Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[Defiant47]

There is no option "but they should!" - why?

Please read the poll carefully - you're meant to identify deal-breakers that would make you oppose the intervention. If none of the options are applicable to you, then you are supportive of intervention, even if we end up killing way more people, even if our invasion is based on lies, even if we lose countless American lives and resources, and so on... I sincerely doubt this is true for anyone.

But if you are looking for a joke option, there is the "none of the above" at the bottom.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I don't think that it has anything to do with American's caring or not caring. When it comes to taking out dictators, we were told over and over again by the same group of people who are for it now, how evil it was the last time we went to war over WMD's.

Thread winning comment.


Not a single other country is contemplating doing anything about this except America.

If we did do something about it, we would face nothing but endless scorn.

Over 10% of the population of Syria has already fled the country.
1/3rd of the country has been displaced (homeless?)
It is a serious serious civil war and we should stay out of it since there is no oil involved.

Who's to say this intervention that everyone agrees will change little won't ruin future attempts like Iraq supposedly did?

 

[Domen]

I already voted the joke option.

But, Max Kolonko says - option 1 (in fact, the rebels used chemical weapons):


Link to video.

If Max Kolonko says this, then this is (probably) true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Kolonko

Max Kolonko - Polish window on America. Go, Max!

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't think that it has anything to do with American's caring or not caring.

The American public's willingness to support military action shouldn't be a consideration when deciding whether or not their representatives should pursue it?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Here is a nice video of you are against strikes against Syria.


Link to video.

 

[timtofly]

The American public's willingness to support military action shouldn't be a consideration when deciding whether or not their representatives should pursue it?

When it comes to Washington, if they think that it is for the greater good, then they do overlook the majority opinion. Bush made it through a second election despite the Iraq war. The guy he narrowly beat, is now calling for a similar engagement against WMD's, even though in 2004 he spoke out against the Iraq war.

In a two party system, there is not much grass roots sway. That is what politics does; it convinces people that those in authority know what they are doing and the voters should get behind it. It is rarely that the voters get to make any decisions on their own. They sign petitions and then get the state to agree. If the state agrees, then they may sway other states. That does not really work when you have to make war time decisions. You either get blamed if a decision goes bad, or praised if it turns out ok.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

We really just have two wings of the same party.

Both of them are wholly owned subsidiaries of internationsl monopoly capital.

So, basically, we the people have no say.

Sent via mobile.

 

[cegman]

By not following through on Obama's red line comment, the US loses legitimacy in the international theatre. As such, more countries, including those hostile to the US, will be more bold in asserting their demands.

As a result, the US may have to make greater concessions to nations around the world, thereby weakening its national security interests. Alternatively, to regain its previous level of legitimacy, the US would have to enact a variety of operations and denials of the aforementioned encroachments, all of which could be significant expenditures of its resources.

As such, it seems likely that, to preserve US's national security interests, it is the "cheapest/least expensive" to proceed with a symbolic intervention in Syria.

Sorry I know you moved on from this but I just wanted to point out a couple of things. Obama has already lost a lot of legitimacy around the world from what I can tell. He is now going to Congress to try and save what little face he can hoping they vote him down.

Also how would a short term bombing campaign improve his position?

One last question. Will the Syrian people be better off under the Murdering "reformer" Assad or the Rebels who have done some pretty bad things themselves and appear to be linked or led by Al Queda?

 

[Defiant47]

Sorry I know you moved on from this but I just wanted to point out a couple of things. Obama has already lost a lot of legitimacy around the world from what I can tell. He is now going to Congress to try and save what little face he can hoping they vote him down.

Also how would a short term bombing campaign improve his position?

Please note my reply was in response to that specific poster. Personally, I do not find political posturing to be justification in itself for starting a war.

But a bombing campaign would prove that Obama does indeed follow through on his promises. So when he tells Iran "you better not build nuclear weapons" and when he tells the world "you better not gas your own citizens", it is known as a valid threat. Failing to follow through on a bombing campaign would show that he was making empty threats instead.

One last question. Will the Syrian people be better off under the Murdering "reformer" Assad or the Rebels who have done some pretty bad things themselves and appear to be linked or led by Al Queda?

That is the million-dollar question.

Personally, I fall back to the incomplete/imprecise idea of "we already know Asaad is murdering off people, and with terrible methods too; we don't know for sure the rebels would be as bad". After all, if we do depose Asaad, and it turns out the rebels are just as bad - it's all good*. We failed to make the situation better, but didn't make the situation worse.

* - Not really, but I wanted to phrase it this way to deliver the point I was making.

 

[Lord Baal]

Since the poll question asks which of the options provided would be enough, on its own, to preclude intervention, I voted for everything but the joke-option. All of those scenarios would be perfectly good reasons not to intervene in Syria.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

And now we have Kerry lying to Congress that there is no Al Qaeda in Syria.

Oy...

Sent via mobile.

 

[Glassmage]

Where are all the peace loving liberals???

 

[Lord Baal]

Where are all the peace loving liberals???

The UK.

 

[Winston Hughes]

When it comes to Washington, if they think that it is for the greater good, then they do overlook the majority opinion. Bush made it through a second election despite the Iraq war. The guy he narrowly beat, is now calling for a similar engagement against WMD's, even though in 2004 he spoke out against the Iraq war.

In a two party system, there is not much grass roots sway. That is what politics does; it convinces people that those in authority know what they are doing and the voters should get behind it. It is rarely that the voters get to make any decisions on their own. They sign petitions and then get the state to agree. If the state agrees, then they may sway other states. That does not really work when you have to make war time decisions. You either get blamed if a decision goes bad, or praised if it turns out ok.

The point is that, after Iraq, people are far less willing to believe that those in authority are competent and/or honest about their motives. What outcome could justify military action to an American people who really don't care about the plight of Syrians, and who see the whole situation as another dangerous foreign entanglement with no possible benefit to their own interests? And what could we say about the democratic credentials of a President who went ahead and intervened anyway, knowing full well that no such justification is ever likely to emerge, purely to satisfy his own moral vision of how American power ought to be used?

 

[Agent327]

Personally, I fall back to the incomplete/imprecise idea of "we already know Asaad is murdering off people, and with terrible methods too; we don't know for sure the rebels would be as bad". After all, if we do depose Asaad, and it turns out the rebels are just as bad - it's all good*. We failed to make the situation better, but didn't make the situation worse.

That's a guaranteed result of non-intervention. Which basically leaves the question as: Why intervene in the first place?

Secondly, installing a no-fly zone or initiating a bombing/missile attack will at best hamper Assad's offensive, effectively only making the civil war drag on. I am wondering how such an "intervention" will have any positive effect at all.

Thirdly, Obama's "legitimacy" is not an issue here; Obama losing or saving face is. Is that worth a military intervention though, with unpredictable results?

(And there actually is oil at stake here; check your Middle East maps.)

 

[Defiant47]

That's a guaranteed result of non-intervention. Which basically leaves the question as: Why intervene in the first place?

To make the situation better.

Secondly, installing a no-fly zone or initiating a bombing/missile attack will at best hamper Assad's offensive, effectively only making the civil war drag on. I am wondering how such an "intervention" will have any positive effect at all.

It will deter Asaad and any other dictators from using chemical weapons.

Thirdly, Obama's "legitimacy" is not an issue here; Obama losing or saving face is. Is that worth a military intervention though, with unpredictable results?

Legitimacy is synonymous with "saving face". Obama saving face, on its own, is not worth a military intervention.

 

[Agent327]

To make the situation better.

How is bombing/sending in missiles going to achieve that? In all likelihood it will only complicate an already confusing situation. Apart from intervention I know of no plan to "make the situation better"; it doesn't even seem relevant to the decision to intervene.

It will deter Asaad and any other dictators from using chemical weapons.

Again: How? Wasn't Iraq invaded on the same pretext? Has that prevented the use of chemical weapons by Assad? Has the threat of intervention prevented Assad from doing anything he has done so far?

Legitimacy is synonymous with "saving face".

That's not really the meaning of legitimacy, now is it. Ban Ki Moon has warned that an attack (euphemistically called "intervention") would be illegal. There are no legal grounds for invading/attacking a country after alleged use of chemical weapons. In addition there is neither a UN nor a Security Council mandate for any military action.

 

[Defiant47]

How is bombing/sending in missiles going to achieve that? In all likelihood it will only complicate an already confusing situation. Apart from intervention I know of no plan to "make the situation better"; it doesn't even seem relevant to the decision to intervene.

By removing Asaad's capacity to procure and use chemical weapons, and by eliminating his ability to bomb rebel locations. Thereby decrease the number of lives lost.

Again: How? Wasn't Iraq invaded on the same pretext? Has that prevented the use of chemical weapons by Assad? Has the threat of intervention prevented Assad from doing anything he has done so far?

Iraq was indeed invaded on the same pretext, and it would have been all good and effective... if it wasn't lies. Besides, the situation is not comparable to Iraq, and it frustrates me that so many people point to that. The situation is comparable to Libya. No ground invasion option seems to be on the table.

The threat of intervention has apparently not deterred him, so now we need to use force. Hopefully threats combined with actually following up on those threats when necessary, will deter all other dictators from using chemical weapons on their own people.

That's not really the meaning of legitimacy, now is it. Ban Ki Moon has warned that an attack (euphemistically called "intervention") would be illegal. There are no legal grounds for invading/attacking a country after alleged use of chemical weapons. In addition there is neither a UN nor a Security Council mandate for any military action.

An attack to stop the use of chemical weapons is illegal. The use of chemical weapons is also illegal (but the UN is not about to do anything about it). So not matter what, there is illegality. Thus, legality becomes meaningless.

Now, I do concede that in reality, it is indeed illegal to invade without UN approval. But I'd rather sidestep the "legality" issue and approach it from a moral perspective. Whether or not it's illegal... is it right?

 

[red_elk]

An attack to stop the use of chemical weapons is illegal. The use of chemical weapons is also illegal (but the UN is not about to do anything about it). So not matter what, there is illegality. Thus, legality becomes meaningless.

An attack against the one who wasn't perpetrator is meaningless and wouldn't prevent future use. It's as sensible as bombing, say, Belgium for that.

 

[Defiant47]

An attack against the one who wasn't perpetrator is meaningless and wouldn't prevent future use. It's as sensible as bombing, say, Belgium for that.

I agree.