Should we intervene in Syria?

???

@willpayton: Outside interference doesn't solve everyone's problem. Those who intervene might think that they are doing the right thing but most of the time, they have no idea what they're doing to the people or the country. I might be a tad bit biased considering I've had personal experiences in regards to this but history tends to repeat itself... a lot.

@cheesesticks: That is completely false. Do you have anything to back up those claims?

Outside interference doesnt have to solve everyone's problems, because we're not talking about everyone. We're talking about Syria. Also, we're talking about the use of chemical weapons which have been banned since the Geneva Protocol in the 1920's.

Yes

Except with outside interference, that's exactly what they're trying to do. I'm not extensively knowledgeable on the events with Syria or it's history nor am I going to pretend I am but my point still stands. Forced intervention causes more problems than it solves whether they like it or not. It's most likely not intentional but that's what happens when they blindly and ignorantly step into these types of things.

@willpayton: You're giving an example of what it would be like if I were in that situation. Comparing people watching on the street to countries not intervening is just not right. They're entirely different. It's not like America's coming to stop the fighting peacefully.

In some cases yes, in some no. If you're going to claim that intervening to help civilians is always going to cause more problems than it solves... prove it.

In World War II Germany was sending Jews to concentration camps and gas chambers. I'm pretty sure they would have preferred that someone had intervened earlier. Appeasement didnt work for Chamberlain then, and it never works. All that came from Chamberlain's appeasement was to embolden Hitler and give him more time to build up his military and kill more people.

Now if you want to ignore history, that's up to you. I dont want us getting into wars anymore than anyone else. But, as the saying goes, "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it".

Come off it you're making it look like no other country has ever used chemical weapons.

The UNITED KINGDOM uses chemical weapons in every tank shell. They are loaded with CS-Gas which is prohibited by the Geneva Protocol but nobody goes against them. One rule for the west, one for the rest.

Because if someone's attacking you in the street, others can stop that peacefully?

No, my example is perfectly appropriate. If you were in need of help you would be desperately asking for it and hoping that someone would intervene, but when others need it it's "everyone should mind their own business".

@willpayton:

Comparing a sectarian state like Syria to Nazi Germany is ridiculous. Lets look at countries more similar to Syria like say Iraq, another government that used chemical weapons on their people. In Iraq it is just as dangerous if not moreso for their average citizen after our intervention.

Prove it? NATO foolishly and ignorantly bombed Serbia to "help" and in turn murdered hundreds of innocent civilians. They thought they were "helping" the people who were stuck in a Civil War they had absolutely no clue was about and thought it'd be a brilliant idea to start dropping bombs for seventy two days straight.

That was fourteen years ago. History for you mate or perhaps selective memory for those who don't care for certain parts of the world, I don't know. Fact of the matter is, outside interference only made things worse for those living in Serbia and the surrounding balkan countries that made up former Yugoslavia. To this day, the country has never properly recuperated. Import/Export businesses were ripped apart, people lost their jobs, corruption erupted from the rubble. I'm not saying Serbia is a perfect country but who has the right to determine authoritative "peacekeeping" for everyone else?

No, I'm making it sound like chemical weapons are universally agreed to be unacceptable and illegal, which is the truth.

<sigh>

CS gas is tear gas. I have no idea why the UK would have tear gas shells, and I'm pretty sure they dont. Please give a source, or it didnt happen.

In any case, tear gas is illegal in war for different reasons to why actual chemical weapons are illegal. Tear gas is not illegal for domestic uses such a crown control.

@willpayton: Use the internet yourself to find it. I'm not catering to people who don't trust others. I was told by an EX-Army office personally, but I'm sure you'll find things online.

And you think that ONE example proves that for ALL cases?

Your logic is faulty.

It has nothing to do with trust. And, if it did, why should I trust someone I dont know who heard a thing from some other guy I dont know?

It has to do with the burden of proof. You make a claim, it's up to you to give evidence. If you dont want to, then fine, but I dont have to believe something just cause you said so.

I also dont have to believe things that dont make sense. Tear gas is illegal in war, and I'm pretty sure the UK doesnt go around perpetrating war crimes as a policy. Also, having tear gas shells on tanks makes no sense. Maybe they have them for civilian armored vehicles, to use in crown control and such, but those are not "tanks" in the usual sense.

@willpayton: Are you serious lol? It makes COMPLETE SENSE. Firing off a round which does not only injure an enemy, but disrupts the senses also. Genius.

You can't be serious? No, I don't believe it applies to all cases but you asked for an example, one which clearly the world doesn't seem to care about despite "peacekeeping" efforts essentially being the cause of the countries economic deconstruction. You stated yourself how I ignored history when I provided a clear example of what ignorant intervention can be the cause of.

Provide a modern example to counter my own. The U.S. with the Middle East? Because we all know that turned out brilliantly for everyone. Utilizing an example of a totalitarian society in comparison to a third-world country such as Syria? Well that makes perfect sense now doesn't it?

No, I didnt ask for an example. What I said was:

How is this not clear? You said that forced intervention causes more problems than it solves. Period. That means it always does this. And I said, "prove it". Prove it doesnt mean give one example, it means prove it for all cases.

Libya, 2011. The country headed by Gaddafi went into a civil war. Then forces from France and the United States set up a no-fly zone as well as provided air support for rebel forces, and the war was then brought to an end. It's estimated that 30,000 Libyans died during the war... much less than the 100,000 that have so far died in Syria, where there's still no end in sight. After the war Libya now has a democratic government.

What would have happened in Libya if no one went in to help the rebels? Probably a much protracted and bloody war, much like what we're seeing in Syria.

@deranged_midget:

Exactly. He can't provide a modern example of a similar country to Syria because there are no success stories.

Obama is an even bigger warmonger than Bush; Syria is a sticky situation, why? let me explain!

1. President Assad is winning this crazy civil war, and he has support from the Russians, Iranians and a few trigger happy mofos from Lebanon.

2. Benefactors/Supporters on the rebel's side include US, Britian, France, Saudi Arabia & others, they support the rebels (with weapons, anti-air, blah, blah etc.)

3. The Rebels in this civil war, are not really rebels, more like Mercenary-Jihadists from various countries (which including Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Chechnya, and other Islamist-worshipping sh*tholes!)

4.This War is over two years old, started around the same time we went into Libya. Bush planned this war back in 2003, or maybe 2004..... Regime Change is a B*tch!!!

5. And uhmm... Syria is a sh*thole, but seriously Assad would be stupid to use Chemical Weapons on his own people, the only ones who would benefit from this... are the benefactors.

@edamame: yeah they urge action, because their jihadist buddies are getting their ass whooped....

international news: www.presstv.ir

<sigh>

I actually gave such an example in my post... right before yours. Apparently you cant be bothered to read what people say before you reply to them.

@willpayton: At the time I started replying your post was not there...only after I refreshed was it there

Ahh... ok. In that case, I apologize. I'm a little grumpy right now cause I havent eaten yet... didnt mean to be rude.

I'm going to have a sandwich and be back later. =)

@willpayton:

No harm no foul.

On topic though Libya has gone through lots of violence and suffering since 2011 and is a hotbed for terror training and recruitment.

http://rt.com/news/libya-gaddafi-fall-anniversary-981/

First thing is that I wouldnt trust much on rt.com. They're a mouthpiece for the Russian government and one of their goals is to make the U.S. government and policies look bad.

As far as Libya, of course they have problems. What would you expect after a bloody civil war and having democratic elections for the first time? But the fact is that the military intervention by the US, France, and others helped to put an end to a war that might have gone on for much longer. The innocent civilians in that country definitely won out by that happening. Things might not be perfect now, but a lot of people are alive because of the intervention.

We can see in Syria what happens when you leave a tyrannical government alone to do what they want. They can even use chemical weapons and few want to stop them. Tell me how that's a good thing for the innocent civilians there?

Libya is a perfect example that intervention can be a positive thing. It's not always the case, but sometimes it is.

I love how Lykopis, a Canadian, wants to intervene in Syria, presumably with the US leading the charge. Harper practically laughed the offer off and said no, so you're done on that front. Don't bother trying to advocate for what us Americans should or should not do. You're welcome to sneak into Syria and join the 'freedom fighters'. They're so fair towards women, after all. It's not like they're hyper-charged radicals who are killing Christians and using suicide tactics.

I love how WillPayton, a bleeding-heart who has probably no intention of serving his country in the line of duty in the Middle East or giving away all of his money to the glorious, freedom-fighting 'rebels', wants to collectively damn the American military and taxpayers to intervening in a conflict that began in spite of us, continued to have nothing to do with us, has continued to have nothing to do with us (until confirmed CIA and DoD involvement by supplying the 'rebels' with intelligence, weapons, and training), and would continue to have nothing to do with us if we kept our noses out of it and simply let the sectarian slaughter carry on.

I don't care about people in Syria. At all. I care about Americans, and our close allies to a lesser extent. Syria is a nation that supported the Soviets and Chinese during the Cold War, has harbored/funded Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, has never expressed positive Western sentiments, and only has one claim to fame: being relatively secular in its approach to governance, and ensuring that ethnic and religious minorities are given relative autonomy and protection under the law. This is not our fight. If the Accordions French, Arab League, and other players want to intervene, have at it. They're the ones who created Syria, after all.

It hasn't even been proven that Assad used the weapons; the UN inspectors haven't even begun tests yet. Get over yourselves and worry about fixing your own countries first. These chemical weapons treaties were never signed by Syria, so they never entered into that specific part of the international legal system. The arguments for intervening are purely emotional and have no place in a time when the national debt is approaching 110% of GDP.

No

An older video, but it still provides plenty of information several of the people in this thread don't want to hear.

@willpayton:

How is this not clear? You said that forced intervention causes more problems than it solves. Period. That means it always does this. And I said, "prove it". Prove it doesnt mean give one example, it means prove it for all cases.

How is providing an example, albeit a specific one or by extension the entire situation with Afghanistan or Iraq dating back in the early nineties and recently in the earliest parts of 2003 until now, not proof enough. I already stated that it doesn't register in regards to all cases. I said most. Any example, especially one where the interfering countries were forced to acknowledge their mistakes (bombing of Serbia) and apologize as they hadn't realized they caused more harm than foul is substantial proof that intervention isn't always the ideal option. At least, I'd think so.

Now, I would like to apologize if I came off a little too strongly. It was not my intention, this subject is just a tad bit personal to me as my family and friends back home were and still are largely affected by what happened. Thank you providing an example on your end, I appreciate it. I just wanted to state my own piece as I originally said a few pages back.

@illuminatus: So you don't want even humanitarian help to be sent to Syria? That wouldn't be military intervention, that would be helping those who have suffered under this war. People need help after these chemical attacks and you selfishly wanting America to keep to itself is an attitude I dislike strongly. America isn't the only, greatest country in the world who can stay haughty at the needs of others and you can't say that you'd deny our follow humans a need to help. Countries and borders are social constructs made by humans and are not as real as the suffering of innocents from the chemical weapons, whoever perpetrated them.

And quite frankly, your haughty attitude to the other Viners like WillPayton and Lykopis, people I admire and respect on here is not appreciated on my part. Retract those comments now if you please.

I'm neutral on the whole military intervention thing but humanitarian help must be sent to Syria to help those in need. If you'd turn your back on those suffering in Syria, then I'd have no respect for you whatsoever. In the words of Edmund Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

@willpayton: No, it's actually a really bad comparison. Someone helping me on the street isn't nearly as complicated as a country nearly declaring war. Yes, interfering with foreign affairs does have negative results, always.

You really think we can pay all the debt? The debt is still growing and USA will make less money than India and China in the futur. There's no way we can pay this debt in a near futur.

USA Debt

The debt has augment by 2,02 billion BY DAY since September 2012.

And by the way, if you think Money > Live, then you've got a big problem sir.

@lvenger: Humanitarian help is generally perceived as a different story compared to military intervention. Personally, my stance on outside (military) intervention is not targeted toward any country in particular. I am not in favour of it as I've personally and directly seen the outcomes that result from it as most of the time, that intervention is largely ignorant to how they may unintentionally cause more damage than they may have originally intended or thought was possible.

Although, this topic is centered around U.S. intervention (or it seems to be at least) to which some have supported and others have largely decided against it. I personally can't speak for the United States for I am Canadian and I'm not going to pretend that I have proper knowledge of the country's economic and political standings to warrant a valid opinion on the matter hence why I only iterate on matters I've personally experienced in the past and why I'm not particularly fond of military intervention from outside forces.

But in regards to humanitarian efforts. In most cases, are they not aided in some form by armed forces for their own protection? Wouldn't that be classified as unintentional intervention to a certain degree? I ask this out of simple curiosity, nothing more.

Yeah. Although its threating to go to a re-vote for some reason.

@deranged_midget: Obviously there would be those who would actively not want humanitarian help and those who would strike against outside help. So it would only make sense for a military force to protect them. And what if America or no one else intervenes mate? My British government aren't going for it and it was repealed in the House of Commons but the Commons did say they would look at other ways to look at and be involved in the conflict. If no one intervenes then Syria and its people suffer for it . All the money in the world, which is what a lot of American Viners on here are complaining about (specifically the tax on paying for another war) don't mean a damn to me in relation to the suffering of our fellow human beings.

We have an obligation to help them any way we can. That's all I'm concerned about in this Syria debate which I've paid more attention to than usual Middle Eastern conflicts. That and finding out who and why chemical attacks occurred so they don't happen again or are used on the innocent civilian population.

There is a moral obligation to help those in need yes but there are a few factors to consider, which to you and I may not seem as important but to those living in that country, the US for this matter, it is an entirely different story. As I said previously, I am not an expert with economical standings with the United States and I'm for sure not going to pretend that I am because I would only make a fool out of myself.

Whatever the case may be, the level of intervention is present regardless of what the intention may be and there is no telling what levels it may potentially escalate to. What may seem as peaceful aid to us, could be perceived as an entirely different thing to them. As I stated prior with another user based off my personal experience with outside intervention, peacekeeping efforts may seem harmless to those jumping into the fray but in most situations, that is not the case for the people on the receiving end of things. Unfortunately, people suffer regardless of whether there is intervention or not and with recent cases, more so with than without.

It may seem entirely harmless to us and to a specific party we choose to aid but what about those against it? Looking at both perspectives, what happens when it appears that we choose a specific side over the other? There could be that chance that they continue to grow angrier and their retaliation not only rises against the ones we aid but against us as well, hence why humanitarian aid tends to be accompanied by armed forces for their safety and could be unintentionally viewed as military intervention.

I'm only considering what has happened in the past as a basis for what could potentially occur in the future. There is not a person here that wants bloodshed but all I'm saying is that there are more factors to consider than there may appear on the surface.

@deranged_midget: But if no one does anything, then the situation's just going to spiral even more out of control and make things worse for the Syrrian people and their lives. If some sort of intervention can prevent that and if it's done correctly (which honestly is extremely unlikely) I'd want that to happen. But as I said, I'm neutral over the intervention policy. The kind of thing Obama wants to do might make things worse.

I think therein lies the problem. For something to be done, intervention needs to happen but no one wants anything to escalate from said intervention. As you said, doing so correctly is probably highly unlikely as our past history seems to suggest. Difficult situations.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" as the saying goes.

No. First i think prove is required for the use of chemical weapons because Al Assad and his forces might be framed for it. Why would Al Assad use chemical weapons when he is in a winning position and has major strategic points. Surely he knew what would be the consequences if he used chemical weapons and that U.S and other countries might try to intervene. The only scenario in which he would willingly use weapons is if he has big support from Russia and they guarantee that U.S won't intervene. Second i don't think the use of tomahawk missiles can be considered humanitarian help.

no. let them kill each other. the us is butting in things that doesnt concern it.

In terms of humanitarian right, I would say "yes". The Syrian regime is heinous, like the saddam hussein one and only deserve to get a bullet in the neck.

In terms of "real politik" I would say "no", because USA has just too much money problem to throw money in another middle eastern mess like Irak. It will cost too much and hinder his world influence by that. The debt of USA is just pushing higher and higher and it seems that it will cripple the american economy AGAIN.

At this pace of things, the governement will just be pushed to help some little other tyranny to get a better price for oil and other stuff, in hope to just slow down his massive debt.

The problem is, all this money will be going into the pocket of world wide corporation that truly don't care about state and people, and those corporation won't create employement, won't pay people better, and finally USA will crumble into bankrupcy unless it reconsider his politic of taxation and resort of a politics that will stench too much of socialism for many american people.

I suspect Obama has asked the congress just to get rid of this stinky case, because he could always win the blame game if the Syrian thing goes bad and say it was his idea if it goes good.

U.S is going to strike soon, whether we like it or not.

America is the hero Syria deserves, but not the one it needs right now...

You're reducing a complex issue to a state where it is so simple that it's ridiculous and cannot even begin to cover the reality of the situation.

NO, I do not believe that money > Lives. I merely choose to look at the larger picture. Intervention and being sucked into another multi-trillion dollar quagmire that is going to be marginally successful if we can actually call it successful at all, will have it's consequences both in our country and internationally.

We can, and have to, shrink the debt if our country is to survive. Yes, that means we need to cut subsidies to petroleum giants and big agri-business. Yes, it means we have to reform the public safety net. Yes, it means some people are going to need to pay a little more in taxes. It's not impossible, and it doesn't need to be eliminated completely, that's just ludicrous, however it can be brought down to a manageable level if our legislators and leaders got serious about it.

Now as I said earlier your vision seems to be pretty short-sighted. If the U.S. falls into depression it is going to drag the world-economy with it. We are too interconnected at this point for it not to cause world-wide depression. In even our most wealthy and industrious countries there is poverty, starvation, and death. Millions of children and seniors are on the brink of starvation in our own country. Imagine what happens in a worldwide economic collapse. The number of fatalities in the Syrian conflict will look like a raindrop in an ocean. There will be widespread violence, famine, illness, and all because we didn't think before jumping in to a conflict we may well end up leaving worse of than before we messed with it.

Could you imagine how f'ed up our civil war would have been if a superpower came in to tell us which side was right? Granted using sarin gas to win a war is a bullsh!t tactic that should not be allowed, but civil wars are supposed to be determined by the people, not a foreign military.