Intervene in Syria?

[PublicImage]

No. The Peace of Westphalia was a good thing, and the "rebels" in Syria are disgusting thugs. NATO's hit and run intervention in Libya did not turn that country into a stable "democracy"; it merely prolonged a civil war and shifted power from Gaddafi into the hands of armed mercenaries. As a result, oil-rich Libya now finds itself having to import oil to generate power, and there are still frequent conflicts between the remaining Gaddafi loyalists and the "rebel" groups, many of which are no longer allies now that their common enemy has been taken out. These coalitions always break up and start killing each other when a power vacuum is created: it happened in Iran, the Soviet Union, Libya, Nazi Germany and the English Civil War, and it will happen in Syria if Assad is taken down.

Also, Assad has more internal and external support than Gaddafi. He has a better army and loyal allies in Russia, Lebanon and Iran (and Iraq, via Iran). The idea that intervention could bring this to a swift conclusion is completely wrong.

As for chemical weapons, I don't see what makes mass-murder with chemical weapons any more objectionable than the mass-shootings of unarmed protesters in Cairo by the military dictatorship. The Muslim Brotherhood is repugnant, but Morsi was an elected president. Where are the calls for intervention in Egypt to take down the military junta? Some of the most enthusiastic proponents of intervention in Syria have actually come out in support of the military coup in Egypt, including the "peacekeeper" Tony Blair and John Kerry. Their outrage over Syria is selective, which suggests an ulterior motive.

[nosaj]

The Muslim Brotherhood is repugnant, but Morsi was an elected president. Where are the calls for intervention in Egypt to take down the military junta?

This is a very interesting point. It was a coup d'etat. The USA has a policy not to support this sort of behaviour and have legislation not send the billions in aid that they do under these circumstances. Many governments around the world have not acknowledged it was a coup d'etat...but, at least many journalists in my country called it what it is.

The Middle East has so many issues they must deal with, BUT, so many countries have either a royal family or a one party system. There is no democratic tradition, so politics has filtered through religious organizations, because that is all they have sometimes. AND, those religious organizations have supplied food and other necessaties when the ruling party has not. Have your first democratic election, and of course a religious group such as the Muslim Brotherhood will get elected.

So, leave them be in Syria to figure it out? I guess so. It seems many countries in the region have a lot to figure out internally, and it will take a LOT of time...

...as limited as democracy is in Iran, they do seem slightly more democratic than a number of other countries.

[Duckboy]

The British Empire modernised many countries the world over.

So did Rome x.x So did the ottomans. Progress or Freedom, which is more important to you?

[moom]

Progress or Freedom, which is more important to you?

I'll hijack the question and answer progress AND freedom.
Then again, where would America be if not for Columbus... where would the Baltic states be if not for Germans... who knows...

[my breakfast.]

...as limited as democracy is in Iran, they do seem slightly more democratic than a number of other countries.

Don't say that too loud, the CIA and BP will come rolling in with tanks again!

[danielcaux]

Progress or Freedom, which is more important to you?

For me the only progress that really matters socially is freedom. Look at that cardboard democracy that Egypt got after the "spring", tit whe muslims won an it was then even worse for everybody else than during the Mubarak years. Is that what the Syrian rebels want? Institute a Sharia state so they can ban women from voting and force even tourist to wear masks? if that's the case the rebelion is not really a revolution against a dictatorial state, but rather a battle for the power and control of such a state. So I don't really know what is worse.

[rememberaday]

Danielcaux is spot on. The only progress humanity makes that is significant at the end of the day is of social aspect.

Intervention in Syria would be both useless in the long run (it would be a repeat of Egypt and Libya; a temporary period of faux-liberty followed by the same villains in different costumes) and a direct violation of the sovereignty of a country, which I'm sure no citizen would accept.