Game Changer in Syria?

Last-12-Exit

I am of the opinion that we should stay out of the civil wars in Syria and Egypt. According to CNN and other news sources, there is video evidence that one of the sides in Syria used chemical weapons. Does it matter who used them? Does/Should this change our involvement (or lack thereof) in the region?

I lean on the side of no because Saddam Husseins use of chemical weapons on his own people and I felt then that we werent needed there.

Any thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/world/mea ... hpt=hp_bn2

DriftingByTheStorm

There has been evidence for a while, I thought.
Several different authorities ruled that this had previously occured, i thought. Like several meaning, Russian, French, UN, and possibly even the Israeli's. I thought I heard all of them at various points several MONTHS ago had concluded this was most probably the case based on best analysis of evidence.

This is all getting back to the "principles" the US stands for and claims to support.
How much do you think we should always default to defense of principles.

By this i mean, recently the whole question of support for the Egyptian "military" government following Mubarak's deposition. The US government's primary objection to this was NOT the character of Mubarak. I don't think to many in Washington were true friends of Mubarak. The ENTIRE objection of the United States (this controversy over "cessation of aid" to Egypt) has been over our PRINCIPLES of *DEMOCRACY*. We don't officially support the regime change in Egypt because Mubarak was "democratically elected". Period. We support democracy. He was democratically elected (i know plenty of Egyptian's claim it was a bullshit election, i know!) and THAT is why we object to his forcible removal.

GETTING BACK TO SYRIA.
PRINCIPLES.
We stand for *UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS*.
Those rights dictate that NO government has the authority to SLAUGHTER it's people. At least, not wholesale, using "weapons of mass destruction" (we seem to be ambivalent if said slaughter occurs just slightly slower than the use of a singular weapon, but again, another debate).

So.
a. should that be the interpretation of universal human rights we endorse? (i would think so)
b. should the United States ALWAYS stand, CATEGORICALLY behind defense of that right?

I dunno. I tend to think so.
But then again, i think our stance on that has been too weak previously, and with other countries with rights violations.

??? did i answer your question with more questions ???
sorry.

Last-12-Exit

All good questions. I have more:

Does it matter if it was the rebels that used the gas? Human rights extends to a hostile government, right?

Is it a direct threat against the US? If not why drag our country into a war most of America will not support? (see Iraq)

I still think my vote is to stay out of it....

DriftingByTheStorm

Last-12-Exit wrote:

All good questions. I have more:

Does it matter if it was the rebels that used the gas? Human rights extends to a hostile government, right?

Is it a direct threat against the US? If not why drag our country into a war most of America will not support? (see Iraq)

I still think my vote is to stay out of it....

question 1.
yes. it extends to ALL humans.

2. i'm not sure the direct threat is even a relevant question right now.
i mean, i think they are still fixated on support of basic human rights, period.
and unless we proved they had a delivery mechanism (i seriously don't see this playing out, even as outright lies like "the bush administration" pulled vis a vis colin powel etc) i don't think anyone would ever question them as a clear and present danger or imminent threat or whatever.

Cosmo

I say... stay the fuck out of Syria.
We can bitch and protest all we want about them, but, we need to stay the fuck out of there. We are not the World's Police Force. If Syria's path to the future is decided by a Civil War... just like our present has been defined by our Civil War... then that is their call. We dodn't want Britian or France to come over here and settle our Civil War, did we?

Guitar92player

I would love to help them, but I don't want another Iraq War.

Also, some people in Syria near where that happened said they didn't realize such a thing happened. Makes me wonder if the rebels killed them so that the US would intervene. Just a thought.

Cosmo wrote:

I say... stay the fuck out of Syria.
We dodn't want Britian or France to come over here and settle our Civil War, did we?

Depends on which side you were on. I believe the South tried to get help from Britain. But I get your point and I agree.

brianlux

My vote is to stay out of it. I see no reason not to voice opinions, engage in embargoes to protest injustice and that sort of thing but we need to stop thinking we are World Police.

chadwick

send flowers, grass, music & heart symbols

mickeyrat

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

All good questions. I have more:

Does it matter if it was the rebels that used the gas? Human rights extends to a hostile government, right?

Is it a direct threat against the US? If not why drag our country into a war most of America will not support? (see Iraq)

I still think my vote is to stay out of it....

question 1.
yes. it extends to ALL humans.

2. i'm not sure the direct threat is even a relevant question right now.
i mean, i think they are still fixated on support of basic human rights, period.
and unless we proved they had a delivery mechanism (i seriously don't see this playing out, even as outright lies like "the bush administration" pulled vis a vis colin powel etc) i don't think anyone would ever question them as a clear and present danger or imminent threat or whatever.

I say let Europe handle it. The Brits and French have dabbled in that populations affairs for an awful long time. THEY can carry this load.

satansbed

I think at this point the west has to act. I have no doubt that what ever decision is taken, it will be seen as the wrong one. because there isn't really any right answers on what to do and its always easier to argue that a decision not taken would have been the right one. What america has to do is learn from the mistakes of Iraq. make sure it has much more support, particularly from european countries. in fact i would agree with the poster above that the french should probably lead this mission. but i would argue that it needs american support also.

Godfather.

Last-12-Exit wrote:

I am of the opinion that we should stay out of the civil wars in Syria and Egypt. According to CNN and other news sources, there is video evidence that one of the sides in Syria used chemical weapons. Does it matter who used them? Does/Should this change our involvement (or lack thereof) in the region?

I lean on the side of no because Saddam Husseins use of chemical weapons on his own people and I felt then that we werent needed there.

Any thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/world/mea ... hpt=hp_bn2

I say until it affects the US directly we need to stay out of ANY middle east conflicts.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat wrote:

I say let Europe handle it. The Brits and French have dabbled in that populations affairs for an awful long time. THEY can carry this load.

but if we let THEM handle it, WE are going to lose influence in that part of the world. and god knows that the hawks in our government will never, ever, allow that to happen. it is all about power and influence, and how we are perceived in the region. if we are perceived as weak and indecisive, we will lose any influence we have.

that said, fuck influence, i agree with you. let someone else take the lead in this clusterfuck. we have our thumb in too many pies as it is right now. this is what we get for meddling in the affairs of other countries.

chadwick

been watching news videos. this is a fucking nasty ass crime against humanity. chemical warfare.... fuckers
who did this? some are believing the syrian government did this. is this true?

satansbed

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I say let Europe handle it. The Brits and French have dabbled in that populations affairs for an awful long time. THEY can carry this load.

but if we let THEM handle it, WE are going to lose influence in that part of the world. and god knows that the hawks in our government will never, ever, allow that to happen. it is all about power and influence, and how we are perceived in the region. if we are perceived as weak and indecisive, we will lose any influence we have.

that said, fuck influence, i agree with you. let someone else take the lead in this clusterfuck. we have our thumb in too many pies as it is right now. this is what we get for meddling in the affairs of other countries.

i dunno man, another way to look at it is that this is we get for not meddling in the affairs of other countries, i mean no one touched syria and look at the mess it is in now. while on the other hand we did engage in libya, and while things aren't great there they are much better than the are in syria

mickeyrat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I say let Europe handle it. The Brits and French have dabbled in that populations affairs for an awful long time. THEY can carry this load.

but if we let THEM handle it, WE are going to lose influence in that part of the world. and god knows that the hawks in our government will never, ever, allow that to happen. it is all about power and influence, and how we are perceived in the region. if we are perceived as weak and indecisive, we will lose any influence we have.

that said, fuck influence, i agree with you. let someone else take the lead in this clusterfuck. we have our thumb in too many pies as it is right now. this is what we get for meddling in the affairs of other countries.

You say that as if we actually DO have influence there. all they want is fucking money from us.
I grow more and more isolationist as the months pass.
We are damned if we and damned if we dont. Lets keep our money and out boots at home for a change.
So long as Israel gets a pass from us , we got shit over there.

Last-12-Exit

chadwick wrote:

been watching news videos. this is a fucking nasty ass crime against humanity. chemical warfare.... fuckers
who did this? some are believing the syrian government did this. is this true?

From what I've read, its not known if it was the government or the rebels.

petejm043

We need to STAY OUT! I hear now that we have that we are sending US Navy Ships. We have been at war going on now 11 years. When is this madness going to stop. We are losing blood and bankrupting the country.

satansbed

FRENCH PRESIDENT FRANCOIS Hollande said today that evidence indicated Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime had carried out chemical weapons attacks on its own people last week.
Hollande said there was “a body of evidence indicating that the 21 August attack was chemical in nature, and that everything led to the belief that the Syrian regime was responsible for this unspeakable act”.
The French president called for UN weapons inspectors to be given access to suspect sites “without delay and without any restrictions whatsoever”, in a statement released by his office after he held telephone talks on the situation in Syria with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.


http://www.thejournal.ie/hollande-assad ... itter_self

chadwick

satansbed wrote:

FRENCH PRESIDENT FRANCOIS Hollande said today that evidence indicated Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime had carried out chemical weapons attacks on its own people last week.
Hollande said there was “a body of evidence indicating that the 21 August attack was chemical in nature, and that everything led to the belief that the Syrian regime was responsible for this unspeakable act”.
The French president called for UN weapons inspectors to be given access to suspect sites “without delay and without any restrictions whatsoever”, in a statement released by his office after he held telephone talks on the situation in Syria with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.


http://www.thejournal.ie/hollande-assad ... itter_self

sick fuckers

chadwick

fuck that... if the syrian government set off chemical weapons against its own people i say we go in there & level the government

50-100 navy seals... ON

ajedigecko

chadwick wrote:

fuck that... if the syrian government set off chemical weapons against its own people i say we go in there & level the government

50-100 navy seals... ON

Targets have already been identified...months ago.