Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
If it did, then perhaps those external powers should intercede for the Syrian government and not the rebel factions.
Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria
- Thread starter Defiant47
- Start date
I don't care how conclusive the intel is, I still don't want us getting involved in their civil war. Now if they use those chemical weapons against another nation, thus expanding the conflict beyond their borders, then I would be all for international military intervention.
Why is the concept of "It's their war, let them sort it out" considered so wrong? I still have yet to see anything on this matter that convinces me this is our problem to deal with.
CavLancer
This aint fertilizer
Because.
(This reply works for my daughter, I'm trying it out first time.)
(This reply works for my daughter, I'm trying it out first time.)
It didn't work and it won't work on your daughter much longer either, lol.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That ranks right up there with "don't do as I do, do as I say".
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Spoiler :
So draws Mr. Fish.
Wait. Is it your understanding that the Syrian rebel factions are NOT armed?
Edit: Nevermind. The hostilities sponsored by the rebels and their backers are not "real" enough for you.
They weren't armed with the 'crackdown' first began, and in the first of many crackdowns, Syrian troops began defecting which then resulted in a series of escalations that led to a full fledged civil war.
Or is your assertion that someone just turned on a switch one day and there was a civil war already.
Either way, you're failure at sarcasm still doesn't answer why Russia should be arming one side and more importantly why you're so vociferously anti American while giving the other side a free pass.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Nope.
Syria had contracts with Russia for military purchases prior to this recent round of events. I'm guessing that Russia has yet to see the merit (either because it doesn't see the rebels as being a fit replacement for the current government, or it has other interests to attend to) in voiding those contracts in response to the civil war. I'm opposed to US government intervention because I suspect their opposition is rooted in installing friendly regimes for its Middle East campaigns as a whole (and locking out powers where they may that are not aligned well enough with the US prerogative). The claims to "democracy" and "enlightened" governance (humane, civil rights, etc) don't bear out in the context of previous experiments in the region and farther abroad (ie Saudi Arabia, Israel).
That is certainly true, just as Russia "has yet to see the merit ...doesn't see the rebels as being a fit replacement for the current government" because the Rebels blame the Russians for backing Assad and would not be friendly.
Or put differently, the Russians view Assad as a friendly regime and would never have acceded to replacing him short of Assad creating an untenable geopolitical situation, such as directly attacking NATO.
At least we got you to state this out in the open. I was getting rather tired of your posts calling everyone but the Russians names.
I think you might be arguing against an imaginary strawman here. I certainly have not made this assertion, and even if I have, it makes no difference as in your view, the Americans are just out to put a 'friendly' in power and you rather have the Russian one, even if it means 100,000 dead.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Which posts would those be? I think you have me confused with another poster.
That was not directed at you in particular and I'm not claiming you made such an assertion. We can complain about Russia more loudly when Russia becomes a more significant antagonist again. Right now Russia is behind Iran in that regard.
Because innocents are dying. And now innocents are dying in horrible agonizing ways.
Don't play those kinds of games, it's not hard to look at every post you've made in the past 2 pages and see a jab against US intervention.
I was merely fishing out whether it was out of a position of principle (anti-war) or cold bias. And you've kindly clarified it was the latter. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you're not claiming such an assertion, why bring it up? oh right because you can't shut up about how much you hate the United States and it's just another mindless cut and paste jab you've put in irregardless of the post you're responding to.
Your best line still is the one equating Assad to 'legitimate' ruler.
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
And our dropping bombs and sending in cruise missles will no doubt kill more innocents.
If we really cared about innocents, our foreign policy would be completely different.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
I was not aware that US counted for everyone.
Seems like a false dichotomy to me. At the very least you're selectively reading my posts in this thread. There might also be some addition, subtraction, and substitution going on.
Basing an intervention in a civil war on the methods employed by a particular side seems to imply a belief that a "civilized" nation would not commit such atrocities, would you agree? Also, people describing Assad as a ruthless dictator or the government of Syria as illegitimate, and who also support open US intervention in Syria, also support exportation of "American-style democracy" into Syria, because that's the government the US would openly install.
Edit: In other words, it's an assertion being used by some of the posters in this thread.
How about this? When you, and you specifically, refer to my attitude regarding the US government, please explicitly mention the US government. Second, I can condemn a variety of actions taken and planned by the US government without condemning the entirety of the government or America as a whole.
Do you agree that legitimate is relative? If so, do you assert that a replacement government sponsored by a US-led "coalition" would be somehow more legitimate than Assad?
Are there any good options here?
galdre
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,859
Unified diplomatic pressure, and the cessation of all arms sales to the country.
Military action should always be a last resort and only if there is international consensus that it is necessary.
Yes which is why I have no issue with sending weapons to the rebels. I have no problem whatsoever with providing the Syrian people the means to gain their freedom; but it must be the Syrians themselves that gain that freedom.
There is absolutely no reason to send our soldiers to fight a war they do not understand or have any stake in. By that, I mean only the Syrian people truly understand why they had to rebel against Assad which is why they are fighting his regime so fervently. On the other hand, our soldiers don't understand Syrian society and culture; they don't have a true understanding of the crimes Assad committed that pushed his people to rebellion. So how hard do you think our soldiers are going to fight in a war they have no understanding of and does not threaten their homeland or loved ones in any way, shape, or form?
The reason I argue so much against our intervention in Syria is not because I do not care about their plight. It's just that I have seen combat and I have seen the horrific secondary effects of war on both our soldiers and the civilians who's country we occupied. After that, I can tell you that just about anybody who has personally experienced any kind of warfare never wants to do it again unless it is absolutely necessary; when it is the absolute last resort. And in the case of Syria, I don't think we've reached that threshold yet. There is still much that can be done to assist the rebels without actually committing troops to the conflict.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
If we really cared about innocents our domestic policy would be completely different. We just pick and choose our "morals" to please ourselves.
If the US goes to war or kills even one individual in an action, the democrats will have to take back everything they said ill of Bush.
Our bombs and missiles are aimed towards the perpetrators, not the innocents. There's a huge difference.
There are limits to what we can do.
The problem is that the rebels are extremists, include Al-Qaeda, and would no doubt genocide unwanted religious groups once they take control. Arming the rebels is not an option.
A soldier's duty is to the country and to the mission. The soldiers need not understand the war. That is the task of leaders and generals.
The soldiers need merely to be willing to give up their lives and psyches for the greater good. That is why military service is to be honoured.
We differ here.
If the assumption is that "we haven't reached that threshold yet", I completely agree with you. If the assumption is that "it is absolutely necessary", I completely disagree with your non-interventionist stance.
The main issue is whether there are other avenues. We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to be tolerated. But neither can we dive into something that we aren't sure about.
Please note that I completely respect your wartime experiences. My belligerence against non-interventionists is towards those who write off war as "bad" without a further thought. A cultural farce.
No, we need to understand that war is terrible. We need to understand that it is to be avoided at all costs. But we must also understand that sometimes it is necessary.
Are we at this point now? This is what I've been straining my mind with. I don't have access to the same intel that the highest security clearance of the U.S. does. Should I trust the U.S. to make the right choice in the end? They fumbled the operation in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that they will do so in the future. So I honestly don't know.
