Intervene in Syria?

[nosaj]

We haven't had a serious political discussion in a while. So, should there be some international intervention in Syria?

Personally, I really don't know what to think.

[Keith Jordan]

I think those chemical weapons need to be destroyed but not to escalate the situation with all out war. I agree with the Russians on that.

[olzen]

That depends what you mean by "intervention". If you're thinking of military intervention, then no. Absolutely not. The Afghani and Iraqi wars have both been massive failures and I really hope we don't see a third war.

If you mean a diplomatic intervention, then maybe. But I'm not sure what good it would do. Some nations are impossible to reason with, but that doesn't neccessarily mean we should bomb the hell out of them.

Finally, the whole affair is pretty hypocritical anyway. No doubt the site I linked to carries its own agenda, but stuff like Agent Orange did certainly happen. Where were the sanctions back then? And where are the apologies now?

If the international community is going to let the U.S get away with it, we may as well let Syria get away with it. Otherwise none of the international laws and conventions are worth anything.

[moom]

Again, America pushes everyone, and Russia takes it easy. Smells like another Iraq, seeing that it didn't quite work out with Iran, maybe.

[olzen]

I have no admiration to spare for Putin either. I think most of the stuff he does these days is provocation. The anti-gay bill is an absolute disgrace.

It's funny how some people think Russia is a democracy. Putin may not be Stalin, but he certainly is still a dictator. In some ways, the Cold War is still plodding on.

[Damn!t]

No.
"international intervention" usually means americans with silent sticky fingers on occupied land's natural resources.
And after smoke clears up american rich murderer gets more richer.
Or fucking russians, allmost the same.
It's a civil war so far and needs UN. But, lately, UN sucks at keeping the big conflicts calm, so, better no.

[Duckboy]

It's funny how some people think Russia is a democracy. Putin may not be Stalin, but he certainly is still a dictator. In some ways, the Cold War is still plodding on.

It's very easy to say the same thing about America. If you have no choice or two false choices what is the difference.

EDIT: On the topic I pick no. There is no moral high ground here considering America has provided weapons to the middle east for some time and even pardoned the use of chemical weapons when they wanted one side to win completely destroys any reason to that.

Also what is the difference between killing thousands of civilians with chemical weapons as opposed to just doing it with bombs?

Finally Obama says this wouldn't be America declaring war on Syria, just a strike to show them using chemical weapons is not okay. Well stop for a second and think about what that means. Does that mean if a country attacked America because it harbors war criminals with targeted strikes (maybe on a military base like the pentagon or something) that that wouldn't be an act of war? Is that okay? Because it is pretty much the same thing.

And finally finally what problem would it solve? You think that civilians in Syria will be happy with Americans bombing their country so now on top of chemical gas they have to worry about bombs or missiles being dropped too?

War isn't good for anything. If America spent even 1/4 of the money it spends on military on education in 3rd world countries there wouldn't be any need for any of this. When does the first ship for Mars leave because I'm pretty much done with Earth...

[Bigmanpigman]

The trouble with this whole business (and many before) is that internal (and external) politics come in to play. The moment Obama mentioned the 'red line being crossed' he put a huge amount of pressure on himself. When that situation arrived he found himself in the position where, both internally and externally, he is perceived as weak if no action is taken. and yet there is little appetite either in his own country or elsewhere for intervention. The world finds itself in a situation where a President needs to make a military strike to 'show he is strong' and he is 'a world leader'. Within the last day or so diplomacy seems to have taken some tentative steps forward. Let's hope that continues.

[Duckboy]

The trouble with this whole business (and many before) is that internal (and external) politics come in to play. The moment Obama mentioned the 'red line being crossed' he put a huge amount of pressure on himself. When that situation arrived he found himself in the position where, both internally and externally, he is perceived as weak if no action is taken. and yet there is little appetite either in his own country or elsewhere for intervention. The world finds itself in a situation where a President needs to make a military strike to 'show he is strong' and he is 'a world leader'. Within the last day or so diplomacy seems to have taken some tentative steps forward. Let's hope that continues.

When you set a red line you should make sure before it is crossed that you can take action if it is crossed. It only makes sense.

[rememberaday]

Hardly any good has come out of the U.S (or any country, for that matter) militarily intervening in another countries affairs. So I vote a no.

[Keith Jordan]

The British Empire modernised many countries the world over.

[danielcaux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exrqMPJ1Bts

[rememberaday]

The British Empire modernised many countries the world over.

Not totally correct. The British Empire modernised their own colonies, many of the "modernisations" were just a product of ensuring things were efficient for themselves. You also totally ignore the huge number of atrocities committed by the British colonialists. Not to mention the hypocrisy of Britain's stance during both World Wars. Here's a list of events the British would not be so proud of acknowledging when it comes to British colonialism:

1. Mau-Mau rebellion
2. Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre 1919
3. Madulla Massacre
4. The annexation of Indian states (James-Ramsay, Marquess of Dalhousie's policies are standouts) .
5. British egging of the Muslim League in India against the Congress to disunite the major religions in the nation.
6. Here's a site containing more : http://newbritishempire.site11.com/brit ... acres.html

That being said, Britain did introduce social reform in colonies to some extent and industrialized almost all of them.

[Keith Jordan]

Agreed that all those atrocities are disgraceful and not our proudest moments. But surly we added a lot of good to people's lives, even if the motivation was selfish for doing so?

[moom]

1. Putin may not be Stalin, but he certainly is still a dictator.
2. In some ways, the Cold War is still plodding on.

1. As long as it does good for the people and the country in general, I don't mind. There's too much liberalism in democratic countries anyway. However, I agree the anti-gay bill is wrong.
2. Yes. And who knows, with such conflicts on their hands, the situation may go back to how it was way back.
And then we'll have World War III on OUR hands, no kidding.
Just when you thought this was 21st century and old ways of world politics over, this and several other signs clearly show us that these ways simply adapted to the laws of democracy. Uh oh... people will never cease to fight over gold.