Do you think your country should go to Syria?

[Ally T]

I am in the UK. What i watch on the news about Syria sickens me to the core. However, despite half of me feeling that my country needs to get over there pronto, the other half of me feels that yet again, this is not 'our war' & we should stay away.

But then again, the world is a very small place these days, so is any war actually all of ours?? I think of my children & their future & I just want to keep out of these horrible conflicts.

Where do you stand?

 

[justginger]

I've been thinking about this a fair bit lately, and I just don't know.

I do find this disconnect between our actions towards Iraq and Syria...disconcerting. Suspicions of WMD and we rush in, shock and awe. Proof of chemical warfare, and everyone stammers.

But as I said, I just don't know. I'm very thankful this is not a decision I have to make.

 

[AGBF]

No. If you were on the ground in Syria, would you be wishing that the United States would soon be bombing you? I think not! I read some thoughtful comments by people responding to an article in, "The New York Times". They made many good points. One of them is who are we (the US) to claim high moral ground when chemical weapons are used after torturing and napalming our enemies? Why should we feel we are so morally fit to be the world's policemen? Until Guantanamo is closed and the practice of torturing prisoners is renounced, we should be pariahs among the civilized nations of the world. The other point is that we can do little good. The Syrians on the ground do not need missiles raining down on them as they suffer through a civil war just so that Mr.Obama can look as if he backs up his threats about a, "red line". We have done enough harm in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have killed enough civilians. It is time for Mr. Obama to consult Congress if he wants to take any military action, and members of Congress are more accountable to their constituents than is the president.

AGBF

 

[yennyfire]

I agree with every word that Deb said. However...there's a part of me that says that if we turn a blind eye, that's not morally right either....there's never a clear cut answer...

 

[AGBF]

I agree with every word that Deb said. However...there's a part of me that says that if we turn a blind eye, that's not morally right either....there's never a clear cut answer...

Agreed. Perhaps we should be doing more on the diplomatic front? How about intervention with Hezbollah/Iranian/Russian support?

Deb

 

[ame]

Does anyone watch the show Newsroom on HBO? I feel like I am actually watch the current GENOA storyline in real time with this. I am not 100% convinced they have 100% hard proof that it has happened yet. IF they do, IF, maybe take action, but why are WE the only ones that ever take action? Did we get harmed? Why is no other country interested in stepping up? Why only us?

 

[Ally T]

Ame, the UK Prime Minister also wanted to get in there straight away, it's not just the US, but he was out voted in the House of Commons. Most people here feel that we keep getting involved in other people's battles, with great loss of lives to our military personnel etc. However, there is the moral stance already mentioned also. It's hard to sit back & do nothing, but sometimes I do think its the right thing to do. They have to sort their own sh!t out & get to the bottom of everything without outside influence

Also, there is a feeling in the UK that the US, again as already mentioned, feel like they are in charge of the rest of the world. I know that David Cameron is already expecting repercussions from the US because of the decision to support his country's wishes, such as a cut back in trade & slight cold shoulder. This is hugely unfair & feels a little bit like blackmail, but there you go - it is what it is.

 

[packrat]

We like to go in and basically slap other countries around rather than take care of things we feel are wrong, but we don't really change anything. It's like we're...bullies maybe? Stealing others lunch money, muscling our way thru things just to show them who's boss.

There's plenty of stuff morally wrong in our own country, so I'm of the mind we should just take care of ourselves first. It's like some big political game of "he said she said", someone doesn't like someone else so suddenly there's chemical weapons or WMD or whatever they're called and ohhh we tooootally have to run in and shove some people, and then run home.

People are not pawns and they shouldn't be used for political gain or political revenge but whatever, I'm not the one in charge, it's been this way since the dawn of time and it will always be this way.

 

[Ally T]

Well said, packrat

 

[Kelinas]

No. Strictly speaking from personal opinion, our (US) military is spread out too thin as is.

We need to stop sticking our fingers into every single damn countries business. There is enough internal chaos to deal with without sending more troops overseas.

I'm a bit spiteful on this topic, because the sheer amount of friends that I've lost in OIF/OEF.

 

[Dancing Fire]

No!

 

[ame]

We like to go in and basically slap other countries around rather than take care of things we feel are wrong, but we don't really change anything. It's like we're...bullies maybe? Stealing others lunch money, muscling our way thru things just to show them who's boss.

There's plenty of stuff morally wrong in our own country, so I'm of the mind we should just take care of ourselves first. It's like some big political game of "he said she said", someone doesn't like someone else so suddenly there's chemical weapons or WMD or whatever they're called and ohhh we tooootally have to run in and shove some people, and then run home.

People are not pawns and they shouldn't be used for political gain or political revenge but whatever, I'm not the one in charge, it's been this way since the dawn of time and it will always be this way.

Seriously, we have so much crap we need to do HERE.

 

[minousbijoux]

We like to go in and basically slap other countries around rather than take care of things we feel are wrong, but we don't really change anything. It's like we're...bullies maybe? Stealing others lunch money, muscling our way thru things just to show them who's boss.

There's plenty of stuff morally wrong in our own country, so I'm of the mind we should just take care of ourselves first. It's like some big political game of "he said she said", someone doesn't like someone else so suddenly there's chemical weapons or WMD or whatever they're called and ohhh we tooootally have to run in and shove some people, and then run home.

People are not pawns and they shouldn't be used for political gain or political revenge but whatever, I'm not the one in charge, it's been this way since the dawn of time and it will always be this way.

Every time you write something like this pr, I end up saying the same thing: I hope I get a chance to meet you irl some day!

 

[justginger]

This time it is not the United States that are boasting claims of knowledge of chrmical warfare. A team of French medics (I think they were MSF?) risked life and limb to sneak patient samples back to France with them for testing. They were positive. I have no doubt SOMEONE has used sarin over there, be it the regime or the rebels. I don't think the issue here is whether or not it happened, because clearly it has, and those French doctors are to be commended for their bravery in raising the alarm of crimes against humanity.

Not that it changes my "I don't know what's to be done about it" stance. I just think it's important to acknowledge that, unlike the Iraq fiasco, we have solid third party evidence that sarin WAS used in Syria.

 

[AGBF]

Not that it changes my "I don't know what's to be done about it" stance. I just think it's important to acknowledge that, unlike the Iraq fiasco, we have solid third party evidence that sarin WAS used in Syria.

Again: I agree. But Secretary of State Kerry wants to punish President Assad for using them by bombing Syria, which is full of Syrian people who are already suffering hideous casualties from the oppressive regime of President Assad and the civil war he has been able to stir up by enlisting the help of Hezbollah and Iran*, backed by Russia. Bombing the Syrian civilians is not, in my opinion, the way to save them.

I am very glad that President Obama has decided (belatedly) to consult Congress. I hope that they will be wiser than he has been thus far. Russia can surely be of more help than they have been thus far is exerting pressure on Syria to cease using chemical weapons.

*Without the backing of Hezbollah, Assad would be out of power by now. He was bolstered at the last minute-when he was losing ground-by receiving their support. If they did not want his support against Israel, I am sure they would have nothing to gain by bolstering his regime.

AGBF

 

[packrat]

Minous, that is very kind of you to say, thank you!

 

[rainwood]

The use of chemical weapons by anyone is wrong, and I understand the desire and even the moral compulsion to want to do something to stop or at least discourage it. That said, the U.S. isn't effective when we intervene in a country with warring internal factions because at some point we leave. That, to me, is the lesson of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure we left any of those countries better off than when we came.

We've been effective when one country invades another (WWI, WWII, Kuwait) but unless it's an invasion that we're able to expel, we end up doing something that costs a lot of lives, injuries, and money without much to show for it. Syria looks like it falls in this category so I don't support taking any action, and certainly not alone.

I did leave Libya out of my list because I don't know enough about how the country is doing now to say whether we had a positive effect. I'm guessing that Syria, at best, turns out to be like Libya and at worst draws us into another winless Middle East war.

 

[justginger]

Not that it changes my "I don't know what's to be done about it" stance. I just think it's important to acknowledge that, unlike the Iraq fiasco, we have solid third party evidence that sarin WAS used in Syria.

Again: I agree. But Secretary of State Kerry wants to punish President Assad for using them by bombing Syria, which is full of Syrian people who are already suffering hideous casualties from the oppressive regime of President Assad and the civil war he has been able to stir up by enlisting the help of Hezbollah and Iran*, backed by Russia. Bombing the Syrian civilians is not, in my opinion, the way to save them.

I am very glad that President Obama has decided (belatedly) to consult Congress. I hope that they will be wiser than he has been thus far. Russia can surely be of more help than they have been thus far is exerting pressure on Syria to cease using chemical weapons.

*Without the backing of Hezbollah, Assad would be out of power by now. He was bolstered at the last minute-when he was losing ground-by receiving their support. If they did not want his support against Israel, I am sure they would have nothing to gain by bolstering his regime.

AGBF

I am in complete agreement with you - civilian casualties via bombing isn't going to get us anywhere. I understand the compulsion to "do something," but have no idea what would actually be beneficial to the area. It's all rather overwhelming at times - we can't fix the world, but anyone with a conscience (*I* think) feels that urge to try. I don't think a line in the sand should have been drawn publicly if there was a possibility of not eventually intervening in some way - it makes our leadership look weak when it is said that a particular action will be acted upon, and then it is not. Now that Obama has made those statements and the evidence is clear, I can only hope Congress puts the kabosh on it, so he doesn't come across as a liar...or worse, scared.

As I said, I'm not in the business of politics for a reason. My heart overwhelms my brain and I would make terrible decisions. I'll stick with medical science, where both organs can be in agreement.

 

[lulu]

No, absolutely not. That's what the UN is for. We would accomplish nothing.

 

[Kaleigh]

Usually I am one to say yes, but not in this case. I have such sympathy, empathy. But feel like we will just be like other's in not making it right and doing more harm...

I pray for all.

And I am scared..

 

[Begonia]

As I don't have time to watch TV and spend only a few minutes a day checking PS and emails, this was pretty helpful:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

It ain't looking good.

 

[AGBF]

As I don't have time to watch TV and spend only a few minutes a day checking PS and emails, this was pretty helpful:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

It ain't looking good.

Well...I hadn't seen that, Begonia, but I have to say that I don't think it's far off the mark. And, given the cynical tone of the piece, it's pretty sad that it's not far off the mark!

AGBF

 

[Circe]

The use of chemical weapons by anyone is wrong, and I understand the desire and even the moral compulsion to want to do something to stop or at least discourage it. That said, the U.S. isn't effective when we intervene in a country with warring internal factions because at some point we leave. That, to me, is the lesson of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure we left any of those countries better off than when we came.

We've been effective when one country invades another (WWI, WWII, Kuwait) but unless it's an invasion that we're able to expel, we end up doing something that costs a lot of lives, injuries, and money without much to show for it. Syria looks like it falls in this category so I don't support taking any action, and certainly not alone.

I did leave Libya out of my list because I don't know enough about how the country is doing now to say whether we had a positive effect. I'm guessing that Syria, at best, turns out to be like Libya and at worst draws us into another winless Middle East war.

This is very well said. I don't have anything to add to it - just wanted to chime in with agreement and admiration for you (and shared depression/resignation for the situation, I think).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The use of chemical weapons by anyone is wrong, and I understand the desire and even the moral compulsion to want to do something to stop or at least discourage it. That said, the U.S. isn't effective when we intervene in a country with warring internal factions because at some point we leave. That, to me, is the lesson of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure we left any of those countries better off than when we came.

We've been effective when one country invades another (WWI, WWII, Kuwait) but unless it's an invasion that we're able to expel, we end up doing something that costs a lot of lives, injuries, and money without much to show for it. Syria looks like it falls in this category so I don't support taking any action, and certainly not alone.

I did leave Libya out of my list because I don't know enough about how the country is doing now to say whether we had a positive effect. I'm guessing that Syria, at best, turns out to be like Libya and at worst draws us into another winless Middle East war.

This is very well said. I don't have anything to add to it - just wanted to chime in with agreement and admiration for you (and shared depression/resignation for the situation, I think).

I agree as well. Use the US military to defend and protect the US and our allies when necessary. As much as I wish we could save everyone, we absolutely cannot. We should have learned our lesson by now as the last several "interventions" had a very high cost in loss of US soldiers and very little to gain.

 

[Gypsy]

No. I do not.

 

[Imdanny]

No.

 

[ksinger]

Not that it changes my "I don't know what's to be done about it" stance. I just think it's important to acknowledge that, unlike the Iraq fiasco, we have solid third party evidence that sarin WAS used in Syria.

Again: I agree. But Secretary of State Kerry wants to punish President Assad for using them by bombing Syria, which is full of Syrian people who are already suffering hideous casualties from the oppressive regime of President Assad and the civil war he has been able to stir up by enlisting the help of Hezbollah and Iran*, backed by Russia. Bombing the Syrian civilians is not, in my opinion, the way to save them.

I am very glad that President Obama has decided (belatedly) to consult Congress. I hope that they will be wiser than he has been thus far. Russia can surely be of more help than they have been thus far is exerting pressure on Syria to cease using chemical weapons.

*Without the backing of Hezbollah, Assad would be out of power by now. He was bolstered at the last minute-when he was losing ground-by receiving their support. If they did not want his support against Israel, I am sure they would have nothing to gain by bolstering his regime.

AGBF

My husband thinks Obama is trying to shift some power back to congress, and away from the paradigm of the unitary executive that has grown and dominated the last several administrations. I am not so sure on that. But I DO think he wants to put the screws to congress and make them go on record on this issue, which will be very interesting, because from what I've read, the majority of citizens do NOT wish any military action. Won't it be interesting to see if congresscritters respond to their supposed constituency, instead of the people who have bought them?

Bottom line, we have no legal reason to interfere, regardless of moral issues. There are myriad places in the world where equally abhorent things are going on and we do zip for THOSE, so getting all high and mighty about this rings hollow. As usual, the ones least likely to acknowledge and face up to this fact reside right here in the US.

This admin can say all day long that the situation du jour is some sort of "national security risk", but how many claims of that are we going to fall for I wonder? Given how easily the American people have rolled over on torture and the eternal surveillance state we now enjoy, pretty easily I expect.

So no, we should not be there.

 

[momhappy]

Without getting too political, which never goes over well on these types of forums, no, I don't think my country should go to Syria.

 

[Lula]

Not that it changes my "I don't know what's to be done about it" stance. I just think it's important to acknowledge that, unlike the Iraq fiasco, we have solid third party evidence that sarin WAS used in Syria.

Again: I agree. But Secretary of State Kerry wants to punish President Assad for using them by bombing Syria, which is full of Syrian people who are already suffering hideous casualties from the oppressive regime of President Assad and the civil war he has been able to stir up by enlisting the help of Hezbollah and Iran*, backed by Russia. Bombing the Syrian civilians is not, in my opinion, the way to save them.

I am very glad that President Obama has decided (belatedly) to consult Congress. I hope that they will be wiser than he has been thus far. Russia can surely be of more help than they have been thus far is exerting pressure on Syria to cease using chemical weapons.

*Without the backing of Hezbollah, Assad would be out of power by now. He was bolstered at the last minute-when he was losing ground-by receiving their support. If they did not want his support against Israel, I am sure they would have nothing to gain by bolstering his regime.

AGBF

My husband thinks Obama is trying to shift some power back to congress, and away from the paradigm of the unitary executive that has grown and dominated the last several administrations. I am not so sure on that. But I DO think he wants to put the screws to congress and make them go on record on this issue, which will be very interesting, because from what I've read, the majority of citizens do NOT wish any military action. Won't it be interesting to see if congresscritters respond to their supposed constituency, instead of the people who have bought them?

Bottom line, we have no legal reason to interfere, regardless of moral issues. There are myriad places in the world where equally abhorent things are going on and we do zip for THOSE, so getting all high and mighty about this rings hollow. As usual, the ones least likely to acknowledge and face up to this fact reside right here in the US.

This admin can say all day long that the situation du jour is some sort of "national security risk", but how many claims of that are we going to fall for I wonder? Given how easily the American people have rolled over on torture and the eternal surveillance state we now enjoy, pretty easily I expect.

So no, we should not be there.

No, I do not think we should be there. I think the Syrian government is trying to provoke the U.S. into striking to further enrage those in the Arab world who hate the West, and in particular the U.S. Military strikes or some sort of prolonged action would not necessarily end the atrocities in Syria, but may put our country's economic recovery and shrinking deficit (yes, our deficit is shrinking under Obama) at risk. It's a no-win situation that may simply inflame anti-American sentiment.

And ksinger, I go back and forth in my mind between your argument and your husband's argument -- you both make valid points. I am so glad that Obama is forcing members of Congress to take a stand on this issue. Perhaps this will motivate some of them to do the job they were elected to do instead of wasting time grandstanding on social issues.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Lula|1378049216|
No, I do not think we should be there. I think the Syrian government is trying to provoke the U.S. into striking to further enrage those in the Arab world who hate the West, and in particular the U.S. Military strikes or some sort of prolonged action would not necessarily end the atrocities in Syria, but may put our country's economic recovery and shrinking deficit (yes, our deficit is shrinking under Obama) at risk. It's a no-win situation that may simply inflame anti-American sentiment.

[/quote]
When did we pay off the 17 trillion?..