Syria Crisis.

[Nomorearrows]

I just looked at the links you sent me. In any event there are news stories skewed to show a point of view while another shows a different point of view. There are many many pictures and videos showing chemical massacre. And they arent from any news channel. I dont know if its against the TOU to post them because they are graphic. Where I lived in Syria is close to alGhouta so I have contact with people there. Also if Bashar didnt use chemical weapons why did he bomb the place after? So he can erase any evidence.

[latraviata]

They deserve human rights,too. I think they also should choose who becomes their president.

And you honestly believe when the West (USA and Europe) intervenes and eliminate Assad, you will have democracy and everything is going to be perfect? Get real and then again, this is your chance, go back and make it happen if you care so much. To arms!!

You want them to become your new gov't? It doesn't matter if you are bitten by the cat or the dog.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=208_1378070724

[Nomorearrows]

They deserve human rights,too. I think they also should choose who becomes their president.

And you honestly believe when the West (USA and Europe) intervenes and eliminate Assad, you will have democracy and everything is going to be perfect? Get real and then again, this is your chance, go back and make it happen if you care so much. To arms!!

For now, I just want the killing to stop. Also, I am not so naive as to think that as soon as Assad is gone there will be peace. The Assad dynasty was in power for 40 years. Are all the problems they brought going to be eliminated in an a year or two? No. Democracy is a process and it takes time and I think its time Syrians started the process of getting a democracy. As to reply to your saying of "if you care just go", as much as I hate waking up each morning with my first thought being 'is my family okay' I cant go I have to help my siblings who are here. I can't leave them. I have a responsiblity to them.

[latraviata]

Exactly and we (USA and Europe) have responsibilities too.

[Nomorearrows]

Exactly and we (USA and Europe) have responsibilities too.

Yes but as superpowers in the world, they should intervene( and i dont mean "boots on the ground") to stop Assad from massacring Syrians. No matter what Assad says, he is afraid of the US and Europe. His power is nothing compared to America's and that of European countries. If no one intervenes on behalf of Syrian people, he will only take that as a green light to commit more atrocities.

[Tesseract]

I am watching Link TV, AJE, and just picked up an interesting discrepancy. Perhaps Scott Bates (CT) simply misspoke, however in an interview discussing when/what type of attack should be leveled on Syria, he stated that "...the planning that has been going on for this has been going on for months..." Interesting.

Edited for riffle

[Mama Mia]

They deserve human rights,too. I think they also should choose who becomes their president.

And you honestly believe when the West (USA and Europe) intervenes and eliminate Assad, you will have democracy and everything is going to be perfect? Get real and then again, this is your chance, go back and make it happen if you care so much. To arms!!

You want them to become your new gov't? It doesn't matter if you are bitten by the cat or the dog.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=208_1378070724

Wow. Nomorearrows just stated that she has a close relative who was brutally tortured and killed due to this .....and your response is a dismissive...."we'll if you don't like it go back and fix it". ....that is all kinds of fucked up. :x

I don't know enough about this issue to have an opinion yet, but man, what a completely horrible and callous response to someone who this is actually impacting in their real life.

Sorry if I somehow got this wrong or misread.

[jaelh]

I am watching Link TV, AJE, and just picked up an interesting discrepancy. Perhaps Scott Bates (CT) simply misspoke, however in an interview discussing when/what type of attack should be leveled on Syria, he stated that "...the planning that has been going on for this has been going on for months..." Interesting.

Edited for riffle

You would hope that planning would have been.

I'm not military expert, but if governments don't have a huge range of military contingency plans for things that might become issues, it'd be near negligent of them. I'd have hoped every major power had considered what would be a trigger, and if the trigger happened, how they might intervene, from the moment the civil war started.

[OkToBeTakei]

Wow. Nomorearrows just stated that she has a close relative who was brutally tortured and killed due to this .....and your response is a dismissive...."we'll if you don't like it go back and fix it". ....that is all kinds of fucked up. :x

I don't know enough about this issue to have an opinion yet, but man, what a completely horrible and callous response to someone who this is actually impacting in their real life.

Sorry if I somehow got this wrong or misread.

No I don't think you misread. I think it is a case of one speaking from the heart and the other speaking from their arse.

[tigerchild]

If no one intervenes on behalf of Syrian people, he will only take that as a green light to commit more atrocities.

Except if we intervene it likely won't be on the behalf of the Syrian people. Strategically, the US government does not know the Syrian people, as historically they are "Russian allies". (Well, we all know that it's not really the case with the population at large who are just themselves and I'm sure don't particularly spend a lot of time thinking about the US OR Russia, but...) This is the problem. I am in favor of air strikes, IF we have reliable intelligence as to where they will have significant impact on the state's ability to launch missles/rockets capable of delivering chemical weapons. I'm sure we're capable of that.

But you know, I wonder where the anger is towards Russia? Why do they get a pass in this? Do you not think if Putin told Assad that if he does one more thing like that they will no longer be his safeguard on the security council, that *that* would also strike fear in him? Honestly, I'd love it for the US to remove his capacity and Russia to remove his protection.

Not going to happen. Once more the more powerful countries engage in a pissing match.

Blood on our (collective) hands, continued on for yet another generation.

[Nomorearrows]

I wish Putin would tell Assad that they would remove his protection but as you said, thats not going to happen. Syria has Russia's only naval base in that region. The alliance between the regime and Russia is 40 years old and Russia doesn't see any reason for that to end. Just today, Russia sent a spy ship to the Mediterranean.

[Burris]

They deserve human rights,too. I think they also should choose who becomes their president.

And you honestly believe when the West (USA and Europe) intervenes and eliminate Assad, you will have democracy and everything is going to be perfect? Get real and then again, this is your chance, go back and make it happen if you care so much. To arms!!

You want them to become your new gov't? It doesn't matter if you are bitten by the cat or the dog.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=208_1378070724

I was going to write out a better answer to this, but it's just easier to call you an idiot.

[theologygeek]

Give me evidence that it is being staged in other countries and not really happening. Why would people go so far as to stage deaths and protests in other countries and say it is happening in Syria?

My cousin wasn't killed. They staged his death in Qatar but for some reason I can't talk to him anymore [/sarcasm]. I wish it was staged because he was tortured brutally before they returned his body to his family

You really think Bashar's gov't is so perfect that no one would want to rise against him? My dad came to America because of Bashar's father who was killing anyone who wasnt Baathist. Imagine, you cant be a doctor unless you are from his party.

I am really sorry for your loss. It is absolutely horrible how some people are treated because of monsters in power. I feel like a monster for saying this because I am the type who wants to help everyone and suffering breaks my heart. But...if the US intervenes, we are going to lose our own people too. We are still losing young men and women in Iraq. I don't want the US to intervene, but I don't want the people of Syria killed either. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[latraviata]

I was going to write out a better answer to this, but it's just easier to call you an idiot.

Coming from you, I consider this a compliment.

[latraviata]

I am really sorry for your loss. It is absolutely horrible how some people are treated because of monsters in power. I feel like a monster for saying this because I am the type who wants to help everyone and suffering breaks my heart. But...if the US intervenes, we are going to lose our own people too. We are still losing young men and women in Iraq. I don't want the US to intervene, but I don't want the people of Syria killed either. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I fully agree.

[Burris]

Coming from you, I consider this a compliment.

So, with an array of people surprised by your callous and dismissive attitude - and I wasn't one of them; I've seen you in action before – my short, curt comment is the first thing you address when you make it back to the thread.

You’re such a condescending douchebag: You expect other people to ‘walk around on eggshells’ when you talk about your own loss, and then you dare take that kind of attitudes towards someone else who lost family (potentially to torture).

You then act as if it's just so easy for a Syrian national abroad to arm herself, with no military training, walk into a war zone and...well, die within the first 12 hours of fighting because she doesn't know what she's doing.

You know this. You know the argument you’re about to make is totally asinine. But you do it anyway: You suggest her unwillingness show up in Syria and basically wait around for death to find her somehow proves your point about how the West as a whole - even despite heavy intervention in those regions before now - should keep their hands off because, 'Oh look; a Syrian national won't even arm against Bashir, so why should our we? WE have obligations elsewhere."

You’re a naval-gazing cultural chauvinist – and contrary to what you think, you’re no better than me: You’re merely a luckier version.

[latraviata]

You are a master at writing blatant nonsense wrapped in a bombastic sort of literary terms, but it's still nonsense.

I do not give a penny for your false empathy you exhibit until someone disagrees with you.

[Burris]

You are a master at writing blatant nonsense wrapped in a bombastic sort of literary terms, but it's still nonsense.

I do not give a penny for your false empathy you exhibit until someone disagrees with you.

The only way you’ve ever ‘beaten’ anyone in an argument is either by flashing your alleged credentials or by being such a tiresome pain in the ass that the other side merely gives up in frustration. I’ve even seen you turn an simple discussion about the use of a linguistic term into a pissing contest about how awesome your credentials are and wrong it is to see people in nearby countries using terminology you thought was specific to your level of academic achievement.

You’re proud, vain, and inexcusably dumb – as in, there’s no reason except choice to explain the endless stream of crap that bubbles from your keyboard.

In my previous post I told you simply, directly, and in no uncertain terms how and why your views are fucked up. And how do you respond? The same way you always respond when cornered.

And then you dare claim mine is false empathy? Your “empathy,†such as it is, is limited only to people who agree with you and come from your cultural background. You couldn’t even be bothered to show some couth in dealing with the other poster, because you lack the capacity for it.

And since we’re insulting each other, anyway – and at least my insults are actually based in reality – I’m just glad you no longer work in the field for which you were trained.

[latraviata]

The only way you’ve ever ‘beaten’ anyone in an argument is either by flashing your alleged credentials or by being such a tiresome pain in the ass that the other side merely gives up in frustration. I’ve even seen you turn an simple discussion about the use of a linguistic term into a pissing contest about how awesome your credentials are and wrong it is to see people in nearby countries using terminology you thought was specific to your level of academic achievement.

You’re proud, vain, and inexcusably dumb – as in, there’s no reason except choice to explain the endless stream of crap that bubbles from your keyboard.

In my previous post I told you simply, directly, and in no uncertain terms how and why your views are fucked up. And how do you respond? The same way you always respond when cornered.

And then you dare claim mine is false empathy? Your “empathy,†such as it is, is limited only to people who agree with you and come from your cultural background. You couldn’t even be bothered to show some couth in dealing with the other poster, because you lack the capacity for it.

And since we’re insulting each other, anyway – and at least my insults are actually based in reality – I’m just glad you no longer work in the field for which you were trained.

You just proved my point.

[Burris]

You just proved my point.

You offer a rebuttal with no substance – no specific, clear examples from my writing of the moral defects you claim I have - and I’m supposed to take this seriously? I don't.

All the comments you've made in this thread are just classic you.

[browngrl]

I think that the way that this debate has escalated is a microcosm(in a very small sense of course) of the real war. People have strong opinions about American/British/Russian/Chinese/other major power intervention. I am not commenting about the validity of anyone's arguments but only noting that even on the small scale of this forum - opinions have grown heated. I worry that similar emotions are guiding those who actually have weapons of mass destruction at hand. The middle east has long been a powder keg with its toxic combination of history and religious fervour. It seems to me that the middle east is an excellent example of sequelae of fundamentalism. I am paraphrasing Queen Raina (of Jordan) who once said: the coming war is not between the Christians vs Muslims vs Jews - it is between the moderates and the fundamentalists. I wonder if there is a moderate path in the Syria situation. I wonder if the fundamentalists have already won.

I don't think I really have a point. I have just been thinking about these things and trying to come up with a more cogent opinion.

[OkToBeTakei]

You just proved my point.

You know latraviata I have no idea what your point is to be honest. You made a really stupid insensitive comment or two and can't see that?

Not to get involved with this little tete a tete but (gonna anyway.) I got in to a very fascinating discussion some months back with Burris in which we absolutely disagreed on a lot of issues. The one thing that sticks in my mind from that discussion was that it was mutually respectful and that when Burris made an error she was very quick to apologise for a small lapse in knowledge. I certainly learned a lot from the discussion which neither of us were trying to 'win.'

You made an arsehole comment. Just own it otherwise you just look more arseholey really, it's not rocket science. Bringing up old arguments does not detract from the fact you told a displaced Syrian, second generation to hop on a plane and sort it out rather than asking the superior US and Europeans. That just really makes me cringe.

[latraviata]

You know latraviata I have no idea what your point is to be honest. You made a really stupid insensitive comment or two and can't see that?

Not to get involved with this little tete a tete but (gonna anyway.) I got in to a very fascinating discussion some months back with Burris in which we absolutely disagreed on a lot of issues. The one thing that sticks in my mind from that discussion was that it was mutually respectful and that when Burris made an error she was very quick to apologise for a small lapse in knowledge. I certainly learned a lot from the discussion which neither of us were trying to 'win.'

You made an arsehole comment. Just own it otherwise you just look more arseholey really, it's not rocket science. Bringing up old arguments does not detract from the fact you told a displaced Syrian, second generation to hop on a plane and sort it out rather than asking the superior US and Europeans. That just really makes me cringe.

Of course I regret the death of people, especially in a (complicated) conflicts such as in Syria. There are very bad people on both sides. It annoys me when people being relatively safe themselves call on other countries and essentially asking to sacrifice their people for an internal conflict . Moreover, the recent past has shown that it solves nothing and really only cost more lives. I believe that real change should come from within. Less poverty, less difference between rich and poor, more education and less religion. That takes a major mentality change and I seriously doubt the West (USA and Europe) are able to make that change by using arms.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The Economist had an interesting take on this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... al-weapons

General question for everyone:

It's no secret that humanitarian concerns have at times been used (Kosovo), misused (Iraq) or ignored (1988 Iraq, 1994 Rwanda) by the United States and other international players.

So, at this point in history, do we:

1. Admit that "Never Again" is a failed dream, and that the entire notion of the international community intervening for any humanitarian purpose, including enforcement of existing international laws and protocols against genocide or the use of chemical weapons no longer exists?

2. Do we say that it is still valid, but requires UN approval?

3. Do we say that it is valid, but only where there is a clearly identified "bad guy", and an opposition with relatively "clean hands"?

[OkToBeTakei]

The Economist had an interesting take on this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... al-weapons

General question for everyone:

It's no secret that humanitarian concerns have at times been used (Kosovo), misused (Iraq) or ignored (1988 Iraq, 1994 Rwanda) by the United States and other international players.

So, at this point in history, do we:

1. Admit that "Never Again" is a failed dream, and that the entire notion of the international community intervening for any humanitarian purpose, including enforcement of existing international laws and protocols against genocide or the use of chemical weapons no longer exists?

2. Do we say that it is still valid, but requires UN approval?

3. Do we say that it is valid, but only where there is a clearly identified "bad guy", and an opposition with relatively "clean hands"?

1. Any military action taken against Syria at the moment would actually be illegal.

2. See answer to 1. For it to be legal it needs UN approval and that is unlikely as the law stands now. Although if memory serves they justified a similar action in Kosovo.

3. 'Clean hands' That is a joke unless it really is my imagination that EU countries and the US supplied arms to the rebels contravening international law anyway.

Further complicated by this

http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/

They never signed.

It's a mess. But it is far from being just Syria's mess. Which is why all the postulating self congratulatory type of comment about letting the Middle East sort out their own problems are naive, laughable and ignorant. There are no clean hands.