Syria's Situation Dips Lower

[Tycho]

As of late, the flashpoint city of Homs in Syria has all but fallen to the Syrian military, which orchestrated a large scale bombardment operation of the city that claimed the lives of more civilians than Free Syrian Army soldiers during the operation, and included large massacres of civilians both inside and outside of the city, along with the fact that at this point, around twenty thousand people all around Syria have "disappeared" and have not been seen. Bashir Al-Asad, president of Syria, refuses to step down despite calls from the Arab nations around him to do so. The rebel stronghold in the north of Syria, Idlib, has also fallen in recent days as the rebels are retreating from the Syrian Army on all fronts and trying to regroup.

The death toll from the United Nations report stands at around 8,500.

Syrian human rights groups claim that the number is at least 10,000 by this point.

Violence in Syria began one year ago exactly, at the start of this week, and since that time, large amounts of civilians that have protested against the government have been shot, killed, arrested, detained, and executed, as well as the Free Syrian Army.

What are your thoughts on the situation thus far as it is in Syria? Should the United Nations, NATO, and/or the United States military get involved at this point?

 

[Winner]

What are your thoughts on the situation thus far as it is in Syria? Should the United Nations, NATO, and/or the United States military get involved at this point?

No, let them sort things out on their own. Hopefully the rebels will lose.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Should the United Nations, NATO, and/or the United States military get involved at this point?

No thanks, the intervention will just result in more large-scale bombardment of cities - that time, by the interventionists. That's the nature of civil wars and interventions. An intervention is only acceptable when the ruling government is so unpopular, it has almost no support at all - but in this case, it becomes unnecessary.

 

[Tycho]

No, let them sort things out on their own. Hopefully the rebels will lose.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want the rebels to lose? When the Syrian Army has suffered about a thousand casualties with police officers and military combined, and nearly eight thousand civilians are confirmed dead, why do you want the dictatorship to remain in power?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

If the US gets involved, it will worsen the situation for everyone involved. America is after Syria right now in order to get at Iran, and as an ancillary goal to help out Israel. There is a 0% chance of a liberal, secular government forming out of Assad's departure, and it's his government that's keeping the peace between the various minority groups in Syria that really really hate each other. You get rid of that mediation factor, no matter how much of a bastard he is, and you get another Afghanistan situation that Americans have to "solve." So the Americans don't get what they want, and the Syrian people don't get what they really want, apart from to go at each others' throats.

So this American pressure on Syria isn't some sort of noble defense of democracy, it's a geopolitical domino they're trying to knock down in order to get at their bigger foe.

If the Syrian people can band together enough to get rid of the Assad government, then maybe they can actually cooperate enough to form a new government themselves and not oppress each other. But before that I wouldn't even consider the idea.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want the rebels to lose?

Personally, I don't really mind who wins as long as there are be no interventions. A humanitarian bombing is something that requires a really, really good justification. So far, I'm not seeing it. Looks like another Libya to me.

 

[Tycho]

There was an eventual intervention in Libya though.

 

[Lone Wolf]

There was an eventual intervention in Libya though.

That's what I mean! I don't want another intervention like the Libyan one.

 

[Defiant47]

1. It would be wrong to intervene, since it is not our place to dictate whether innocents should be slaughtered or not. If a tyrannical dictator decides to bombard thousands of innocents, who are we to say that's wrong? We can't impose our own code of morality on others.

2. Intervention would have too much collateral damage. Even though we have honed our tactics and would probably hit mainly military targets, it would be unacceptable to kill even one civilian. Fewer civilians would die overall, but we would be directly involved in their deaths - it is better to have no responsibility involved, even if magnitudes more die.

3. A military intervention campaign would cost too much. Syrians and members of other races are not worth our money or intervention. So who cares if some population on the other side of the world is brutalized and exterminated? We have to take care of our own, and no-one else. Better that each household gets a wide-screen TV, rather than that money be used to save thousands and thousands of non-American innocent lives.

4. Stability is more important than anything. It doesn't matter if a dictator is a murderer or a genocidal maniac. By sheer virtue of him being in power, the local geopolitical situation is somewhat more stable. That is worth countless innocent lives, and we should not remove that kind of stability.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Assad's not a genocidal maniac though. He's a repressive dictator.

 

[Defiant47]

Assad's not a genocidal maniac though. He's a repressive dictator.

My comments apply in the general sense.

 

[plarq]

Assad's not a genocidal maniac though. He's a repressive dictator.

Another Gaddafi, or yeah.

 

[jtb1127]

1. It would be wrong to intervene, since it is not our place to dictate whether innocents should be slaughtered or not. If a tyrannical dictator decides to bombard thousands of innocents, who are we to say that's wrong? We can't impose our own code of morality on others.

2. Intervention would have too much collateral damage. Even though we have honed our tactics and would probably hit mainly military targets, it would be unacceptable to kill even one civilian. Fewer civilians would die overall, but we would be directly involved in their deaths - it is better to have no responsibility involved, even if magnitudes more die.

3. A military intervention campaign would cost too much. Syrians and members of other races are not worth our money or intervention. So who cares if some population on the other side of the world is brutalized and exterminated? We have to take care of our own, and no-one else. Better that each household gets a wide-screen TV, rather than that money be used to save thousands and thousands of non-American innocent lives.

4. Stability is more important than anything. It doesn't matter if a dictator is a murderer or a genocidal maniac. By sheer virtue of him being in power, the local geopolitical situation is somewhat more stable. That is worth countless innocent lives, and we should not remove that kind of stability.

It's hard to register sarcasm online. Are you joking?

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's hard to register sarcasm online. Are you joking?

The whole post was obviously sarcastic.

Even though we have honed our tactics and would probably hit mainly military targets, it would be unacceptable to kill even one civilian. Fewer civilians would die overall, but we would be directly involved in their deaths - it is better to have no responsibility involved, even if magnitudes more die.

Fine, but if the intervention happens, and we have an interventionist/rebel equivalent to the siege of Homs, don't say I didn't warn you. Libya certainly had its share of besieged cities and rebel crimes.

 

[jtb1127]

The whole post was obviously sarcastic.

Just making sure.

 

[luiz]

I'm against intervening in Syria, as I was in Lybia. But what I don't get are the mental gymnastics used by some governments to justify toppling Kadaffi and doing nothinh about Assad. How was Kadaffi any worse? If anything, Assad is behaving in the most brutal fashion of all recently challenged dictators during the Arab Spring.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Intervene, stop Assad, split up the country into smaller states.

If the country needs a repressive dictator in order to stay united, then it obviously isn't stable enough to be united.

 

[Winner]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you want the rebels to lose? When the Syrian Army has suffered about a thousand casualties with police officers and military combined, and nearly eight thousand civilians are confirmed dead, why do you want the dictatorship to remain in power?

Because I prefer a reasonable dictatorship led by a western-educated guy over a) failed state; or b) theocratic Sunni-dominated dictatorship.

I'm against intervening in Syria, as I was in Lybia. But what I don't get are the mental gymnastics used by some governments to justify toppling Kadaffi and doing nothinh about Assad. How was Kadaffi any worse? If anything, Assad is behaving in the most brutal fashion of all recently challenged dictators during the Arab Spring.

Gaddafi had oil that Europe wanted.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm against intervening in Syria, as I was in Lybia. But what I don't get are the mental gymnastics used by some governments to justify toppling Kadaffi and doing nothinh about Assad. How was Kadaffi any worse? If anything, Assad is behaving in the most brutal fashion of all recently challenged dictators during the Arab Spring.

EDIT: Crosspost!

 

[trader/warrior]

I'm against intervening in Syria, as I was in Lybia. But what I don't get are the mental gymnastics used by some governments to justify toppling Kadaffi and doing nothinh about Assad. How was Kadaffi any worse? If anything, Assad is behaving in the most brutal fashion of all recently challenged dictators during the Arab Spring.

Russia and China veto the UN resolutions so the question of intervening the same way as Libya can't be properly brought up yet. I haven't seen any western leaders argue against intervention. But same as Libya they will not do it without a UN mandate and support from the Arab League. Don't know if there would be any country willing to lead the same way France and the UK did in Libya, though.

To be honest I can never decide what I think about either Libya or Syria. All options can backfire horrendously and have awful consequences.