Let's have a vote: Should the West intervene in Syria?

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The United States can ONLY lose if they get involved.

Except the US does lose from not getting involved.

 

[kramerfan86]

Except the US does lose from not getting involved.

They take a minor prestige hit for Obama's dumb red line comment, but at this point the prestige is taking a hit regardless because a unilateral strike with absolutely no support is damaging as well and Im not convinced a slap on the wrist cruise missile strike is going to terrify despots everywhere from using chemical weapons.

 

[Rashiminos]

This whole 'But Assad has no reason' thing gives Assad a pretty good reason: people will blame it on the rebels because Assad 'has no reason'.

I'd only look at the actual evidence if I were you (leaving in the middle who did it).

Vizzini would be proud.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

They take a minor prestige hit for Obama's dumb red line comment, but at this point the prestige is taking a hit regardless because a unilateral strike with absolutely no support is damaging as well and Im not convinced a slap on the wrist cruise missile strike is going to terrify despots everywhere from using chemical weapons.

Better to have a couple of hippies mad at you then have the despots start thinking you'll do literally nothing.

As least the missiles are only figuratively nothing

 

[FriendlyFire]

Better to have a couple of hippies mad at you then have the despots start thinking you'll do literally nothing.

As least the missiles are only figuratively nothing

You DO KNOW how many despots there are in the world right ?
You DO KNOW that the US is actually allied with many such despots right ?

 

[kramerfan86]

Better to have a couple of hippies mad at you then have the despots start thinking you'll do literally nothing.

As least the missiles are only figuratively nothing

I dont know if Im a despot US foriegn policy is so haphazard and almost random that I wouldnt feel safe assuming just because Assad got off the hook I would. Look at Ghadafi, uses absolutely no chemical weapons and the US is suddenly mauling through his army. Saddam suddenly get thrown out of control a decade after we passed on doing it. I dont know, frankly Id still be afraid to cross the line just in fear that I randomly was the dictator the foreign policy roulette wheel chose for smackdown.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

You DO KNOW how many despots there are in the world right ?
You DO KNOW that the US is actually allied with many such despots right ?

d00d, despot is totally relative.

I dont know if Im a despot US foriegn policy is so haphazard and almost random that I wouldnt feel safe assuming just because Assad got off the hook I would. Look at Ghadafi, uses absolutely no chemical weapons and the US is suddenly mauling through his army. Saddam suddenly get thrown out of control a decade after we passed on doing it. I dont know, frankly Id still be afraid to cross the line just in fear that I randomly was the dictator the foreign policy roulette wheel chose for smackdown.

US foreign policy isn't that haphazard. Just not as moral as some might think

 

[Rashiminos]

US foreign policy isn't that haphazard. Just not as moral as some might think

You say that as if you were making the connection.

 

[Lord Baal]

This whole 'But Assad has no reason' thing gives Assad a pretty good reason: people will blame it on the rebels because Assad 'has no reason'.

I'd only look at the actual evidence if I were you (leaving in the middle who did it).

I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong about that, and as Winner said in his original response to my post, it is starting to look like some of Assad's people may have gone rogue and used the weapons without his knowledge. I am deferring actual judgement of whether Assad used chemical weapons or not until I see the proof one way or the other, but for now am simply using my intuition to determine what scenario seems most likely. I'm also the guy who thought this war wouldn't last six months until Assad won, so what do I know?

Except the US does lose from not getting involved.

Sometimes in foreign affairs, it's about what screws you the least, rather than what doesn't screw you at all.

 

[Chiteng]

Except the US does lose from not getting involved.

\


Really? What exactly do they lose by doing nothing?

Please enlighten me. To be a loss, it has to be something that we would not lose anyway.

Both sides in Syria hate us. No matter what side we choose to help, the other will scream imperialism.

Helping people that wont even say 'thank you' is self-defeating.

Frankly I think we should help whatever side is losing, switching sides freely.
But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Harry Truman.

 

[FriendlyFire]

\
Frankly I think we should help whatever side is losing, switching sides freely.
But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Harry Truman.

I have a better Idea, we need to help which ever side is winning, switching sides freely. But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Italy during ww1 and ww2.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

\

Really? What exactly do they lose by doing nothing?

Please enlighten me. To be a loss, it has to be something that we would not lose anyway.

Would we lose credibility on our threats if we acted rather than not acted?

Both sides in Syria hate us. No matter what side we choose to help, the other will scream imperialism.

Helping people that wont even say 'thank you' is self-defeating.

So?

Frankly I think we should help whatever side is losing, switching sides freely.
But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Harry Truman.

Well the rebels are in trouble right now.

 

[Leoreth]

I have a better Idea, we need to help which ever side is winning, switching sides freely. But that is just me. I borrowed this idea from Italy during ww1 and ww2.

I admit, I had to laugh. Especially considering what Italy got out of this in the end.

 

[Winner]

BTW, I love how it's France who's propping up the US belligerent posture right now. Who would have thought in 2003...

(I guess the socialists of the world must pull together )

 

[Kyriakos]

^It's just the flying Hollande tune.

 

[REDY]

No, the West should not get involved militarily in the Syrian civil war.

I do not see any possibility how can be intervention positive for Syria, west or world itself.
If are French, Americans or Turks ready to occupy and annex country for themselves, it would be at least plan...

I like post from another forum from user called Levitate:

Spoiler :

That's the problem. It's like in South Park. You have a plan to bring peace and democracy to Syria:

1. Bomb Assad.
2. ?
3. Peaceful and democratic Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I voted no on military intervention.

However, if the West and Israel are so concerned about humanity, then send doctors, food and clothing for the refugees.

And stop supporting the armed opposition.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, i used to be sceptical, true, but there has been a new development today:

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-obama-blinks-syria-israel-saudis-common-cause-125250283.html

JERUSALEM/RIYADH (Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary - Iran.

Israel's response to Obama's surprise move to delay or even possibly cancel air strikes made clear that connection: looking soft on Assad after accusing him of killing hundreds of people with chemical weapons may embolden his backers in Tehran to develop nuclear arms, Israeli officials said. And if they do, Israel may strike Iran alone, unsure Washington can be trusted.

Guys, what are you thinking? Saudi has your back on this, forget the lame congress, you have the king's blessing...

Also Israel may just choose to kill Iranians itself, without asking for your help. Do you want to start a WW3 or something? If it's your first night in the middle east, you have to fight

 

[Gucumatz]

\


So?

I know you are against intervention, but it bears repeating this here. Are people that squeamish that they are afraid of a few people "hating" the US being nicely polished for the media to show? Even Chiteng in the gist of his post admits people hate us either way, meaning its completely irrelevant to whether we intervene or not.

Borachio and I discussed several other irrelevant fears people have about intervention [Well irrelevant respective to the result at least], but its these irrelevant fears that I am sure grip Congress and the public as a whole.
===========================

Either way when do you all think Congress will finish its decision?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I know you are against intervention

Woah man, don't get me wrong. I'm fall for launching numerous cruise missiles like yesterday.

Costs us little, keeps up our credibility, might convince Assad not to use chemical weapons.