NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Why isn't there a "the USA is the greatest power and it can invade anyone it damn pleases too" poll option.
Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?
- Thread starter Defiant47
- Start date
"The US shouldn't intervene in Syria because the USA is the greatest power and it can invade anyone it damn pleases"?
I'm having trouble following the logic here...
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Just realized the thread was Reason the US should NOT invade Syria. Also saw the joke option....my bad.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
If the US intervenes in Syria and manages to weaken the Assad regime (which is credible), but doesn't manage to totally eliminate Assad's chemical capability (also credible), doesn't the intervention make Assad's future use of chemical weapons more and not less likely?
Don't you see this logic is flawed?
Shooting a suspect of robbery on spot is illegal. But robbery is also illegal. Thus, legality becomes meaningless.
CYSQUATCH9
Chieftain
This is just bad all around. We all need to understand that this is just the beginning.
My ex-girlfriend is Hungarian. I was at a big Hungarian get together with her here in Arkansas in 2010-2011 when this all kicked off in Syria. A Hungarian woman there had a Syrian husband. Joseph. Really nice guy, he had his own business doing custom countertops; marble and what-not. I struck up a conversation about all of this, when the violence was just starting. He said he was getting really scared. His family told him that they were seeing nothing but foreigners coming into the country. He told me at the time it was a three way. Iranian sponsored actors and Hezbollah/Islamic fundamentalists/ and Israeli/Western sponsored forces.
I didnt know about the Israeli aspect so I asked him about it. He said that the main obstruction strategically, to Iran and Hezbollahs war on Israel, was Syria. He said alot of things that night, and I dont know what to believe, but I believed him when he said that he is scared for his country and that the majority of Syrians do not want war because Assad kept the peace between people in Syria.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Im a vet and I have seen some terrible stuff. But this is a CF. I am subscribing to the theory that this is the natural restructuring of this part of the world. That the western powers redrew the maps post WW1 and WW2, and that these balkanized areas are now restructuring. What is our role now? What happens if we support the rebels/terrorists and they get a hold of chemical weapons that Syria is known to have? There are so many what ifs and they are all bad.
We have entire institutions and universities dedicated to strategic policy and correct me if I am wrong, but, we havent been able to come up with a coherent strategy for Syria in 3 years. That shows how bad it really is. We learned the lessons of isolationism, can we possibly afford to make that mistake in this day and age? What role should Turkey play in this? I feel that if anyone should intervene militarily, it should be them.
Sorry for tl;dr
My ex-girlfriend is Hungarian. I was at a big Hungarian get together with her here in Arkansas in 2010-2011 when this all kicked off in Syria. A Hungarian woman there had a Syrian husband. Joseph. Really nice guy, he had his own business doing custom countertops; marble and what-not. I struck up a conversation about all of this, when the violence was just starting. He said he was getting really scared. His family told him that they were seeing nothing but foreigners coming into the country. He told me at the time it was a three way. Iranian sponsored actors and Hezbollah/Islamic fundamentalists/ and Israeli/Western sponsored forces.
I didnt know about the Israeli aspect so I asked him about it. He said that the main obstruction strategically, to Iran and Hezbollahs war on Israel, was Syria. He said alot of things that night, and I dont know what to believe, but I believed him when he said that he is scared for his country and that the majority of Syrians do not want war because Assad kept the peace between people in Syria.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Im a vet and I have seen some terrible stuff. But this is a CF. I am subscribing to the theory that this is the natural restructuring of this part of the world. That the western powers redrew the maps post WW1 and WW2, and that these balkanized areas are now restructuring. What is our role now? What happens if we support the rebels/terrorists and they get a hold of chemical weapons that Syria is known to have? There are so many what ifs and they are all bad.
We have entire institutions and universities dedicated to strategic policy and correct me if I am wrong, but, we havent been able to come up with a coherent strategy for Syria in 3 years. That shows how bad it really is. We learned the lessons of isolationism, can we possibly afford to make that mistake in this day and age? What role should Turkey play in this? I feel that if anyone should intervene militarily, it should be them.
Sorry for tl;dr
That scenario is indeed true if there is literally no other manner in which to stop the suspect. We have "asked nicely", but I doubt Asaad will hand himself over.
So we come at an impasse. And naturally, we have to choose the lesser evil.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The point of Iraq is: One cannot take out a dictator if insurgents are going to fill the void. Saddam Hussein was no longer able to use chemical agents on civilians. That was the least of the problems. There were 10 years of bloody fighting, that followed. I agree that refusing to do anything on political grounds is the wrong stance. I just don't think that US involvement is going to make things any better. We all ready got involved and it backfired once. I have this feeling that if we do anything, it may give Israel and Russia an excuse to become involved, just like insurgents did in Iraq. Unless The US or UN rounded up all foreigners and only let legitimate citizens back in, and allowed democratic elections without religious overtones, all there will be is just another bloody war zone, maybe minus chemicals weapons, but even that is not guaranteed.
I don't understand why people do not get that any deterrence fails if people are hell bent on using chemical weapons. If anything Iraq should have deterred any future use of chemical weapons, but their use in Syria blew that deterrence out of the water. It does not matter if one group uses them to throw the blame on another group. The best bet is to use up, destroy, and not make any more, but now that we have the means, and knowledge to manufacture them, it is kind of futile to hope they go away.
Once the deterrence fails, you move on to enforcement. Simply because criminals are not deterred by jail time, does not mean a state should stop imprisoning them.
Iraq would have deterred... if it wasn't well-known that the American people are "war-weary". So the deterrence fails. Asaad knows that Obama's gonna have a tough time because nobody wants another military engagement.
Exactly. So we need to have targeted airstrikes take out their chemical plants and known stockpiles. That the least we can do.
I see. So the US will engage in an illegal act to "take out chemical plants". And the justification behind this is that "legality is irrelevant". So basically, the US is going to do what it wants, simply because it wants to.
I'm wondering then why president Obama seems so concerned about Congress' approval, as well as approval by fellow Security Council member Russia.
It seems more accurate to conclude that the US failed in its diplomatic efforts - in part by its own stance - and now has no other alternative left save an act of war, because otherwise the US (read: president Obama) would lose face. Which, as we all know, is something which must be avoided at all costs - even legality.
Contrary to what you seems to think legality is a key concept here: without it there would be no ground for even the threat of intervention, since the use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty co-signed by Syria.
It is interesting, by the way, that the so-called proof of use of forbidden weaponry by the Assad regime is "secret" and cannot be make public. If any legality is out the window, it's the US's not Assad's. All the more so, since apparently 100,000 estimated deaths and 2 million refugees (which is only the count so far) have been no cause to intervene. (Perhaps you are confusing the terms legality and legitimacy?)
I'm wondering then why president Obama seems so concerned about Congress' approval, as well as approval by fellow Security Council member Russia.
It seems more accurate to conclude that the US failed in its diplomatic efforts - in part by its own stance - and now has no other alternative left save an act of war, because otherwise the US (read: president Obama) would lose face. Which, as we all know, is something which must be avoided at all costs - even legality.
Contrary to what you seems to think legality is a key concept here: without it there would be no ground for even the threat of intervention, since the use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty co-signed by Syria.
It is interesting, by the way, that the so-called proof of use of forbidden weaponry by the Assad regime is "secret" and cannot be make public. If any legality is out the window, it's the US's not Assad's. All the more so, since apparently 100,000 estimated deaths and 2 million refugees (which is only the count so far) have been no cause to intervene. (Perhaps you are confusing the terms legality and legitimacy?)
Then, legality means nothing only for you. US will attack anybody it wants to, not bothering about proofs of wrongdoings or legal approval of its actions. Nobody else except USA and France declared that they are about to violate international law.
You seem to be arguing with me as if I'm making a case for intervention.
You guys are jumping too far to conclusions. The US can't "do whatever it wants" simply because somebody did something illegal. The idea is that the US is not in the wrong for stopping an illegality with an illegality.
If Asaad gases Syria, US cannot invade anybody it wants just because it wants to. It has a moral obligation to stop Asaad specifically because of the gas. I'm not sure why the US would be allowed to invade anyone just because one specific dictator did something horrendous.
My point with illegality was - it's moot. Doesn't mean US can invade anyone. It means you no longer can point and say "see how illegal US intervention is?" because it's also illegal to use chemical weapons. You're either for illegality (US intervention), or for illegality (chemical weapons can be used). So don't use legality as an argument.
And to protect myself from future strawmen attacks, I want to make my position clear. Just because Asaad gassed his own citizens does NOT mean:
- That the US can invade random country as it pleases
- That the US can start gassing its own citizens
- That all countries in the world should drop babies from airplanes instead of bombs
- That babies should be randomly tossed in the garbage
If you try to argue against one of the above as if it's my stance, you'll be arguing against a strawman. Because Asaad gassed his own citizens, it DOES mean:
- The US is morally justified in a military intervention to stop him
Anything unclear?
The proof is not secret at all and has been provided to the world to see.
Yes, who is responsible for gas attack.
There are no proofs, accepted by international community. Until there were, any attack against Syria will be violation of international law and have nothing to do with legality or morality.
Asaad's regime.
Declassified intelligence report: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...eapons-assessment.html?smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0
Forgive me if I'm not surprised that Russia, with a vested strategic interest in Syria and close relationship with Asaad's government, "rejects" the proof.
We need to send a message that it is unacceptable to use chemical weapons.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
Forgive me if I reject the "proof" of my own government who lies lies lies.
I think Forma's Daily Show clip sums it up.
The message is: do as I say, not as I do.
Sent via mobile.
This 4-page document doesn't prove anything except U.S. intention to declare Syrian government responsible for the attack. Given U.S. geopolitical interests in the region and Syrian government's relations with Russia, China and Iran, such "proof" can be easily dismissed.
I can easily forgive you, but Russia has little to do with that. Regardless of Russian position, resolution against Syria wouldn't pass UNSC.
Syrian president's last name is Assad, btw.
Then send message to rebels, who used them.
And any document will likewise only prove that whoever authored the document wants whatever the document is advocating. So much for modern civilization.
It is in the US's best interests to find a way out of invading, due to external politics, internal politics, and resource requirements. The US's geopolitical interests are greater in Iran, and it would be a waste of time to fabricate lies to invade Syria to get to Iran... when they could instead just fabricate those lies about Iran directly.
...Because of Russia. Russia has a veto at the UNSC, and thus Russia has everything to do with whether the UN will approve a strike.
As soon as I see proof that the rebels used chemical weapons.
If you read it, you'll see that it doesn't contain any kind of proof at all. All it says is "we have intelligence data, but can't provide details, because it's classified". And knowing the precedents of US falsifying intelligence reports in the past, to justify invasion, the value of this documents becomes next to zero. Pretty much anyone can write similar document with proof that rebels used chemical weapons.
Just one example:
http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/
Would you accept this as a proof of rebels guilt? Perhaps not, because you are biased.
The US has very simple way out of invading, do not invade.
As for best interests, you may be simply not aware of all American interests in the Middle East.
Russia doesn't need to veto that resolution, China's veto will be enough. Though it wouldn't pass voting even without China or Russia's veto.
