Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

I was at the supermarket today eating lunch in the cafe they have there when I noticed the news. Apparently there was a second chemical attack (reportedly an hour ago) that happened in Syria. Over 1,400 people are dead from last week, and this week they seemed to have hit a middle school without warning or alarm.

This is just such a tragedy, it killed me when I saw this. I can't even put into words how I feel or what else to say. I do know a war seems to not be starting over this from what I've heard. I have mixed feelings about this. I don't want another war, but also, I heard the news talking about the other dictator countries: North Korea, Iran... That are going to be watching this, but without support, I don't see us jumping in is going to do to help our own country. Which is sad in itself.

My thoughts and prayers go to the families and their victims.

 

I feel bad for the victims. I've heard a lot in my country, but this...... Ugh. I just hope that this won't be the next Iraq. Hope they will have peace someday!

 

I agree with you on how you feel, Roxam...

And yes, I will go into a rant, I apologize, but I am angry about the situation also.

The main worry about me and the U.S. is that we went into a war in Iraq we shouldn't have gone into. Yes, I say it right now, I hate the war in Iraq and I think it was stupid. Especially since the main reason we went in is bullfingshit. I know people disagree, but there was NO REASON to go into that war. That country has destroyed us like it did Vietnam. If you look at a comparison, it's the same exact thing, people protesting, people arguing for the war, years and years and years of fighting, TEN FING YEARS of fighting with nothing accomplished and yes, we got Suddam, but how much have we screwed up that country? How many civilians have we killed? How many people have we brutally tortured? Vietnam was the same thing. How did that end? Nixon yanked the troops out of there in a VERY short time span and people were brutally murdered because of it. Look at a picture of the troops departing from Vietnam and it'll make you sick to your stomach, I bet you anything. I saw a movie of it once when I was in high school.

The reason I'm against war is because right now, our troops are exhausted, there's few people signing up because they watch the news and they don't want to be shipped overseas and have their legs blown off. They don't want to suffer through all the **** our troops are going through EVERY DAY over there. They don't want to end up killing civilians in cold blood. The lack of troops didn't start yesterday, it started years ago and it's still a big problem. There's troops that were fighting over there that were sixty years old and with heart problems. There were kids over there that have been there for three years and most likely longer without setting foot in the U.S.

We can't officially start another war, we don't have the resources or the support to do so. The British were PISSED about what happened in Iraq. They're refusing to help us one bit, France is reluctant, I don't blame them. I know I don't go into politics, I hate talking politics and I know people will go out and kill me for saying this: But Bush ****ed up. He ****ed up big time with the Iraq war. After 9/11 he got it through his head that people would help him invade Iraq and our allies got mad at him for being so arrogant about it. This is one of the reasons why our ally countries hate us now is because of Iraq and Bush's fumbling with how he treated international relations.

Yes, we fought in wars this big before, but if you look at our allies, OFFICIALLY our allies during that time. World War II, we had Russia, Britain, China, and hundreds of other countries. One of the biggest wars in the 19th century, covering two to three different places in the world, we managed because we had millions of troops helping us from all over the world, we could spread ourselves that far because we had the resources to do so without worries. We also had the support of the civilians of the U.S. behind us. We don't have that anymore, we don't have the resources that we had during that war and the support of that war.

If we did, yes, I would be the first person to say: "Lets go fight. Lets go save those people." Because I know it's the right thing to do, I still want to do it. But at the same time, I find myself worrying about what would happen if we do. What would happen to the U.S., what would happen to the world. And it breaks my heart saying it.

 

We did notice long before that, but you paint it as a black and white thing. I wish it was, I really do.

Say we do wipe the floor with Al Assad, what then ? Who takes control ? The rebels ? That' s just a rather vague umbrella term to design everyone who' s against him, a ragtag group of diverse interests, some of those being real shady. That' s what' s really depressing about the Middle East, fighting there feels like fighting a ****ing hydra : cut one head and two more heads sprout, allow a country to have a democratic election and they might end up with a theocracy.

Besides, the colonial era has left quite a shameful stain in French history books, being Lebanese you should know a little something about that. It' s the whole "teach a man how to fish, don' t feed him" dilemma, where do you draw the line between helping and assisting ? When we send weapons rather than troops more often than not they' re turned against innocents a while later. When we send troops it means guaranteed casualties, in exchange for a rather unpredictable result.

Finally, although some emotional appeal (like "those bastards have used chemical weapons on civilians") remains to this day the most efficient tool to get civilians to call for a military intervention, we also want conclusive evidence that those claims are true, but so far what few evidence I' ve seen of that smells like a hoax (I could source that if you want me to).

So ... there, I understand your frustration but I hope now you understand why we' re so reluctant to act impulsively.

Oh and one last thing, the geopolitical nuances of the Middle East are a head scratcher for the public at large here, including me, that' s why it' s really hard for me to formulate an educated opinion on what we should do : I' m uninformed, possibly misinformed, and that' s the only thing I' m sure of in that picture.

Since you' re an insider, I' d be really glad to hear you explain what the different factions and interests involved are, because when I see something like this I just go "huh ?".

Edit : speaking of "who should I trust", I just stumbled upon this : http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

 

I dunno, there are no guarantees intervention would help anyone, uprisings are not pleasant.
Foreign involvement just means bigger engagements, more chance of civilian casualties in cross fire, bad intel, more chance for war crimes and deeper resentment, not to mention the rebel forces have no proper unity to support a post war government.

The best way for the rebels to gain support would to be get a good structure that makes foreign governments feel that their intervention will be both successful and profitable. Right now, supporting Syrian rebels would likely mean failure at a high cost, with bad diplomatic relations and possible international retaliation. It's a tough spot to be in, knowing that if we throw our lot in to help, we probably won't win and will have a lot of dead people to show for that failure.

If the rebels can become a more organised and cohesive force, i'd be more willing to say intervene. Until then, i'm undecided. Either way, terrible, bloody, painful. Horror, as usual.

 

I wouldn't mind if U.S. took that role (that aparently already uses like it is theirs) of "World police", and spread the American imperialism, If they had done it like UK. You see things LOOK better now, but they aren't When the British were spreading their imperialism all over the world, all their polices would be towards "to good of all", so they could make polices that would hurt UK economy to warm up the world's economy and other things like that..

U.S. Doesn't make concessions, they didn't go with Kyoto's Protocol (and neither at Brazil +20). And to my knowledge the only treaty that they follow to is the Genebra's one... and that is only valid on "U.S. soil" so they will bend it to their will whenever a new war approaches. So , no they should not police the world as they can't be trusted with that power, and they have misused it!

I think any intervention should come from united nations , if not it will be just like Afghanistan all over again, give some rebels arms and hope they don't turn in everyone else after.

 

I disagree after I saw how India was treated, they're just NOW slowly changing their policies after British rule after a hundred years or so of freedom.

Granted, the U.S. hasn't been good, either, Afghanistan/Iraq coming to mind recently. I remember reading about the "The Mantle of Responsibility", wiki it under Halo, you'll understand what I mean. It's a fascinating read, though it's a galaxy wide scale, it's about whose responsibility it is to protect all the different species and races of the galaxy in simple terms. It talks about what happens if you protect planets and/or countries under this term. The reason why the U.S. and Britain grew like it did was because they mostly faced their own threats alone without protection of others. This has been going on since the beginning of at least the Revolution, granted, the French and Russians joined later in the war, but it took our fighting and tactics to get them to join. The best ideas comes from under pressure,

Take World War II, I mentioned before about Truman being a cowboy wanting to "stick it to the Russians" in a different thread. But another reason for this is because Japan was a huge threat to the U.S. soldiers. They didn't believe in surrendering, or depending on the story you hear, they believed the U.S. would brutalize their soldiers and villages. There was worry that it would kill millions of soldiers, and/or a lot of the population of Japan. Not including the fact that Russia would help in the invasion, despite them being allies, there was worry about the "Red threat" even then.

So they developed the atomic bomb, did it work? Yes, was it the best way to solve the problem? In hindsight, maybe... But also it brought on the biggest changes to the U.S. It JUMPED us far ahead and from there, in 60-70 years, how far have we come from the bomb dropping and the Cold War right afterwards? But look at the opposite, with Africa, tons of influence from around the world there and see what has happened to that continent?

It's a huge balancing act, does it mean we should interfere with Syria? Maybe, maybe not. Granted, the power of the press can do powerful images in your mind. If it wasn't for the press, Nixon wouldn't have been voted in because he promised to end a war people were rioting over because of what they were watching every day in their homes. If it wasn't for the press, there would be African Americans still in different schools and restaurants most likely. If it wasn't for the press, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

The reason why people react is because of what they see, if someone sees a kid throwing a stone at a bird, they would react. If they see the birds playing in a water fountain and a kid watching, they'd have most likely a different reaction. Some subjects, different reaction, the press plays unto that and finds our best reaction. Congress most likely wouldn't be reacting as much if the press didn't play such a huge role in what happened in Syria, along with the public's reaction, look at the U.K. and their reaction to the Prime Minister offering help, is it good that we know what's going on and we're trying to find a way to help them and/or refuse to?

I don't know, it depends on your point of view.

 

I Believe as a UK citizen we should step in and take action, i understand the reasons not to but its not just plain black and white.

unfortunately our government needs war, otherwise most of our exports would be worthless and the rate this country is going with everyone demanding cuts to our defenses we will end up welcoming attacks with open arms....or no arms as the case will be. people demanding that Trident should be shut down and the money spent on schools. thats all well and good but when you have nothing to defend the schools WHEN somebody attacks then people will be like 'ohhhh we need defenses where have they all gone!?'





but F**K that Russia will kick our asses if we go to war :(