Skip Navigation

Syria intervention

Travel Forums Off Topic Syria intervention

Page
  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

1. Posted by wouterrr (Travel Guru, 3377 posts) 30 Aug '13 15:12

wouterrr has indicated that this thread is about Syria

Not yet there is proof of who did what (Rebels/ Al Qaida or Assad). Obama still wants to knock down Assad. I understand that most Americans don't want an intervention in Syria. God bless America for that!!! But what does it mean if Obama still attacks Syria???

[ Edit: Edited on 30-Aug-2013, at 15:27 by wouterrr ]

2. Posted by Jonell (Budding Member, 24 posts) 30 Aug '13 18:38

It means that, once again, a President didn't listen to what the people of the country want. It wouldn't surprise me if we did go to war, despite wishes, largely because our government does a lot for personal gain rather than the gain of the people.

3. Posted by Peter (Admin, 5452 posts) 1 Sep '13 17:15

It's a tough one. I think everyone in the international community regrets the fact they didn't go into countries like Rwanda or Kosovo at earlier stages. If the gassing is by Assad, then in my view a NATO force should definitely go in. Not the US by itself though.

4. Posted by vegasmike6 (Travel Guru, 3534 posts) 1 Sep '13 23:21

Peter,
I noticed you did not suggest the UN Forces. Unfortunately, the UN has proven to be a toothless force. They were in Rwanda before the massacres touched off and were ordered out. Trained soldiers with automatic weapons leave when confronting mobs with machetes? Another sad chapter in a failed organization put together during WWII for 'world peace'.

The US has solid proof that the rockets carrying Sarin gas were launched from areas controlled by Assad's forces, landing in parts of Damascus controlled by rebel forces. The US intercepted orders given to Syrian troops to don their gas masks before the rockets were launched. There is no doubt Assad's troops were responsible for the gassing of over 1,000 men, women & children. The argument is what does the world community do about it.

First of all, I am not a fan of Pres. Obama. Did not vote for him, do not approve of many of his polices. But, I agree with his statement that there has to be consequences for using banned WMD. After the horrors of WWI, the world community banned gas & chemical weapons in the Geneva Protocol, signed in 1925. I hope the US can get other countries and yes, perhaps NATO to go along with sending a message to Assad that there are rules, even in war. Gassing your own people crosses the 'red line' and should have consequences.

Nobody is proposing troops, so cruise missile strikes might be the best option. As George Will once famously said about Pres. Clinton's air war over Bosnia, "A war we are willing to kill for but not willing to die for." No American should be put in harms way over Syria, but a very loud message can still be sent to Assad. We will see how it plays out in the coming days/weeks.

5. Posted by Peter (Admin, 5452 posts) 1 Sep '13 23:51

Yeah, I was going to say UN - but although I think they play an important role in monitoring, peacekeeping forces and international negotiations - I don't think they are useful in situations like this in their current form.

I tend to agree with your views on this Mike. I don't think this is equivalent to the Iraq situation at all. People are drawing parallels, but the evidence for WMDs in Iraq was always much more sketchy than this. It was pretty clear by the time they went to war in Iraq that they would never find anything.

The clear problem though is the unsavoury elements on the rebels' side. The fact that there are Al Qaida operatives involved there makes it very hard to do anything seen as supporting them.

At the same time, there is a lot to lose for the international community in NOT responding. Not doing anything sends a message that the world does not have the heart to stand up against this kind of horrific action. I think this is the main reason Obama feels something needs to be done.

6. Posted by vegasmike6 (Travel Guru, 3534 posts) 2 Sep '13 09:51

Peter,
I agree completely with your thoughts. Yes, Pres. Bush mislead everyone on WMDs being in Iraq. However, even Saddam Hussein's top military men thought they still had WMD. Saddam lied to everyone. He felt it was better for Iraq to have Iran and the Western countries fear him and his stockpile of WMD rather than let the world know the truth. He had used WMD against the Iraqi Kurds in 1988. There was no doubt he had them at one time and was willing to use them.

I think we will see cruise missiles strike Syria at some point. Message is sent that using WMD is not acceptable and no pilots or troops are at risk. I don't see a good outcome for Syria. Assad is another in a long line of ruthless dictators in the region that will do anything to stay in power. The Syrian rebels are no bargain either. I see Syria going the way of present day Iraq. Sectarian violence or outright civil war. The Sunni & Shiite Muslims don't get along and fight for power in many countries. Iraq is slipping towards being a failed state and that will be the fate of Syria as well IMO. A difficult part of the world and few good answers. Sad.

7. Posted by wouterrr (Travel Guru, 3377 posts) 2 Sep '13 12:49

Quoting vegasmike6

The US has solid proof that the rockets carrying Sarin gas were launched from areas controlled by Assad's forces, landing in parts of Damascus controlled by rebel forces. The US intercepted orders given to Syrian troops to don their gas masks before the rockets were launched. There is no doubt Assad's troops were responsible for the gassing of over 1,000 men, women & children. The argument is what does the world community do about it.

First of all, I am not a fan of Pres. Obama. Did not vote for him, do not approve of many of his polices. But, I agree with his statement that there has to be consequences for using banned WMD. After the horrors of WWI, the world community banned gas & chemical weapons in the Geneva Protocol, signed in 1925. I hope the US can get other countries and yes, perhaps NATO to go along with sending a message to Assad that there are rules, even in war. Gassing your own people crosses the 'red line' and should have consequences.

Is there really solid proof? The UN weapon inspectors have not even given their conclusions yet. These inspectors have been invited by Assad himself. Assad must be pretty stupid to invite these inspectors and then use chemical weapons the next day and at close distance of where these inspectors were staying. Assad also must have known that Obama, one year earlier, stated that the use of chemical weapons is the "red line". Assad must have known that an intervention by the US led Nato is his end. So why would he be so stupid? Is he suicidal? The craziest part is that USA is funding terrorist organizations through weapons (most of them fighting under Al-Qaida flag). These groups are killing christians, raping christian women, beheading christian priests, burning down churches. What kind of regime will follow after an intervention? Not a democratic one I am sure (but good puppets they will be). What about the consequences of an intervention. Syria has aimed rockets at Israel. And then there is Russia, China and Iran. Will we have some sort of 3rd world war? What are they taking at the white house? Some rape-drug?

[ Edit: Edited on 02-Sep-2013, at 13:33 by wouterrr ]

8. Posted by vegasmike6 (Travel Guru, 3534 posts) 2 Sep '13 14:50

Wouter,
Proof is building daily and the UN weapons inspectors may soon add to that already compiled. US officials have revealed some of it on the Sunday talk shows.

I agree that whatever happens to Syria it won't be a Western friendly country. It never was and doubtful it will ever be one. The Free Syrian army is full of Al Qaida and other extremists. I don't expect a democratic gov't to appear after Basher el Assad is gone and they certainly won't be 'good puppets' either. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt have all overthrown their dictators and none of them have what we in the West consider a democracy. Has there ever been a Western style democracy in the Muslim world? Syria certainly won't be the first.

As to what Russia, China & Iran will do remains to be seen. Obama will get to see Putin this week at the G-20. Since they are not going to meet face to face, it is doubtful much will resolved. China cares about making money, not conflict. Iran is a wild card and I doubt anyone knows what they are planning.

9. Posted by Peter (Admin, 5452 posts) 2 Sep '13 18:52

Quoting vegasmike6

Has there ever been a Western style democracy in the Muslim world?

I think Indonesia is generally speaking the best example.

10. Posted by vegasmike6 (Travel Guru, 3534 posts) 2 Sep '13 23:16

Quoting Peter

Quoting vegasmike6

Has there ever been a Western style democracy in the Muslim world?

I think Indonesia is generally speaking the best example.

Peter,
Good example. I looked up Indonesia and they started direct presidential election in 2004. Before that you had the typical strongman rule of Sukarno & Suharto. Hopefully other Muslim countries can use Indonesia as an example of what is possible.