that.... up to including nuclear... WMDs ironically.

If oil is a vital strategic interest of ours, then provide the best deal, and make it happen. Making the best deal at the end of a barrel causes problems, as it has for decades in the ME. Because we don't care about the people, we just want the oil.... and after WWII, it was about denying it to the USSR. We won that battle, but it has it's consequences. But don't give me this nonsense that we care about Syrian citizens getting gasses, because part of the problem of us and the ME is our obvious hipocracy. I mean... we certainly didn't care about Saddam using them against Iran. We did actually help arm him with chemical weapons after all. That sort of irritates some in the ME.

Only problem with the referee analogy is that we are either already or considering providing training and weapons to the rebels. 

The Neo-Cons are happy with intervening because they think they are in control of the world that way.

The other politicians are happy with the donations they get from defense contractors.

And the military industrial machine rolls on. 

And it most certainly matters to the residents of the Middle East and continued irritations with the U.S. butting into their afairs and backing their enemies when it is convinient.

we have a pretty horrible track record when it comes to interveneing in the ME. Now it is a problem I do not have a crystal ball. I have no idea what it would look like today if we sat back and did nothing. Perhaps things would get to a point of all out war in the ME instead of these "little scirmages" we have every so often when someone in the ME does not act right. I just don't know.

But as far as using the moral high ground to strike those that are not acting right.... well, it isn't very high anymore, and I am growing tired of continued military actions in the ME and projecting military force into every corner of the globe. There has to be a better way.